How can you say “I tested” and “it works” without actually testing something?
Basically what you are saying is.
I tested at half the range
therefore it works at that range
Makes absolutely no sense.
where are you getting the ‘‘half the range’’ from?
From here, that range is 103km. Then you gotta wait till you pick the up the target, wait for the second sweep over the target to get a trackfile, lock it, “heatup” the missile and fire. You’ve got a ~900ms closure, he’s firing under 100km. Thats well below 50% of the range for that phoenix test
1 Like
It is possible to make user missions and modify both the radar and missiles seeker range if necessary to test maximum kinematic limits… but that doesn’t even matter in this case cuz hitting the target in that scenario won’t prove it is performing accurately. It’s still underperforming.
You can modify the radar/missile values but I don’t know if you can change the render range, as that the thing that would need to be changed
1 Like
Just because a source originates from one of those organisations does not necessarily make it a primary source.
When you say a source is primary, secondary, or tertiary you are describing the nature of the source, not the origin of the source.
If a declassified trial report from the DoD says something about a missile then that would be a primary source, because it would be a direct first hand account of the trial. If a separate DoD paper says something about a missile and cites that claim to Wikipedia (or Jane’s, or any other source) then it’s not a primary source because it is just repeating something from a secondary or tertiary source.
If a paper from the DoD (or another “trustworthy” organisation) repeats a claim from Wikipedia, it does not suddenly convert Wikipedia into a primary source, and the paper from the DoD would not be a primary source either (at least with regards to the claim cited to Wikipedia).
3 Likes
While it does not convert the source into a primary source, it does validate the fact that in eyes of such authority, the source is viewed as reliable.
It does not, especially when the information within is known to be wrong. The DoD regularly cites unverified or unvalidated information which is why you should discard who is citing it and look at the credibility of the original source of the information.
1 Like
Already verified it with 2005-0700 aiaa and phoenix (-) final propulsion delivery from hercules inc
Additionally, if DoD ‘‘regularly cites unverified information’’, can we consider them a reliable source?
The authorative datasets don’t hold any value if what you said is true.
2 Likes
The DOD is not a small organisation, it employes some 2.8 million people (of which 750,00 are civilians), and you can’t really make sweeping statements about whether every document it has ever produced is reliable or not. You evaluate each sources on a case by case basis. That is how research works.
If the sources you are looking that is an official DOD report on the performance of the phoenix missile, then it is probably a trustworthy source. If it is a document about the history of the US Navy which mentions in passing that the F-14 used the phoenix missile with a 100 mile range, citing that claim to Wikipedia, then it’s probably less reliable. That’s not to say it is necessarily wrong, just that you can’t treat it as gospel without additional supporting evidence.
3 Likes
Not that gaijin actually cares about primary sources in the case of the AIM-54, seeing as they still categorically refuse to give it its reduced smoke motor, despite being the first missile added in-game with such a motor IRL, and there being an acknowledged bug report and strong sources regarding said reduced smoke motor about it for almost a year now, and more and more high threat missiles such as the AAM-3 keep receiving low smoke motors, but NOT the AIM-54C.
1 Like
Every source deserves the same equal treatment. With same logic, you can’t judge everything from FI to be false just because they owned janes. Again, i crosschecked it to be true using outside sources listed (which both of you have ignored)
1 Like
No as it depends who it is from and if they are primary or not
1 Like
I’m not disagreeing with that. I just pointed out that if a source is quoting a secondary sources it is by definition not a primary source.
In my experience Forecast International tend to give a decent overview of a topic, but the performance figures they give can be a bit hit & miss.
1 Like
When i say every source deserves the same treatment, it means that we analyze them just as strongly. I didn’t say we believe them the same. Every source has to go by the same rules of verification and reliability examination.
Again i provided proof and yall are still stuck up with it, refusing to read it and refusing to give any counter evidence. Additionally still saying how it is inaccurate despite checking it against additional sources.
Non sense.
1 Like
do you have the aim-54? the real performance and in the game now?
this report of mid-guidance dont have in the game, you cannot change the mid-course in the phoenix
Sorry my question when the aim-54C phoenix changes will be implemented, discussed in this forum?
missile performance
-wrong thrust
-wrong maximum speed
-wrong INS that does not change the target in mid-course
-wrong loft that are saying
-aim-54c does not have smokelees engine (non-visible smoke)
Radar
the tws still baucing sometimes today since yesteryear
(if you have doubts i can send the modern example video)
the missile sometimes fails to track
https://youtu.be/THoRiXtxAIs
2 Likes
not sure if the thrust is “wrong” so much as the AIM-54 typically lofts very high irl, and missile thrust increases with altitude irl. This is a bigger deal for long burn time and large missiles actually if you check the equation.
This is (afaik) not something gaijin models, and coupled with the terrible loft mechanics, hits the AIM-54 particularly badly.
Some other issue you forgot to mention are:
- The AIM-54C is missing its directional warhead, which would increase fragment velocity by 20-30% in the direction of the target and therefore correspond to an increase in range and lethality. This is the reason the 54C has a “smaller” warhead in terms of TNT filler (the AIM-7M also has a directional warhead irl, but not in-game)
- Reduced low altitude interference (likely in the same 5m min alt ballpark of the AIM-7M seeing as both are from roughly the same time period and both have directional fuses, but I haven’t yet found exact info on min alt unfortunately)
- Missing 25G maneuverability
- Cant be fired without a radar lock from the jet (active off the rail or “dogfight” mode)
4 Likes
- The thrust is not necessarily incorrect, all phoenix versions shipped with one of two motors, the Rocketdyne MK 47 was more common on the A version and the Hercules Mk 60 was more common on the C version but there have been examples of C Phoenixes with MK60s and vise versa
- It’s a problem with the missile’s drag coefficient, it loses speed way too fast
- Pretty sure it could not switch targets mid flight, the AWG-9 would assign each target a unique identifier and a launched phoenix could only track the target it was assigned at launch (Also the current implementation TWS is garbage, not helped by the fact that more often than not there will be upwards of 20 targets on the screen)
- The lofting should only happen at very long ranges, in the typical engagement range in WT (70ish km for longest range shots) the missile doesn’t need to loft up to 30km. Given how much is wrong with the Phoenix though, yeah its probably broken at longer ranges
- The smokeless motor isn’t actually smokeless, its a reduced smoke motor (The Mk60 that is), but even if they fixed that, when launched at altitude it will still have a visible condensation trail
And yeah multipathing is still broken because 4 years after SAHR missiles came to the game most people don’t know how to/ are unwilling to defend properly so we get a 50m safe zone
2 Likes