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
its 95m vs a non-maneuvering target in look-down for the 7M in-game. Maneuvering targets make this safe zone even higher. I havent tested other missiles but i think theyre roughly in the same ballpark
Lofting doesn’t only occur at extreme ranges, though the missile doesn’t need to loft to an extreme level at closer ranges either. Its actually rarer that an AIM-54 would be fired at a range where it would not loft, and considering the size of the missile along with the advantage from high alt flight for large rocket motors like the one seen on AIM-54, Its likely the missile lofts pretty considerably even against a 30km range target (very very common shot in-game, actually kinda “short” ranged)
Reduced smoke motors still have less visible contrails at high alt, and the contrails wouldn’t last as long. The fact gaijin hasnt given it a reduced smoke motor is either that they outright refuse to do so, or are too lazy to model contrail altitude limits for missiles, both of which wouldnt suprise me.
The Mk60 was produced alongside the Mk47 mod 0. Less than 200 of these motors were made in comparison to the thousands of Mk47 mods. It was simply a alternative production motor intended to reduce risk and cost. The AIM-54C came standard equipped with the Mk47 mod 1 w/ the reduced smoke propellant.
The Mk47 mod 0 and Mk60 are functionally equivalent and make practically the same thrust output. There is no considerable difference in performance between the two motors to my knowledge.
1 Like
That’s a tautology, a better word would be similar rather than equivalent, as we know there are differences between the motors.
If they were truly equivalent, why is it not classified as the Mark 47 Mod 1?
Two companies produced motors for the missiles, this was commonplace for missile manufacturing already. The AIM-7F used this practice having two separate names for motors that produced the same thrust profile and impulse. You have Aerojet with the Mk60 and Hercules with the Mk47. The Hercules company produced a model with HTPB propellant with reduced aluminum (low smoke)… this was known as the Mk47 mod 1.
1 Like
It isn’t that rare, Aim-54 can go active off the rail and it is very effective in close range, where it defeated a QF-86 that was simulating a defending target, this usage is similar to modern MRAAM where they can be fire and forget at close range or during dogfight. If this wasn’t the intended use case, why would USN even bother to test this or add maddog mode.
If this is modeled in the game, and its load factor is not locked in the first few seconds of flight, this makes it equally effective as an IR missile with IRCCM. (The missile still has the problem of high drag and thus unable to pull all of its Gees when fired in close range, I suspect the phoenix in game can’t even reproduce the test I mentioned above)
What is the real thrust value of:
Mk 60 engine
Mk 47
Mk 47 mod 1 (less smoke i guess if i understand)
Which is better and what model whe have in game?
1 Like
5 Likes
Its like with aim7f to m and aim54A to C, will not have a huge diference until monopulse physic come to game the way the game are the aim54A is better than C, the fox 3 missiles have signs to come in march, the guys that made a live on air superiority patch Said, “fox 3 missiles are near to coming”
If semi-active can hit farther even in acm mode but once per target, imagine a active radar missile + acm, the macth will over in seconds, its like compare a semi automatic rifle with automatic rifle, and both killing each other like the meta are rigth now.
Someone will think to solve it is just puting more farther maps in top tier and remove the shorter ones in top tier. But without monopulse physic the meta will be the same, all one flying low, its not everyone are flying high today, if the monopulse seeker come, it might see players flying in diferent high distances and more scatter with everyone with diferent strategy.
If fox 3 missiles coming, farther maps and correction about tws mecanic will be nice, if theses changes not come, how will be the meta?
1 Like
The Mk 60 and Mk47 mod 0 are for all intents and purposes identical… the Mk 47 mod 1 would (in theory) be slightly improved. We don’t have solid data for the Mk47 mod 1 besides the use of low smoke propellant. It is worth noting that at the time of introduction (early 80s)… HTPB propellant had not yet exceeded the ISP of higher efficiency CTPB based propellants such as that used in the AIM-7F or AIM-54. The impulse of these is in the 260-270s range. It is entirely possible that the Mk47 mod 1 has slightly inferior specific impulse (in the 240-250s range)… but again - we have no solid data on it.
The in-game thrust values for the AIM-54 are mostly accurate… the drag is simply too high.
3 Likes
I meant its rare ingame to fire an AIM-54 before 30km, its terribad at close range in-game
1 Like
Because the drag yes, over that will basically dont arrive in time to hit, 30km are in the burn time energy, i always do that
Try use Aim54A for long high alt targets and the C for 30km bellow
1 Like
The monopulse seeker helps look down when high but not necessarily helps defeating ground hugging, that’s a separate problem. Ground hugging is caused by multi pathing, a simple analog is putting a mirror next to a person, at the correct angle, you can see two image of that person. Now imagine entire ground is a mirror and you see two target images, that’s what Gaijin is trying to simulate.
This trick was defeated IRL, since they were often employed by sea skimming anti ship missile or cruise missile. Aim54C was upgraded to defeat anti ship missiles flying like this, but I don’t think Gaijin is willing to model this since they likely consider this as a “balance”. If they do so, then that means any premium bomb trucks will be dead on arrival and upset their customers since they “don’t have any means to defend themselves and getting killed constantly” (because game does not teach them how to defeat missiles).
On the otherhand, if they do make modern ARH missile vulnerable to multi pathing, then meta won’t change. As long as one hug the ground, radar guided missile is useless. Everyone can still enjoy rushing straight to enemy and spam IRCCM IR missile.
If they introduce ground following autopilot, then BVR in this game will be dead.
So developer’s choices are limited, it is very likely they will make ARH vulnerable multipathing forever, until they introduce ECM jammers and make premium aircrafts carry ECM by default.
4 Likes
I fire at much longer ranges typically. By 30km theres a risk of an ER or another 54 hitting me imo
I have a tatic to do this, i think i bring a video here.
You can simply fire the Phoenix at same time the su27 or mig 29, fire a second at 30km, crank while down your plane and mantain the lock on until a time, you will guide the Phoenix and force flying at strait line for long time, if you see it missile come fly to another direction and turn going away, you force it in defensive position, most of time hit, i have a 40 minute vídeo doing this i you send to you
1 Like
This video i do with all planes some times work or not, i saw the times that dont worked, its because the missile bug track
But if works just fire 2 Phoenix at diferent range, maybe the guy will evade the first but not prepared for a second
1 Like