The biggest thing is that the reliability of these systems is entirely irrelevant. The Phoenix was so good for its time because competing SARH missiles had atrocious reliability. Figures vary, but in testing the Phoenix had a success rate of about 80%. By contrast, Russia was still fielding the R23/24, and the 54C was entering production by the time the initial R27 variants were entering service. And if memory serves, none of the SARH missiles from that time were particularly reliable, especially not the Russian ones.
This might be referencing that test, “Fully upgraded missile” might be a the culmination of all the scattered AIM-54C upgrades
Thats really not an issue imo. 100% reliability is a feature of this game and arguably everything wins from it, there are just some that win a bit more.
Things like intentionally mismodelling missile max pull (a moderator just admitted that the AIM-54 doesn’t pull 25G because gaijin doesn’t model combined plane maneuverability, despite it being the proper and fair way to model missiles), omitting seeker advances (AIM-54C’s digital seeker has multiple noted advantages from target discriminations, beam aspect capabilities and improved low alt attack and even NCTR according to one of my recent sources), those are decisions on gaijins part which have a tangible negative impact on gameplay for certain groups of players only and by extension, are advantageous for other groups (the main losers are the NATO players, the main winners are the russians, surprise surprise)
4 Likes
And the mod in question didn’t have sufficient sources to prove it and still may not be enough. I encourage you to share any further sources you have within the rules gaijin must follow. If you have further proof of combined plane guidance it WILL be modeled.
Do we know if the AIM-4/AIM-47 Falcons used bank-to-turn? AIM-54 is made by the same company, and more than resembles these earlier missiles, so it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say it could use bank-to-turn if they could.
The AIM-54 made some huge advancements in technology, it’s possible it carried over from earlier programs but imo unlikely.
I don’t think it’s appropriate or feasible to make all missiles dual-plane maneuverability, only a very small number of missiles can take advantage of dual-plane maneuverability.
There are limitations based on how the missile works and in most cases it is not available.
To date, only the AIM-54 is the only missile in the WT that we believe can substantially utilize dual-plane maneuverability. All other missiles can only use dual plane maneuverability in limited circumstances.
1 Like
Magic 2 can
No, R.550 Magic can’t utilize dual-plane maneuverability, the tail rotates, but the forward canard does not.
In order to utilize the dual plane maneuverability, it is necessary to rotate to the forward canard too.
Rotating tail is to prevent rolling, similar to AIM-9’s rollerons.
1 Like
In this case, can we expect dual-plane maneuverability for the AIM-54s soon (or ever) ?
1 Like
Do we know if any of Hughes’ other missiles from the same period could utilize dual plane?
AIM-47 was the Phoenix’s predecessor, both made by Hughes, and the AGM-65 Maverick has a very similar aerodynamic design to it
While hardly conclusive, it would stand to reason if either of these missiles could use this, the Phoenix probably could too
Even Hughes’ AIM-4 was capable of ~27g maximum, and I think it uses a similar tail-steering system as all their future designs.
1 Like
I think it’s possible, but developers may have a different opinion.
1 Like
This really isn’t a modelling issue, and if it was the easiest solution would be to just, yanno, increase the lateral maneuverability of the AIM-54 to match its dual plane limits until more missiles that had dual plane maneuvering were added. Not doing so is just straight up nerfing a missile for no reason, and the AIM-54 nerf of 8G (32%) is MASSIVE.
Massively nerfing something when you have the ability to get it closer to how it should perform easily (like come on, the change would literally require a grand total of changing the number 17 to 25), then trying to rationalize that decision is rather silly.
1 Like
The tail does not rotate. It (the missile body) is free to spin inside of the tail unit. There is a difference. It allows the magic 2’s improved guidance to maneuver with roll stabilized 45 degrees between control surface planes.
Think of it as holding the rotors of the heli , the body will spin
2 Likes
If it hasn’t been added yet, NASA seems to have received some Phoenixes for use as testbeds
A little bit of speed data but nothing of much use
The information stated is the incorrect weight and such. It’s the standard “this is public data” stuff that they put out. Sort of like how AIM-120A is stated as between 335 to 345 pounds but it’s actually 326 pounds per the sources in my other thread. It’s still an interesting read none the less.
Here’s an interesting talk about the F-14
Nice confirmation that you could slew the radar to the IRST and IRST could give proper track files on its own.
Also 190 mile IRST lock gah dayumn!
1 Like
I mean, we have multiple first party source regarding the TCS functionnality and its been extensively bug reported. Theres no reason for gaijin to not have fixed the TCS yet besides them just not wanting to. I wouldnt expeft the TCS to ever be fixed at this point, theyre clearly unwilling to model things on the F-14 properly/in good faith following their admittance to intentionnaly nerfing the AIM-54.
Nvm the fact that the TCS bug report was literally written before the jet was even added to the game and was the VERY FIRST bug report of the dev server with the F-14B.
2 Likes
Where’d they admit that?
Not disagreeing with you, just probably missed it.