But feels like better to use, it hit more better than before, before the missile feels like going to nonwhere direction, now feels more precise
Something interesting I noticed when rereading the NASA doc regarding the ALSM (their plan to use the decommissioned AIM-54 for testing).
The document explicitly states that the graphs (which some people have used to justify the AIM-54’s poor speed in-game) based on “publicly available information” and use “a simple in-house trajectory analysis code”. It also specifies that “zero-lift trajectories were considered with no missile guidance”
Importantly, it states “the guidance capability of the ALSM
should be used to optimize the missile trajectory in reaching the required test conditions.” and that due to public data inaccuracies “higher-fidelity performance analyses should be conducted to determine the suitability of the ALSM test
platform prior to actual hypersonic flight research experiments.”
Which is important since the ALSM idea was to perform hypersonic (Mach 5+) research, something the graph shown below would suggest the missile is incapable of doing in a zero-lift configuration based on public data:
This snuck under the radar for me before, but actually supports the idea that the poor or even borderline lack of trajectory shaping of the AIM-54 in-game is SIGNIFICANTLY affecting its performance in a negative fashion, which should be obvious seeing as the AIM-54 has a significant amount of drag, a long burn time, and a large diameter motor, all of which suggest the missile depends significantly on aggressive lofting to reach high altitudes and speeds above Mach 5, something it is literally incapable of doing in-game.
Its gonna be important for gaijin to actually get trajectory shaping right as well now that more missiles with it are around the corner.
I tested the phoenix and I think they implemented the AOA changes the reverted like 2 week ago, now the missile che pull well at low speed
with the new tacview we can see how bad the speed is on the Aim-54
1 Like
it turn really good TBF
I fired a phoenix at 10000m, mach 1.1, it reached diving a max of mach 3.5, but what got me was the drag after the burner stoped. Bro went mach 1.5 in like 5 seconds
2 Likes
i havent had any chance to see the turning capability yet.
Its definitely going to be interesting testing missiles with this new feature.
Its also probably gonna be pretty depressing in the case of the AIM-54
3 Likes
Was it the A or C variant?
Also on the bright side F-14 finally got drop tanks!
Looks like the only change for the AIM-54C on the dev server is that fin AOA change that was cancelled 2 weeks ago.
Missiles motor is still not reduced smoke, still no increased max G load, still no trajectory shaping or aerodynamic changes. Seeker is also still a copy paste of the AIM-54A’s and the 54A also got the change, so the 54C is STILL STRICTLY worse than the 54A
12 Likes
C variant
all of the new Fox-3’s feature steeper loft angles as well.
yeah now the missile is deadlier in close range.
I Tested it in test drive and now you can actually hit the bots with aim-54 from 4 km
which the 54 isnt getting from the looks of it lmao
Really still just looks like gaijin is doing the absolute bare minimum possible to model the 54C properly. The fact the 54A from 1966 is outperforming the AIM-54C from 1986 in all aspects is embarrassing
4 Likes
The finAoA means a lot.The g-load of missile is just the upper bound,not actual performance.The finAoA is the thing decide how the missile turn.Some missile (especially mistral) hava a terrible performance in game because the low finAoA make them impossible to reach their statcard G-load.
1 Like
I understand fin AoA means a lot, but we have claims from Hughes it pulls up to 25g. Just because gaijin fixes one aspect of the travesty of underperformance that is the AIM-54C, doesn’t mean its accurate.
As stated earlier;
- Theres around 20 years of difference in seeker tech, yet gaijin model the seekers as 100% identical
- The max G load is known to be too low, 32% too low, which is a MASSIVE nerf
- The trajectory shaping being so poor still significantly impacts the missiles kinematics
- The warhead on the 54C is still inferior to the one on the 54A despite using much newer directional warhead tech to increase lethality between 20-30%
- The motor is STILL a regular high smoke motor (despite more and more missiles being added with reduced smoke motors)
Increasing fin AOA is a welcome change, but its the equivalent of a billionaire donating 100$ to charity. Its better than nothing, but they could/should do MUCH more and are refusing to do so
5 Likes
Did an 85km launch at 11,000ft, mach 1.1, and the missile topped out at mach 2.8. After it barely lofted another maybe 5-6k feet.
Just sad.
1 Like
you doing any manual lofting? You should test the 3 situations shown in the ALSM doc.
Like i stated earlier, these values aren’t even accurate, they’re the bare minimum identified by NASA with public info and unguided ballistic launch simulations, but it would help to see how good gaijins model is compared to NASA. Particularly with the speed retention of the 45 deg launch:
Should hold above Mach 3 for over 100 seconds at the bare minimum with this launch condition.
1 Like
ill do my best to recreate.
1 Like
The best i’ve been able to do so far is 43k ft mach .8 achieving mach 3.7 so with more space and speed it could get over mach 4.