Should it get it given that it’s a very old missile?
The AIM-54 is known to have adapting lofting capabilities. If a target is close enough it will not loft while if it is far away it will loft a ton. Its very likely this was based off of time-to-target data or more likely an assortment of data from the datalink and onboard inertial guidance unit. It was an absurdly sophisticated missile, and certainly had the room on-board for advanced guidance computing.
2 Likes
Its a newer missile than most missiles that got it… atleast the C variant is…
The A entered service only 2 years before the 7F, and the missile has an active off the rail mode for dogfighting soooooo yeah… it should definitly have time to gain code in WT.
No, we have been over this. It has the ability to go active off the rail, doesn’t make it a specialized dogfight ‘mode’.
It’s unlikely the AIM-54A had time to gain tables that update based on target data post-launch based on remaining estimated time to target from the seeker. It might have trajectory shaping profiles formed prior to launch that go unmodified… but not post-launch.
We know that the AIM-54 at least has two distinct modes; Normal, and Active (correlated track with auxiliary sensors / datalink), which I believe would be Lock-on Before launch.
There is also the additional mentions of Boresight missile mode(s), distinct from (Active) mode, likely indicate Lock-on After Launch (we know that the Sidewinder can’t do, so refers to both the Sparrow, and Phoenix) capability of which we know;
The Sparrow is capable of (WIDE, or NARROW Speedgate Launches with the appropriate BST & Aspect knobs to approximate range & range rate information)
But the Sidewinder isn’t, it has its own set of SEAM capabilities, which extend to a expanding the field of regard(effective pre launch Fov, via sequential sweep of the seeker though space), but the listed values would clash the larger of the listed antenna program(s) due to the 22.5 degree ASE launch limit for the AIM-9G (also as the AIM-9D doesn’t have access to SEAM capabilities.) so Sidewinders probably aren’t being referenced.
Thus Dogfight mode, for the AIM-54 is probably, Active off the rail, without a Lock-on.
4 Likes
Again, doesn’t imply some special method of improving maneuverability with this alleged ‘mode’. It is literally just hail marrying it in active mode hoping to hit something at close range without supporting the missile with additional information.
This also doesn’t show that it should have any time to hit gain tables that update based on time to target. The design was practically finalized in 1963.
Without a range it also shouldn’t loft either, improving short range velocity due not gaining altitude, also the same way the Dogfight mode for the Sparrow eliminates some of the inbuilt delays in fuse arming, a similar process probably occurs, reducing the minimum range of the missile due to the fuse arming in a shorter period after lock-on is established
We also know that Sparrows earlier than the -7F employs an autopilot magnification factor ( band A [1:1], -B[1:2] & -C[Bang Bang(Full deflection)] autopilot), that is set pre-launch based on own ship Altitude & Look Up / Down angle, of which the -7F optimizes.
The AIM-54 having a more complex set of altitude bands or a special set for each launch mode wouldn’t be unexpected considering that even the AIM-7C & -7D’s autopilot functions as described above.
7 Likes
Seeker function aside, I was more pointing to the fact that the current AIM-54’s have immediate access to 100% of their maneuverability in-game once 3.5s from launch has elapsed, which can pretty clearly lead to suboptimal energy use when targetting a target at long ranges, which is why the 7F and all other S/ARH missiles added after it with lets call it “adaptive” autopilots use the time to gain functions for.
The idea that the AIM-54, particularly the AIM-54C, couldn’t/wouldn’t optimize available control surface authority and trajectory to optimize kinetic energy at intercept and time to target is laughable. Particularly when we consider that for shots at longer ranges than 16km, command inertial guidance would be used, which is specifically used to optimize trajectory.
If the AIM-54, or its command inertial guidance couldn’t optimize its trajectory, then we’d see the missile go to space during every single shot, which would make it completely unusable at close range, something we know not to be true due to the existence of the “active of the rails” mode (or dogfight mode), along with congressional accounts of its use and effectiveness in dogfighting.
Without the time to gain tables, the missile is just not optimized for long range shots, which is likely why a large increase in control surface authority like were currently seeing is having a negative impact on its energy at range as @pyroraptor841 indicated
As a sidenote to all this actually, I’d be curious to test if the AIM-54 is seeker gimbal limited when in its command inertial guidance mode. In theory it shouldnt be, as the seeker isn’t whats guiding the missile during that period, but it wouldnt suprise me if gaijin made it work that way…
3 Likes
What is the aim54 changes?
for now only increased fins AOA
How does that help the Aim-54?
As described it would permit the missile to adjust the magnitude of the commanded control surface deflection in response to the output of the guidance section(or any other derived metric, like range to the target or closing velocity which could be gathered from the datalink or onboard sensors), allowing for energy to be optimized in any number of circumstances.
Basically the force generated by the fins at high altitude is reduced significantly due to the drop in the fluid’s density(and other assorted factors), and so in comparison to a 1:1 deflection modifier could potentially have completed the maneuver faster by defecting the fins to its limits in the direction of the computed point of impact, but this risks becoming unstable due to overcorrecting and causing a resonance to develop wasting significant energy so isn’t suitable for lower altitudes.
At Sea Level, any amount of control surface defection generates a significant restoring force and so may need to be moderated to ensure energy efficient flight.
If the missile knows it needs to only travel a short distance it doesn’t need to loft, and due to the reduced time of flight may need to maneuver more aggressively to successfully complete the desired intercept.
1 Like
Has any of you noticed a change in the Sparrow F/M today ? They seem even worse than they usually are.
No changes were made.
1 Like
In hindsight, pretty weird that gaijin didn’t bother trying out AIM-54C fixes during the ARH test. Would’ve been a perfect opportunity to give it low smoke, a better seeker, and a better loft and see how it performs…
1 Like
Missiles don’t seem to proxy if notched in the first place
I’ve seen this happen on TacView, this isnt realistic is it?
Depends on the type of fuse I suppose, but my guess would be no.
Its gonna be interesting to see what comes with tomorrows update when the official patchnotes drop. I’m guessing the only change to the AIM-54 will still be fin AOA, so the AIM-54A will remain the best one in-game while remaining effectively worse in every way to the R-27ER. I doubt the AIM-54 loft will be adjusted or energy management code added to mitigate the reported energy issues at range now with the AOA change, or even something as simple to add as its reduced smoke motor.
I’m also curious to see if the TCS is getting reworked or if only russian jets are getting the OLS autoswap, since someone on another post mentioned OLS is a term specifically used in Russian jets
6 Likes
They specifically called out IRST somewhere, that’s what’s happening with the OLS autoswap.
When I tested the F-14 on the Dev server, the TCS felt like it was working with OLS, but it might have been the TGP doing it, as I also had that equipped