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.
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…
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.
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.
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…
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
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
Well maybe I have a little hope for that then.
I gotta say, its rather annoying that to this day, it seems we have less available declassified info on the AIM-54C than on the AIM-120’s, particularly about the seeker.
Considering the timeframe for the AMRAAM’s development compared to that of the AIM-54C, its not exactly a longshot to guess the 54C likely has a seeker capable of both HPRF and MPRF.
We know it received an all new digital guidance section (WGU-11/B) and a new control section (WCU-7/B), and we got some sprinkiling of info about what this new guidance section achieves, such as better clutter resistance, better ECCM, better target discrimination, iirc also Stream Raid capability, I’ve seen claims of some type of NCTR capability as well, but any actual details, such as the range or PRF of the 54C’s new guidance section seem to remain classified.
We know the new warhead (WDU-29/B) is directional, and I have a navy source (which I believe I’ve already posted here) which states the increase in “effectivness” over the old Mk82 blast frag warhead is 20-25%, and from thr looks of it, the AIM-54C (ECCM/Sealed) may have gotten a further upgrade to guidance, control, and warhead sections as well, yet still, details on this missile are much harder to come by, and seemingly remain classified despite newer missiles having more available information. Its downright bizarre.
Very late 54Cs likely received an AMRAAM seeker (A new Phoenix was in development alongside a new F-14 refresh before the Navy chose the F-18)
Nothing past the AIM-54A was ever exported, no reason for any information to be revealed since none has even leaked in the first place. No foreign operators ever used later ones and it probably has something to do with the US not wanting to give Iran any ideas as they still operate the F-14.
Ive heard the AIM-54C (or maybe it was the ECCM/Sealed version) seaker received the TWT amplifier from the AMRAAM project. I’d be somewhat suprised if it got the AMRAAM seeker outright though, since its much larger and could accomodate a larger seeker. Granted the smaller AMRAAM seeker would be a weight saving without much/any loss of range.
To this day I curse the guy who leaked Canadas involvement in helping US diplomats escape Iran, leading to Iran pulling out of the deal to sell its F-14’s to Canada…
Why not curse Iran instead? We’d probably know more about the plane and its systems and get to enjoy seeing the F-14 in cool export liveries if they hadn’t done a certain thing in the first place.
