20-30 miles isn’t “short range”. In fact, they often would launch at around 40 miles maximum at lower intercepts against fighter sized targets.
1 Like
I’m assuming gaijin once again couldn’t be bothered to add the smokeless motor to the 54C despite smokeless motors becoming a thing this update with missiles such as the AIM-9M in the video below?
1 Like
Correct, and no. They didn’t add the reduced smoke motor to the AIM-54 and smokeless motors did not come this update.
@DSplayer @Gunjob not sure who can fix this but can the this AIM-54 post have the Aircraft tag for the added to it?
Sorted
1 Like
Much appreciated. Any idea why gaijin didn’t give the 54C the smokeless motor like the 9M or 65D btw? Theres been multiple bug reports about it since it was added so its weird it didnt get it…
1 Like
Hopefully an ‘its fixed’ with the G-force changes, motor, and anything else that’s wrong
1 Like
Current problems with the 54C in-game according to current info:
- Max G overload too low (17G, should be 25G, 32% nerf)
- Missing dogfight mode
- Unable to hit targets at low alt (much too susceptible to multipath)
- Hard time dealing with multiple nearby targets
- Incapable of tracking beam aspect targets
- Missing NCTR and therefore more susceptible to being decoyed
- Missing smokeless motor
I’m also almost 100% certain the AIM-54C should be able to reliably track helicopters, seeing as it can track beaming targets and has NCTR, but I have no clear cut documents proving that specific capability atm.
As it currently stands in-game, AIM-54C’s are just heavier AIM-54A’s with slightly more reliable launch and leave ability against AFK targets
7 Likes
Reduced smoke, not smokeless motor.
1 Like
never getting fixed.
it can’t track notching targets if thats what you mean, if you arent close to the notch it seems to track ok from what ive seen
Something is very VERY wrong with the AIM-54C this update. I’ve watched it sail past head on targets at any and all altitudes. It can’t hit shit anymore.
I’ve gone from a steady 50-75% hit rate down to hitting 3 in 20+ games, 2 of which only were “hits” not even crits
3 Likes
Highly likely this Firebee drone was eqipped with reflectors to give it enormous RCS.
Normal practice if you want to test everything, but not detection range.
Still haven’t gotten a response to certain concerns for the AIM-54. Mythic has made several lists already. Are you able to respond to these?
If there is information missing, or not sufficient sources… or perhaps another reason? Why hasn’t the AIM-54 series been fixed?
No idea how “Dogfight mode” can make AIM-54 a dogfight-capable missile with its slow acceleration.
In the game multi-path effect is the same for all types of surface. IRL it is different and creates more random effect. We can make it missile-dependent (beam width e.t.c.) later.
All CW missiles have the same problem: targets with close radial speed are not separated as long as special signals like FM are used, but they have their own disadvantages. Using HPRF (giving 1-2 km unambigious range) make the problem a little bit less severe, but not much.
How?! If the target is above (>7 deg) the horizon notching doesn’t work against all CW SARH missiles and against AIM-54. Below - it works against all.
Having NCTR anboard missile seeker doesn’t look realistic, it may be someting else.
Missile cant hit a target under 95m in-game.
Chaff clouds dont look like planes in a signal return… same as flares dont look like a plane in an IIR seeker.
I wouldn’t trust a word that guy says any more than id trust Putin, hence why he’s perma-blocked for me.
Its honestly getting fking infuriating at this point. Some of these bugs could easily be fixed with as you said, simple copy pastes, or even like 2 key presses, but they take YEARS to change, and then you get just the most back-breakingly stupid crap as replies to why they arent doing it.
These are mostly things that have been answered already… dogfight mode just means the missile comes off the rail active and it’s not a real “mode” iirc on the F-14.
I think the primary concerns are the combined plane overload from AIM-54’s unique guidance system… and the reduced smoke motor issue. It is quite clear that it should have reduced smoke, and not so apparent that it should be 25G overload. Is there missing information for either of these issues that has prevented them from being implemented thus far?
@MythicPi I’m not going to entertain your antics today. The way this forum works, you would not be able to view my topics if I was blocked. Instead you have me muted and can read everything I put in the threads albeit without notifications when I respond to or tag you.
1 Like
Ive considered making a topic on this. Getting devs to implement radar and missile reports require more work than doing the report itself. One shouldn’t have to bug all the tech mods and Smin to get anything done. It seems players from all tech trees agree that more priority should be done on missile and radar simulation.
Not only does the AIM-54 have a dedicated dogfight mode, which is a known thing, we have a congressional hearing stating the missile is very capable in dogfights. MAYBE if it wasnt modelled missing a full 32% of its max G pull it might actually do something at closer ranges despite its “slow acceleration”.
I understand this point, it doesnt change the fact that were now dealing with 4th gen IR AAM’s like the R-73 and yet radar missiles are worse at low altitudes than the AIM-7E was 3 years ago, and have become a borderline non-credible threat because theres an easym,ode “I win” way of defeating them by just flying kinda low which has literally no disadvantage besides fuel consumption at this point because of the ungodly contrails that make flying at high alt for ambushes complete suicide.
The AIM-54C’s seeker upgrades are quite literally stated to improve capabilities against targets close together and at low altitude and high EW envorinments. A must when an intended use of the missile is fleet defense vs waves of AShM.
What else explains “An ability to identify targets by individual characteristics through pre-stored computer simulations”
It quite literally describes NCTR
Pretty sure its difficult for a missile which lofts UP to very high altitudes before dropping down on targets from above to get beneath a target to take advantage of this in-game feature…
1 Like
Below 3nm head-on the AIM-54 has worse performance than the AIM-7F… from 3-9 nautical miles it has the same maneuvering performance, and beyond that the AIM-7F drops off and the AIM-54 continues to have improved maneuvering performance against targets until guidance limit.
Likely just incorporates HPRF and MPRF modes like AIM-120.
It could mean something much simpler. Identifies targets based on speed, RCS, or EW techniques and knows what mode to best intercept with… idk.
Doesn’t always need to loft above the target irl, especially at ranges where it will still be burning.