Should add that you can use this mode with the PAL/VSL search modes beyond 5 miles as both the AWG and the 54’s seeker can see out beyond that in said modes.
Its effective pretty much out to the max acquisition range of said PAL/VSL modes which is 15NM.
The fact that we still don’t have the actual PAL modes for the F-14s is also a travesty since they are way better than the sad 6 mile ACM mode we have now.
That’s basically why I made this suggestion post actually:
Also, not even gonna bother replying to MiG_23M again, if hes gonna just keep lying as his sole argument, I see no reason to give him the time of day. Back to banned he goes xD
I noticed your biggest argument you stated multiple times is “its old.”
Keep in mind no other country on earth has been able to achieve the capability of the AWG9 and Aim-54 until the turn of the century. All active missile design can be traced back to the mighty Aim54.
Your “its old argument” has really no weight. The SR71/A-12 is older than the Aim54 and yet there is not a single nation on earth that can replicate its performance.
The Iranians for years turned down sales of newer Chinese/Russian fighters in favor of the F-14A and still tile this day rather go through the insane cost of research and development to build upon the Aim54 and keep their Tomcats airborne.
Even the Soviet Union modeled their long range active missiles in effort to copy the US Aim54 and still could not replicate its performances without the AWG9
R33 barely went into service in the 80s and was still inferior to the Aim54A of the 1960s-70s.
??? R-37
1989
Great find! Even has the trajectory it follows (which is very far from the one in-game), ill have to dig around in this later and maybe test some of those shots!
The R-33s were of different series, which ones are you talking about? The initial episodes were not very good.The later ones are better
Just mentioning in regard to time of entering service. Because his argument is how old something is determines how good it is.
Even you mention early R33 were not as good from the beginning and those came a decade after aim54A.
Yes the series has taken off since then while the US took a step back in favor of stealth. But I digress.
Yes, and the Soviet Union did not try to copy the AIM-54, on the R-33, yes, it was made under the impression of the AiM-54. But the concept of a heavy interceptor was conceived back in 1968 before the appearance of the F-14 and the Phoenix missile
Yes I think the Soviet Union makes the best interceptors as well out of necessity in the Cold War. The had to combat the US’s strategic bomber force and the insane SR71.
I am only speaking in regards to migs argument that time of service means anything.
The rocket entered service together with the carrier. Since the MiG-31 was not ready by the time the missile was already developed
This and AIM-54 have motor ratings for high alt as I’ve been saying.
No offence, but do you guys mind getting back on topic with the AIM-54? This isnt the R-33 thread, nor the R-27 thread, drawing comparisons is fine but we seem to be getting rapidly off topic
Nice! You probably can offer a valuable perspective on the aim54 too because of it. Yeah the R33 definitely got better.
Again, to be clear I was just making the point that the aim54 being a decade older was better than the first version of the R33. Which you agree. But of course the Americans took a break in long range active development in favor or medium range and stealth. Now they are the ones playing catch up.
For sure our bad.
It’s an eternal swing
The study of the aerodynamics of the AiM-54 was carried out by the HB from DCS
However, their models are worse in quality and 3M cells, and I have 9
And its quite a simple one, Climb at 45°. Probably after burn it just tries to keep the AoA where L/D is the highest
It has to loft to improve range and end-game performance but also because the nozzle would have flow separation at sea level conditions.
Performance is optimized at 10-15km as shown.
The nozzle will have flow separation at sea level conditions?..
Can you please provide what you read. Thanks.
Yeah, but im not sure exactly what the best way to test it will be. Debating between removing loft and manually firing at 45 deg or messing around with the loft code. Not sure if i’ll get it to follow the proper trajectory if I play with the loft code but we’ll figure that out later i guess.
Motor impulses and burn profile are a little different as well, more impulse than the 97000lb-s stated for the AIM-54, but less than the one calculated at 45kft for the AIM-54 using the thrust equation(~126559lb-s). its also 16 sec burn instead of 30, which leads to other differences like a faster climb but also lower time with base drag reduction from the motor burn.
I could also likely make a “copy” of it using the AIM-54 body and modifying the motor to fit the values to see how it performs.
