For real.
Because the R27ER can be launched completely from sea level up 90 degrees, maneuver and still accelerate rapidly to Mach 3.5 less than 7 seconds to hit a supersonic evading target 10k feet up.
I have video of this insane performance and will share when I get home. (In proper thread)
I just want it to be modelled accurately, which afaik it isnt. Theres been strong discussion about this in the past, between loft profile, drag, and now AAT thrust, but due to evidence being sparse and certain individuals arguing solely for the sake of arguing, its a bit hard to get any actual bug report going for it. Doesn’t help if info is being concealed either.
As for the seeker and guidance code, that’s very clearly wrong just comparatively to the AIM-54A, but no documents give explicit information, so afaik gaijin will just continue to pull the “we need exact info, otherwise kick rocks NATO scrubs, the US sucks at making radars and missiles, glory to russia” card.
The fact the AIM-54A remains effectively a direct improvement over the AIM-54C in all regards in-game is a bad joke.
Hecklers never stopped me from reporting and fixing issues when there was actually something to be reported. You said you stopped reporting because you didn’t feel like Gaijin would fix it regardless.
Go ahead, report AAT. You’ll be told the same thing that I’ve been telling you… you’re wrong. The AIM-54 thrust and burn time is quoted from high altitude as all its’ predecessors were. You’re double dipping thinking AAT is an issue.
You never asked me what I was using as reference for the information you were being quoted. Did you expect me to share data with you when I was never once contacted by you in regards to it? When you allegedly had me blocked but consistently liked replies to any of my posts or reported them until it was pointed out you were doing so? Perhaps had you behaved more professionally and took part in the discussion rather than just dismissing anything that didn’t agree with you we wouldn’t be in this predicament.
Not super relevant in-game, but while digging through sources I found out the AIM-54C+'s guidance section was used for the first powered space intercept
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4622/1
which is just really cool imo
Also, some more details about the AIM-54C’s digitization:
https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/c534fr923
Just noticed that the “Outsiders view of the Phoenix”, often quoted as the source for the impulse of the AIM-54, is quoting Jane’s, famously not an accepted source for Gaijin…
It also never claims at what altitude those thrust/impulse figures are for.
Also states its only using public sources (from 1977 and before)
@Gunjob any idea if gaijin has any other source regarding the motor characteristics for the MK 47 Mod 0/1?
They quote primary sources regularly in the document. The fact that the specific number came from Jane’s (according to them) is only testament to the fact that the total impulse was (at the time) marked “confidential” and could not be shared from the primary sources available.
I recommend taking a look at the sources used by DCS to recently update / amend the performance of their AIM-54. They confirm the total impulse is less than 100,000s regardless of altitude.
To amend myself, under the blast cap at the rear of the nozzle is the actual size of the nozzle… much smaller than the 10" diameter I had assumed based on the previous measurement.
I am getting 477 pixels diameter (380mm missile…) 380 / 477 = 0.7966 mm per pixel.
I am getting 151 pixels diameter for the nozzle… which is 151 x 0.7966 = 120.3mm diameter.
So, it appears the rocket nozzle is a measly 4.7" based on this image if I am seeing what I think I am. That shows a much larger discrepancy in the previously reported math that assumed the nozzle to be the full diameter of the rear of the motor.
Of course, it doesn’t matter because the given thrust and total impulse is already for 10-15km alt as shown with the standard characteristics for the Eagle motor.
There is also another datapoint we can test @DirectSupport
A SAM-launched Phoenix (unmodified) was able to physically travel 22km down-range in 90 seconds. This is more than twice the traveling distance of the SeaSparrow according to China Lake.
Just another datapoint for testing purposes. I say we’d be better using our time comparing the performance of the Phoenix with various loft profiles in this type of condition.
22km is really impressive for a rather large heavy missile I would have thought.
Just a reminder that is not the target distance at launch, that is the actual distance from launch site traveled laterally across the ground for the missile in 90s. That is the total distance covered.
@MythicPi claimed the SeaSparrow to be capable of intercepting a target when launched at 26km, but the intercept distance is much shorter of course. We have the time to distance covered here, so we can evaluate the sea level performance of the missile and extrapolate from there quite well.
We can assume the 90s distance traveled was not the maximum, as well.
It’s actually very impressive.
Yes, thar is a heavy air to air missile not designed to be fired from ground and a dead stop. It still flew more than twice the range of a sea sparrow.
That is a powerful motor.
It’s so fast took off from a dead stop from the ground and covered over 13 miles in 90 seconds.
Now how fast you think it is going to be going traveling from the gate as it is launched by a tomcat going near supersonic?
Since this is an unmodified Phoenix, so we can starts with some assumptions, assuming missile is fired at 45 degrees to maximize range.
If it fired at higher or lower angle only means the rocket motor is much stroger.
Then we can do some simple estimates by assuming friction does not exist to get a lower bound (since to overcome friction, rocket motor has to be more powerful or missile being more aerodynamic)
I’ll leave it up to y’all to test. I’ve already run my own but since my opinions and testing are being highly scrutinized perhaps y’all can come to similar conclusions on your own over time… if I lead you in the right direction.
Yes true. But just by that fact it covered over 13 miles from a dead stop on the ground in 90 seconds is enough to tell me the missile is grossly underperforming in acceleration in WT.
lol I don’t even think it can cover 13 miles in 30 seconds even if it was launched from the tomcat flying supersonic in game.
A test for that can easily by done.
I don’t know if I would have exaggerated that much… to me this indicates severe overperformance at sea level.
lol ok I honestly do not think it can cover 22km in under 20 seconds that’s for sure even at ground or altitude.
I’m very interested in seeing the time it takes for the aim54 to cover 22km at differing altitudes at any speed the tomcat flies.
Someone should set up a helicopter in hover.
You guys realize just how long in game it already takes the aim54 to cover 30km from altitude launched supersonic at targets flying supersonic at you in a head on??
@Ziggy1989 the issue is that according to the testing I’m replying to, the AIM-54 has correct time to target for the long range high alt tests… So …
Yeah sure, way up at altitudes where no one flies.
Because it flies true up high does not mean it’s modeled correctly at all altitudes below.
To me, it looks like you just stumbled on direct evidence that shows it’s underperforming in acceleration and speed at sea level.
China lake goes further is saying it is in ground covered, not range to a target such as a head on or optimal combat conditions. That’s more impressive.
That missile is not going to cover 22km in WT in 90 seconds from a stand still from the ground, I don’t think so for a moment.
It is not covering let’s say, 2km+ a second when launched times the velocity of a supersonic Tomcat. GJ could have intentionally modeled performance up high and nerfed it at lower altitudes.
Has anyone ever got the aim54 to excess Mach 4 on the deck? Lol
With a maximum speed of excess Mach 4…
80 nautical mile range at seal level shooting down harpoons.
I covered that information in my post when I added the source.
Irl the thrust and total impulse is the same as in-game for high alts and performance is close. The fact that drag shouldn’t be much reduced during burn time because the thrust cone doesn’t match the width of the missile explains the reason it matches so well.
Now, the lower in alt you go from here the worse the thrust and total impulse should be. In war thunder no such changes are modeled so id expect it to overperform in this regard. If it underperforms, points to an error in the model for high alt as well…
Either way, matching as many datapoints as possible brings us closer to realism. I’m interested to see what y’all’s testing finds.
