IIRC, 22km is ground distance covered. Do we know the trajectory of the ground launch Phoenix test? Is it parabolic or launched horizontally with slight offet above horizon or something else?
If the trajectory of ground launched Phoenix is not flying horizontally, then Phoenix will travel much less than 22km if fired horizontally.
1 Like
It does not say.
I would assume at slight offset above horizon like older naval surfaces launch platforms. Not vertical cells used more modernly.
Can’t seem to find any sources on that other than this article and the very official looking schematic of a Ground-Launched Phoenix installation. If that is accurate, looks like a 25-35 degree angled up launcher
2 Likes
We can assume the lofting code was unchanged since they claim it is just a normal AIM-54A being launched from a boat at an incoming target.
Should loft at a certain angle anyhow.
I’d also like to point out that the test point for the 110nmi shot does not have any actual time provided to it, afaik the 160 sec time limit seen in-game for the AIM-54 is completely arbitrary and is the equivalent of gaijin drawing a bullseye around an arrow they shot
“It took 160 seconds for our missile to make the 110nmi shot described, so our missile must be right and the flight time must be 160 seconds!”
Afaik, theres been claims of a top speed of M6.1, and nobody contests the fact that the missile does not reach this speed in WT under any launch conditions, so its a bit weird that some people are claiming the missile is accurate because it “can” hit certain shots.
Were also applying AIM-54A test shots to the AIM-54C despite knowing it has more optimal loft trajectories available to it than the AIM-54A irl, but does not in-game, which like plain confirmation bias on the part of the people who think the AIM-54C is modelled correctly.
Theres also the possibility gaijin has more info than us proving their model right, but instead of sharing it are just continuing to waste our time by having us keep looking.
2 Likes
We know the model isn’t correct based on the datapoint I just tested, but now you’re ignoring that because it isn’t a buff. Get off the high horse.
This is a good point, let’s analyze this.
The reasoning for ~160s time to target figure.
Spoiler
The target was traveling 1.5 mach at 50,000 feet.
1.5 Mach at 50,000 feet is approximately 860.7 knots or 442.78233 m/s.
It states that the missile was launched from a speed of mach 1.5 at 44,000 feet. Once again, this is approximately 442.78233 m/s.
Allegedly, the missile flew 72.5 nautical miles before it made a lethal hit. The launch range being from 110 nautical miles. This means the target traveled 37.5 nautical miles before it was hit.
The target would be covering 37.5 nautical miles (69.45km) before impact with the missile. Dividing distance traveled by the speed of the BQM-34E (69450 / 442.78233) = 156 seconds.
The time to target should be approximately 156 seconds… the battery limit per Outsider’s view is a minimum of 160s. This is how they determined these datapoints. Thanks for asking where the figure came from and not just accusing people of assuming things and whatnot again… oh wait.
The ~160s limit is not arbitrary, the datapoint being reached in ~160s is also not just an assumption. You want to be objective and yet you ignore anything that might end up being a nerf and dismiss it whenever possible.
1 Like
From the pic, 32 deg it seems, so looks like you were right in the ballpark most likely 30 deg launcher with inaccuracies being from resolution. Would be an interesting thing to test, I have seen someone test air to air missiles fired from a ground vehicle, but haven’t figured out how to do so myself yet.
1 Like
If you know how to fix an aircraft mid air in CDK and don’t allow it to move, you can simply fix F-14 and fires the missile.
When I tested it, it was with the inefficient loft profile and launched from near 0 degrees. It still overperformed ~15% in range and time to target at the same time.
I’ve been informed you’re reading these comments. Feel free to keep ignoring them after having done so, though.
idk how to do that atm, i could try it tho
What is it with AIM-54 as of late?
Follows through different changes of direction and sustained g-loads after fuel is spent for a considerable amount off time and ignores chaff while it is also being notched.
What is happening? Is the current AIM-54 a Meteor testbed or sth?
Thanks to @TheSeeker for showing me how to freeze aircraft in place and creating these two user missions for me. He’s currently working on fixing the overperformance of the AIM-7F’s thrust and I figured a good additional datapoint would be the China Lake source previously. It was stated that the AIM-54 should travel 22km in 90 seconds when launched from a boat (sea level, 0 initial speed) at a 30 degrees upward angle. It was also stated that the 22km range figure was more than double that of the Sea Sparrows’ … so we can test both of these missiles per the same scenario I did before… but a bit more accurately this time.
As you can see, the AIM-54 is heavily overperforming.
That is ~26km in ~78s when it should be ~22km in ~90s…
As expected, this is in-line with my original test.
1 Like
I made an error with the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow test, as in 1976 the RIM-7E/H was the only model in service and is a modification of the AIM-7E, not the AIM-7F. Interestingly, the RIM-7H in spite of the later suffix is actually based on the RIM-7E and not the RIM-7F as I had assumed.
This is because the RIM-7E incorporated folding wings for use in more compact launchers. The RIM-7E and RIM-7H are stated as having the same kinematics according to NAVAIR.
The launch range for the Sea Phoenix was said to be “more than double” the Sea Sparrow’s… this holds true in-game as the AIM-7E-2 when launched in these conditions explodes just short of half the 22km range stated for the Phoenix.
Conditions for test
Spoiler
0.9 mach target (representing exocet cruise speed), 308.7 m/s.
Missile guidance time is 40 seconds, so we multiply the speed by guidance time to find the maximum range missile will be able to be launched on a target and intercept at 11km.
308.7 * 40 = 12348m + 11000m = 23,348m.
For the test, I used 23,350 meters.
In my opinion, this validates the expected data for the AIM-54. In-game the AIM-54 is most certainly overperforming at sea level launch conditions at least from standstill.
Why can’t you just run a helicopter in hover?
There is no way to verify the targets airspeed in these videos.
Closure rate shows target airspeed because it is flying directly at launch point and launch aircraft is at 0 airspeed frozen in place. 306 m/s at 500m is 0.9 mach as quoted.
Regardless, the math is there explaining why the target is at that launch range and airspeed. The test is valid.
1 Like
Is it wrong? I put the math there so you can criticize it and not the person making it.
The test is valid, yes I validated my own test… feel free to run it yourself. If you have the CDK you can play with the mission files, here is the mission.
Test_Mission_54A.blk (6.8 KB)
Feel free to run your own test instead of criticizing others. What is the difference between this test and a stationary target? Should the missile perform accurately, the target will be at the maximum launch range the moment the missile is supposed to be there. All we will see from a stationary target at 22km total distance traveled is that the AIM-54 will hit it far too soon.
With a mobile target, it is easier to lock, fire, and get the missile to track. With a helicopter I’d need to modify the missile file rather than using the in-game one. The excess work required to do that and the potential for playing with the data increases because then instead of just using the in-game aircraft and missiles I’d need to use a custom aircraft and custom missile file that may not perform exactly as the in-game model.
Quit trolling me, it seems to be the sole reason you are on the forum anymore.
Aren’t all A2A radar guided missiles incapable of hitting helicopters? Even the semi-modern Fox 3 missiles tested earlier can’t tell the difference between a chopper and a boulder.
Constantly spinning rotor blades should generate a small radar return even on PD radar settings, but I guess the snail has other ideas. Doubly so for tandem co-axial designs such from Kamov.
2 Likes
Yeah, would be impossible to hit a stationary helicopter target without heavily modifying the missile seeker in the file. Accomplishes nothing because the test I conducted is also perfectly valid and verifiable. The test mission is there for anyone else to validate it as well.
Putting in significant additional effort for zero gain is what we like to call “a waste of time”. The test conducted shows the discrepancy with no issues.
So the aim54 is underperforming.
Because sky flashes and r27s still work. I always carry one in squadron battles. However range is just reduced.
If I prove the aim54 can hit helicopters in hover will you do the test? Or nah?
I have a big Mi-8 we can surely connect aim54s on. You don’t have to heavily modify game files.
got some hits with 530Ds on helos hovering a bit high, but really close (<3 km)
As for ARH tested earlier, they had abnormal amount of multipath and their seeker were very prone to notching, so you could forget about hitting a helo.
Basically 1990s missiles with a 54A seeker
1 Like