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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The satement should not be taken as en exact performance indicator, both the distance and time given are ambiguous. Its purpose is an indicator as to the relative poor performance of the sea eagle.
“More than 13 and 1/2 miles (22km)” - So what is the distance? 22km is slightly more than 13.5 miles for sure, but even that seems like an aproximation…
90 sec this is also really just not a relaibale measurement of time to use… and also seems like an aproximation of the time rather than an exact specification…
“According to military historian Bull Gunston”
What is the primary source? This doesnt even count as a secondary source because its quoting what a historian apparantly said in 1976 and as such makes this a tertiary source…
You cant use this in a bug report or attempt to recreate test data from it… The information just isnt reliable.
It was quoted that the Sea Sparrow (AIM-7E) would have less than half the range. Currently, it hits at 10,250m… half of 22 being 11,000m. This seems to indicate that the test showed the missile could hit sea skimming targets from at least 22km in 90s… While the performance could be a bit higher, I doubt that it is so much higher that it is hitting 27+km shots in less than 80 seconds…
Yet, using the guidance time of the AIM-7E (40s) and conducting the test, we get exactly what they quoted… a bit less than half the range.
A rough estimate can be used as a datapoint regardless. The quoted performance for the Sea Sparrow is highly accurate and can be used as a basis for determining that the other datapoint is also valid. The missile currently matches the known high alt scenario datapoint that was tested either way.
If I had enough sourcing for a report I would have made one already. Likewise, If Mythic wanted to report AAT’s he’d be told the same thing I have been telling him which is why he hasn’t done it.
Going back to the point of this datapoint and test, the missile is already configured for high altitude thrust and burn time. Thus at lower altitudes it is overperforming. Modeling AAT’s would be a hard nerf.
I had hoped gaijin would change the inability for A2A radar guided weapons to track helicopters, considering the first aircraft to confirmed have the capability to launch and guide SARH to a (simulated) helicopter kill was implemented with Apex Predators (F-15A in the J-CATCH tests, predating the AIM-120).
Looks like choppers will continue to be targets fixed wing aircraft avoid most of the time. A shame, since Fox 2 and Gun attacks on helicopters are pretty much guaranteed trades at best. J-Catch tests IRL showed going for those was an excellent way to get your fighter shot down with no kill to show for it, too.
But I digress, this is the AIM-54 thread. Apologies for the minor derailing.
(Seems this is the same test conducted previously, but I thought it was new or longer range because normal “miles” was used instead of “nautical miles”. This is the 110nm test described in other sources.)
I’m gonna fire a Phoenix on a stationary helicopter from 200km and hope it hits
I’m gonna conduct the test with known data and variables as a reference point just like I did with all my previous tests. What would you suggest the launch variables be? How should I conduct the test?
No, the Aim54A is more than capable of shooting low flying, small targets. Another one of your own sources once again points out the Aim54A and C are underperforming.
In 1969 the Aim54 scored a kill on a BQM-34A simulating a cruise missile at 50FT that was flying at Mach 1.5 (not the phoenix). The BQM-34A was tracked from 153 miles, the phoenix was launched at 127 miles and flew 83.5 miles from that launch point before downing the BQM-34A.
You are not getting that performance from the Aim54 on any target flying 50ft off the ground or at that range.
Low flying, but not small targets. The AIM-54C has an improved proximity fuse and warhead for properly fusing on the emphasis “small” targets. More modernized cruise missiles the AIM-54C would have to face have a radar cross section smaller than 0.1m2. BQM-34A RCS, and BQM-34E/F RCS.
Once again you’re combining two scenarios. There was a scenario where it downed a BQM-34A at 15m off sea level and a separate scenario where it downed a BQM-34E at high alt from a range of 110nm.
I posted this because I fully expected you to misread the document once again, and you did. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Later.
I gave you two studies showing the RCS, which is more than enough for Gaijin to model the correct performance against small targets. Multipathing issues has already been reported and all missiles equally underperform in regards to this as they all explode at around ~100m iirc.
Please do, it references two separate known scenarios. You are the one misreading it.
Phoenix broke virtually all AAM records including four kills in one pass (out of a six-on-six test, there being one no-test and one miss),
a kill on a BQM-34A simulating a cruise missile at 50 ft (15m),
and a kill on a BQM-34E flying at mach 1.5 tracked from 153 miles (246km), the Phoenix launched at 127 miles (204km and impacting 83.5 miles (134km) from the launch point.
We know this is the case, because these three separate scenarios are quoted in several other reputable sources. Stop the nonsense.
