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.
Your test needs to be conducted by being able to first TRACK a fighter flying Mach 1.5 off the deck @ 50 feet off the ground from 153 miles (246km).
You then need to launch the Aim54A from 127 miles (204km)
The Aim54A needs to actually fly 83.5 miles (134km) before it strikes the target.
Now how are you going to conduct this little test?
So, do you think it is remotely possible to simulate this performance? The War Thunder AWG9 can barely detect and track someone out 90km at altitude and the missile can barely fly half that range when someone is flying at it in a Mach 1.10 head on.
That isn’t what it says. You need to stop misreading things intentionally, you’re just making yourself look… well… not good.
It has already been conducted by other users and impacts at the expected ~160s mark (guidance limit). This is a maximum launch range scenario for the given launch conditions and target speed / altitude.
Other users already tested this, and the missile hits in the expected time. I even explained to Mythic how we came up with the time to target variables. It’s quite literally in the picture.
Let’s break it down and read it carefully together, shall we?
A kill on a BQM-34a and BQM-34E simulating cruise missiles at 50ft altitude & one flying at Mach 1.5…
TRACKED from 153 miles 153 miles (246km)…
(This means the range that the F-111B’s radar detected and tracked the drone)
The Phoenix was then launched at distance of 127 miles (246 km)…
It flew 83.5 miles before point of impact.
(because the BMQ-34A was flying at it at Mach 1.5)
How do you figure you are going to achieve these performances in War Thunder? You said you were going to do a test based on the above highlighted text. Again, I ask, how are you going to conduct this?
I watched the footage, it appears Aim54 in you test goes in diving. Does that article mentions whether the missile IRL test dived too?
Since diving and flying straight to the target will certainly make it cover 22km downrange[1] (ground distance) faster than climbing at 30 degrees the whole time.
Also, it is too much a coincidence that cos(30) * 26km = ~22km
If this isn’t coincidence, then this implies the rocket thrust is likely specified as sea level static thrust, as every other documents for other missiles did.
Once again, shape of trajectory is affecting final conclusion, again…
Since, as stated in the doc, the Phoenix is unmodifed, so it may be climbing at a higher angle than 30 degrees, the angle it was launched at; this is also an unknown that cannot be ignored, ignoring it will subjectively favors one conclusion over others.
[1] Downrange, is simply the distance across the ground from the launch site.
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/1/7/17deaba16f51eee305e8952921663daecbe44f23.jpeg
This one says the launch occurred at 204km, Phoenix flew 134km from the launch point, which means ground distance covered, the BQM-34E must’ve flown 204-134 = 70km ground distance. Since we know BQM-34E is not maneuvering and not changing altitude nor accelerating, thus the distance traveled through air by BQM-34E is also 70km.
Mach 1.5 at 50,000ft is 514.5m/s 442.35m/s 70,000m / 514.5 m/s = 136 seconds.
70,000m / 514.5 m/s = 158 seconds
I’m surprised that this disagrees with 160 seconds flight time that I saw earlier. @MiG_23M Are you sure these two are indeed the same test? Because the number says the test conducted for 110nm launch test is wrong: it had wrong time of flight to begin with.
Given 136 158 seconds flgith time, the average ground speed of Phoenix (assuming no lofting, flying straight to target) should be ~985m/s~ 848.1m/s, Mach 2.87 at 50,000ft. I remember the 110nm tests said the Aim54 was behaving correctly where it hit the target in 160 seconds. Thus, if this 204km launch is indeed the 110nm tests that was conducted, it means that 110nm tests conducted in game was wrong, and Phoenix underperformed in average ground speed by 17.6% and time to hit by 24 seconds.
VERY Important: the analysis above assumed Aim-54 did not use trajectory shaping and flew directly towards target; since we are basing calculation on ground distance covered.
If Aim-54 performed trajectory shaping, by trigonometry, the Aim-54 must’ve flown much longer path through the air, yet it crossed the same ground distance in 136 seconds.
Therefore, this means the average speed through air must be higher than average ground speed (985m/s or Mach 2.87) in order for Aim-54 to travel the longer path and arrive at the target in 136 seconds.
So, if this is in reference to high alt and already done confirmed. Why test at all?
That is why I wanted to see if he meant testing against low flying targets.
Then he gets mad at me why I ask him to explain how he interprets what he highlighted. How he plans to do a test.
He started realizing it may be the same scenario (different aircraft) and why he crossed out the “I have a new scenario to test.” I do respect he made the correction after the fact.
As for me, I am not without err. I did in fact misread the source. It does not explicitly say that both BQM-34s were flying at 50ft. It says that the BQM-34A was 50ft and the other BQM-34E is flying Mach 1.5 (Not how high).
The nautical miles and miles of each scenario are too similar indeed. The tracking range, launch and the distance the Aim54 travelled. Then again, you make some good points. @SE_8749236
It was said that it was an unmodified Phoenix, the loft would be at 30°+, however I used the in-game Phoenix as-is. This would give it the benefit of the doubt since the loft is less efficient and velocity at impact would be less. The distance target was impacted at is 26km, it isn’t the total distance traveled by the missile considering the path… it is the distance of intercept from point of origin as stated.
All long range AAM models used in testing or service such as AIM-47, Eagle, etc were given thrust and burn time figures above 40k feet.
I put the mission in the file, I can also test various loft parameters. If you’d like me to, please let me know what you’d like to see.
Which is why I’m quoting target distance from the frozen launch aircraft for intercept range.
You’re considering mach 1.5 speed from ground level, not considering the target altitude. This is the discrepancy you are seeing.
I got too excited, it is the same test and I was wrong initially and had already updated my comment by the time you went to heckle me.
I’m gonna put an example here, for the sake of simplicity, assuming missile climbed at 45 degrees to 10,000m above launch altitude, then instantaneously turned towards point of intercept.
Distance traveled through air during climb
Since the climb angle forms isosceles triangle, so the ground distance covered by the climb period is 15,000m, the distance flew through the air is the hypotenuse.
The distance traveled through air during climb: 15,000 / sin(45) = ~14,142m
Distance traveled after climb
Since we know the two side except the hypotenus.
sqrt(15km^2 + 119km^2) = ~119.9km
In this simplified non-optimal unrealistic trajectory, Aim-54 will need to fly 119.9 + 21.213 = ~141.15km in 136 158 seconds.
This means the missile must be have an average speed through of air of 1,037m/s 893.3m/s in order to hit target in 136 158 seconds. That’s Mach 3.03, its 5.3% higher than average ground speed.~~
