The higher altitude you’ve mentioned is 5000m, according to you. However, the thrust curve found in that deleted post went well above 5000m, and shows thrust significantly increased when missile is flying at much higher altitude than 5000m. You telling half of the truth, once again.
1 Like
I agree with this, IRST is a good back up in case radar fails or losing in terms of EWS. But if radar is available, it is always more steady than IRST. Since target can turn off afterburner and goes subsonic.
Have you got a link to that forum post?
Yeah the RAE doc covers it pretty conclusively. I’d expect a nice jump from 120C-5 when that arrives.
I’ve looked up my browser history, I haven’t found it, I will let you know when I found it.
I’ve found this PDF in the mean time: https://www.mycity-military.com/uploads2/164443_1584276969_pk%20AIM-54%20k%3D1%2C2.pdf
But sadly this is more of an analysis using the rocket motor schematics. I’m not sure this counts as primary source.
With a burn time of 23.5 seconds, at 5km, the average thrust is 17203N, at 0km it is 15135N, a 12% reduction.
But at 10km, it is 18409N, which is 7% gain. 10% gain when at 15km 19038N.
What are you talking about? The maximum range scenario it is tailored for is much higher than 5k.
What?
Most long range AAM data is quoted for high altitudes well above 5,000m.
Only “medium range” missiles actually intended for use at sea level are quoted for sea level rocket performance.
Yet, you are asking expecting to nerf the thrust because the thrust is lower at sea level, while the game doesn’t adjust thrust based on altitude. It doesn’t take too much to understand that the game’s simulation is at its limit, Phoenix is overperforming and underperforming at same time.
Why you are so focused on the overperfroming aspect and ignoring the underperforming aspect? Except for R-27 which you’ve brought up?
1 Like
I didn’t ask to nerf anything, I stated the FACT that it is overperforming at sea level. It exceeds the expected performance for the sea phoenix launch test by a considerable margin and exceeds all other test scenarios from public data that are at lower altitudes than the maximum range scenario… which it matches almost perfectly in regards to time to target and maximum distance traveled.
You didn’t understood what I posted and that is fine but please be more careful reading next time. I used the R-27 as an example because it has the most available public information validifying the in-game model of all other MRAAM’s.
I understand most of your post. But please state the full picture.
Yes, Phoenix is overperforming at sea level, but it is (important) underperforming at high altitude above 5000m.
If such nerf lands, then the only thing left of Phoenix is it grossly underperforms at high altitude above sea level (basically underperforming everywhere, unless you fire when your plane is hugging ground against a target also flying at sea level).
Of course, if you ignore and never state the fact that Phoenix’s rocket motor gains more thrust as altitude increases, then yes Phoenix will be more “realistic” after the nerf.
But I believe almost every single Tomcat player in the past, present and future will disagree with you and will say such update made Phoenix even more unrealistic. Who fires Phoenix at sea level? It barely reaches Mach 2 with current “overperforming” thrust. If game’s simulation is at its limit, shouldn’t it restore realism at the scenario where it is commonly used? From user experience perspective?
4 Likes
I’ve found the link!
https://www.mycity-military.com/Artiljerija-municija-i-protivoklopna-sredstva/Vanjskobalisticki-proracun-program-leta-rakete_65.html
3 Likes
I did, you made claims I said certain things that I did not. Refrain from doing so in the future.
The long range test confirms this isn’t the case. What underperformance are you talking about?
The rocket motor thrust. I was talking about thrust curve, thrust, total impulse, etc. This shows you didn’t bother to understand the direction I’m coming from. You didn’t even finish reading the first sentence. No wonder you were constantly denying.
I’m going sleep, good night.
2 Likes
I already addressed this. The in-game thrust is already for 45,000 feet altitude conditions more than likely. This is the conditions Hughes has always listed long range AAM’s.
The only missiles that use SLS are medium range or lower. Further, we know the performance of the Sea Phoenix was not that great and that the thrust was significantly hampered by reduced altitude conditions because they made the point that the Phoenix’ total impulse was insufficient for long range surface to air engagements.
On a sidenote, there appears to be evidence that the Phoenix had up to a 25 foot lethal radius. In-game the proximity fuse radius is an absurd 20m… best I could find on the internet suggested a maximum proximity radius closer to 15m.
So, let’s go through a hypothetical scenario.
The nerf you expected arrived. The thrust of Phoenix is now 12000N for 30 seconds to Sea Phoenix’s test result
Assuming every other parameters remain the same. Will the nerfed Phoenix able to hit target ~200km away, the test you mentioned, like before nerf? Will it get higher Mach number when fired at 15,000m or 50,000ft?
These are simple yes or no question.
If all answers are no, is the nerfed Phoenix a more realistic Phoenix?
If your answer is yes, is the nerfed Phoenix a more realistic Phoenix when fired at 10,000m doing the 200km test?
3 Likes
You aren’t even playing devils’ advocate. You’re once again making it appear as though I said things that I did not.
I did not ask for the Phoenix to be nerfed, I said to expect one if you want change. If you want the missile to be more realistic… the maximum range will likely be reduced. If it follows the trend of every other missile in the game it will be optimized for lower altitude scenarios than it currently is.
Also shows the AIM-120’s loft profile in-game to be incorrect
1 Like
4 Likes
The “altitude adjusted thrust” shown to be completely wrong with not just one, but a multitude of assumed and erroneous variables on top of the fact that it is double dipping already and confirmed not to be the case because the missile already matches known data solely for high altitude while overperforming in low altitude conditions.
@Fireball_2020 @MiG_23M Can you guys provide any data that claim otherwise? I could not find anything in regard to the A/B model that supports the ranges you are talking about.
Again for the sake of clarity, I am talking about realistic engagements to what I mean by that I have provided an example of. (Mach 2 launch at another Mach 2 target is not realistic at all)
1 Like