Are there plans to improve this?
1 Like
Sorting solely on return strength is not a universal characteristic of missiles though take for example the AIM-9C a 2nd target could be illuminated with any level of power but it would be filtered by the range / range rate gate and so not be a factor in the guidance of the missile unless the distance was very close to the tracked target (at most 300 meters resolution based off the mention of a microsecond).
So the current implementation doesn’t account for the reduction in received energy due to the nutation of a conical scan seeker, centered on the reference target impacting the duty cycle of a sufficiently off axis target, or the Seeker’s Fov / sidelobes?
I guess this does also explain the performance of rosette scanning type IR seekers.
Target may be found or may be not found. It strongly depends on MBC clutter strength.
The picture illustrates how BMC expands if FM ranging is used. SNR gets better, but if it still not good enough FM ranging makes the problem even worser.
HPRF search radars in RWS usually apply small depth of FM, which gives them very bad precision and resolution in range, but doesn’t make MBC such wide. They also use unmodulated HPRF and than HPRF with ascending and descending FM to find out both speed and range of each target.
Skyflash seeker still being incorrectly modelled after all this time makes me tired
I mean, at this point its largely pointless in even bothering to argue. We KNOW radar missiles are underperforming in-game, particularly in the low altitude intercept capacity, with multiple sources stating improvements in low latitude target intercepts for things like the AIM-7M (which I’ve submitted a bug report on regarding its actual min altitude of 5m irl, while in-game its min altitude is 95m for the missile to have little enough error vs a non-maneuvering target to pass within the proxy fuse range).
There are some rather basic and clearly problematic modelling issues with the AIM-54C. The smokeless motor being omitted when it was not only added to the new AIM-9M, but retroactively added to the AGM-65D is tantamount to spitting in the F-14 communities face, the admittance that the modelling decision behind the 17G max pull on the AIM-54C is intentional is another egregious situation, both of which would have a major positive affect on the missile.
The low altitude intercept problem is just a widespread modelling problem for radar missiles which at this point is just outright horrendous, particularly when we’ve entered an era of high performance and flare resistant IR missiles for only a handful of planes putting all other planes at a notable disadvantage in close range without any real way to provide effective spacing using radar missiles as a credible threat as multipath is HIGHLY abusable in WT, not only due to how high the multipath effect is, but also from the simple reality that 3rd person flying makes abusing ground hugging tactics easy, safe and reliable. Contrails are also modelled excessively, making abusing spotting mechanics by low altitude flying even more advantageous.
Of this list:
for which @k_stepanovich argues almost all points of, 3 are substantial issues well within the ability of the devs to correct with little work (max G-load, low alt intercept, smokeless motor). Arguing NCTR capability, beam target tracking in lock down scenarios, stream raid ability, etc… although interesting, and possibly helpful are all things that could/would take more time to fix and are more debatable.
Fixing simple issues such as max G load and the lack of smokeless motor should be prioritized as first steps for the AIM-54C specifically, with low altitude intercept ability of late radar missiles using PD/monopulse seekers being something that should just be fixed across the board at this point. The AIM-7F has been in-game for just under 2 years at this point and remains the “baseline” for radar missiles at top tier, with the 7M being a copy paste, and radar mechanics flip flopping widely ever since, to the point where relatively low performance radar missiles such as the AIM-7E/E-2 were more reliable weapons than current top missiles are now.
Even IF we want to sit on the argument of “we dont have enough info to ascertain exact capabilities o X radar missile” which is going to become more and more of an issue as the game progresses, gameplay very much SHOULD take priority over that. As it stands, there’s no reason to believe the upcoming AIM-120/R-77 and other ARH’s will be any functionally better radar-wise to things such as the AIM-7M/R-27ER, since the multipath effect will still be highly abusable, and the missiles themselves dont offer particularly game changing kinematic performances either.
Radar missiles at top tier should be a credible threat, not a dice roll at best and a completely irrelevant threat at worse as they are currently.
1 Like
You don’t need to dive into the radar physics to understand that it doesn’t mean that the seeker can track notching targets in all situations. Relatively modern (in comparision to AIM-54C introduction time) fighter radars like AN/APG-63, 65, 68 can’t detect notching targets in look down scenarios in search modes and may lose track as well. AIM-54C seeker can’t be better then these radars.
-
As I just stated, beam aspect tracking is one of the issues thats quite frankly low on the priority list of issues with the AIM-54C. The fact its maneuvrability is nerfed by a MASSIVE 32%, or that its much more visible than it has any right to be, with a massive smoke trail despite bug reports indicating it used a low smoke motor and a massive RCS which makes the AIM-54 missile detectable on radar at over 90km in-game are clear issues which harm the missiles usability substantially and are EASY to fix.
-
I dont expect the missile to reliably track targets through beam aspect in any and all situations and afaik that isnt what anyone here is arguing. What I am arguing is that the missiles ability to track beam aspect targets which is stated to be improved over that of the AIM-54A is NOT improved in-game, which is a clear discrepancy. The fact that the AIM-54C’s seeker ingame offers literally no advantage over that of the AIM-54A despite a rather substantial overhaul in real life is laughable.
-
Radar missiles at top tier shouldn’t be so easily rendered useless by multipath, regardless of the argument being that multipath has simplistic modelling in-game, the degree of multipath error currently present is absurd and just bad game design. To take the 7M as an example, a 95m min altitude against a non-maneuvering target in-game vs a stated 5m min altitude irl represents a whopping 1900% increase in min altitude. Not only is the modelling itself questionable, but as previously stated, in a 3rd person game where low altitude flying is made easy by improved spatial awareness is just bad game design. Current top radar missiles should be threatening and a reliable tool for spacing. The fact most radar missiles are fired sub 10km and that games just turn into low alt (like sub 1000m) furballs all the time is further proof of this.
Things like this should not be happening at top tier
This is just about as ideal of a condition any low alt threat could present. Large target (F-14B), above Mach 1, head-on shot, 70m above the AIM-7M’s stated min altitude with little to no clutter behind the target, and the missile missed by over 30m. I’m using the 7M here as its one of the only pics I have readily available, but this extends to other more modern radar missiles we have in-game.
The R-27ER, the Skyflash variants, the 54C, none are a threat at this altitude, I dont need to maneuver, I dont need to chaff, I could even be AFK and reliably dodge these missiles by just abusing the absurd level of multipath currently modelled.
Hers an AIM-54C missing the target at 82m altitude. Non-maneuvering, no chaff, high speed. Theres CLEARLY something that has to be done with this.
Heres an AIM-7M at 91m missing just like the 54C
So like I said, beam aspect tracking, although clearly comparatively wrong between the 54A and 54C, is nowhere near the primary issue. The modelling of multipath as currently seen in-game is much more serious an issue and affects all radar missiles, while the 54C more specifically has major issues in its maneuverability (17g instead of 25g, 32% nerf, and allegedly intentional according to a mod) and the visibility (lacking smokeless motor and massive RCS making missile launches visible on radar from absurd distances).
1 Like
Since you’re here, opinion on this?
As MiG_23M states, it looks like the Phoenix banks to turn so would have its full 25g combined plane maneuvering available to it in terminal flight
Should be noted it’s also an AIM-54C…
The AIM-54C’s motor looks far from “smokeless”:
Footage of AIM-9M at those altitudes is equally “smokeless”. Reduced smoke matters mostly at lower altitudes.
Example of AIM-9M at low altitude (mistakenly called AIM-9X)
Example of AIM-9M at medium altitudes
Of course weather conditions also come into play. The reduced smoke propellant has higher shelf life which was also a consideration.
1 Like
What are they firing it at?
Usually small aerial targets for training.
First off, we know the AIM-54C had a “smokeless” motor:
Second “smokeless” doesnt ACTUALLY mean smokeless, its reduced smoke, or low visibility, its easier to just say smokeless and is relatively commonly referred to as such. This is a good diagram for said explanation:
Thirdly, even reduced smoke motors produce contrails at contrail altitudes, they’re just not as pronounced or visible. Here’s a “smokeless” AMRAAM launch at high alt for example:
This was all previously discussed way back when the 54C first came into a dev server and was forwarded to the devs:
but as usual, it has gone unfixed despite them LITERALLY just adding “smokeless” motors ingame
You can even tell the motor isnt producing thick smoke as its actually more translucent than opaque
Gotta stop saying smokeless, it’s “reduced smoke”.
I doubt that that is actually an AIM-9M. That channel has re-uploaded a Danish military video and the smoke trail looks far more consistent with what the official Danish Air Force channel label as AIM-9L firings. Come to mention it I can’t even find anything proving the Danish actually used the AIM-9M.
Compare that to an AIM-9X (which has a truly “smokeless” motor - and is similar to the AIM-9M):
Reduced smoke is not the same as “smokeless”. Compare the amount of smoke coming out the AIM-54C at altitude to the virtually invisible smoke coming out of the AIM-9X and ASRAAM when fired at altitude. I’d describe those two as being essentially “smokeless”, whereas the AIM-54C is just reduced smoke.
1 Like
AIM-9L received the reduced smoke motor as well, and as older motors met their shelf life they were replaced with the newer reduced smoke Mk36… Whichever “mod” that is I can’t recall at the moment.
1 Like
Right, so nomenclature discrepancy, the AIM-54C still produces MUCH more smoke than it should in-game.