…
Ahhh right, you was like a generic them kind of thing. Translation error my bad.
1 Like
when will be added a better engine for aim-54C?
Great video showing just how brutally the Sedgil/Fakour-90 outperform the AIM-54 in-game, particularly after their recent buff:
AIM-54’s are basically a joke missile at this point, and the F-90 and Sedgil outperform them so badly I’d argue the F-14A IRIAF is just a better aircraft than the F-14B as seen in-game.
5 Likes
yea was just watching that…
Also, he doesn’t point this out, but not only do the Fakour/Sedgil get to target much faster than the AIM-54 in all launch scenarios, they always get there with VASTLY more energy, making them significantly more maneuverable, and significantly deadlier.
~M0.8, 10.5s advantage in low alt launch test:
~M1.0, 9.3s advantage in high alt launch:
Of note, the AIM-120A also matches, and even slightly outperforms the AIM-54 in the high altitude launch case…
God forbid they improve the 54C’s guidance or give it its reduced smoke motor, or improved its seeker or its maneuverability(all of which would be realistic) though right? Then it would be “overpowered”…
3 Likes
Also Aim-54 has way more delta V than Aim-120 simply due to its sheer size. Even PL-15 has way smaller rocket motor section volume than Aim-54. Yes, AIm-54 never benefited from the better propellant, but even with 220s of propellant, the difference of 200-300% more volume for propellant is hard to compensate with simply more specific impulse.
Yes, Aim-54 suffers from more drag due to larger size and I agree at low-mid altitude it should perform worse than Aim-120, but that drag is minimized in high altitude launch scenario. Aim-54 should at least out perform Aim-120 in high alt high speed launch say when above 45,000ft.
I know someone pointed out that NASA paper is not accurate and top speed numbers are far too low, but in game version is even worse than the inaccurate paper that said to have underestimated the Aim-54.
aim54 in documents top speed has been estimated around mach 5
No, it should not perform worse than an AIM-120 on low and mid altitude… The range of these weapons is limited by the short burn time and high drag. When you have a missile that burns for half a minute, you basically remove one of the limitations… Not to mention that the phoenix has a huge NEZ compared to the 120… or at least it should have…
True, may be not worse than Aim-120B/early C. Even if missile only attains a speed of 500m/s, 30s of burn time allows it to travel 15km before slowing down.
How / where did you calculate that?
Not top speed, speed at burnout for given altitude. The top speed has been estimated at mach 6.1 - 6.2 ish. This is possible if the F-14 is able to maximize it’s speed and altitude conditions for launch and shoot it on a specific profile.
Some people are gonna hate me for this, but I will do it because it must be done.
AIM-54A wrong explosive mass:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/g5POiwiwjKaB
The proximity fuse range is too high currently, such a reduction would make the missile almost useless as a 20m detonation would yield practically zero damage. You’re gonna force Gaijin to screw with something that will further harm an already useless piece of ordnance.
I don’t know how or why they chose 20m anyway, it should be a maximum of 15 and only proxy at that range if it passed the target and then the range started getting larger, detonating once 15m is detected as target moves away.
According to the “An Outsider’s view of the Phoenix/AWG-9 weapon system” the warhead’s effective range is 50 feet (15.24m).
I highlighted that in the screenshots, but left it to the dev’s discretion if they want to change it or not (since technically warhead effective range is not necessarily fuze range).
1 Like
I thought that’s how all the proximity fuzes in the game function already. No?
Not necessarily, often the missile seems to detonate too early or far too late. Perhaps there are other issues causing this, maybe even the wobble issue or server problems. Either way - It MUST be reduced along with the warhead size if we want to retain an effective warhead on the missile.
what about TNT equivalent after changes?
By the way, the original Phoenix used both a radar and IR proximity fuse. The timing of the detonation should be quite advanced and jam/eccm proof already.
There is quite detailed information about some of the components. Here is the MK-334 impact fuse for the AIM-54.
Source
If someone can FOIA a less redacted version of this document, we could perhaps get real information on the lethal radius of AIM-54A/C warheads.
