Yes the missile hits the target but by the time this happens I am almost overflying it. It would be more efficient to let it come a bit closer and shoot a sparrow as it would have intercepted the “drone” further away.
The missile goes on its intercept course and as soon as the motor is off it starts turning hard to compensate for the massive reduction in speed. Its as if the missile is having a stroke…
So is there any video or whatever of that max range shot being done in war thunder? Idk if you posted it here or anywhere else but I couldnt find anything. And because I couldnt find anything other than you saying that “the devs tested it”, I am inclined to be highly sceptical of that claim.
Also. I cant wrap my mind around why the engineers in Hughes decided to use other motors when the M112 motor for the hawk is so much better in every way… In 1977 the M112 was available. So why not use that beast instead ?
Weight.
Phoenix was already quite heavy.
While Tomcat could carry 6, it couldn’t land with them on a carrier.
Also there was no need … Even without more propellant, Phoenix out ranged basically every air to air missile for a long time.
The propellants used seem to quite similar, at least for the Aerojet MK 60 motor (both use Polyurethane binder).
Yes we do, the in-game missiles use the Mk47 mod 0, though the AIM-54C should at least receive reduced smoke propellant for the Mk47 mod 1.
The Mk60 mod 0 was produced in small numbers as a risk reduction method (ensure there were always available motors early on - and as competition to reduce prices). They produced somewhere around 200 of them at most. Performance was equal to the Mk47 mod 0 although likely had slightly higher thrust and slightly lower burn time depending on temp and altitude.
No? The NASA source calculates a minimum top speed of mach 5 when launched from 2 mach and some sources or studies indicate a maximum top speed based on the thrust and drag profile of mach 6.1 provided it has the deltaV to get there. When launched from 2.4 mach it is capable of mach 6.1 at altitude.
In-game, drag does not get as low as it should at very high altitudes. The drag profile of the missile is thus adjusted to ensure it reaches the correct ranges. This is also why it overperforms at lower altitudes. (Also because the total impulse and thrust is adjusted to the high alt launch scenario, which is going to be higher than sea level conditions naturally).
What are you talking about man? How is it “overperforming” when its going so slow that you overfly it in a 22nm head on shot ? “the drag profile is adjusted to ensure it reaches the correct ranges” But you disregard the energy state it reaches those ranges… Your “adjustments” are napkin math
“The air-launched version of Phoenix was clearly capable of downing
antiship missiles; Friedman reports that “in a 1983 test, Phoenix shot down
eleven of eleven Harpoons.” And with a maximum speed in excess of Mach 4
and an 80-nautical-mile range, the Phoenix had the ability to engage enemy
antiship missiles at a safe distance from the targeted ship.”
What of it, it’s discussing as launched from the F-14 in that excerpt quite clearly. It has less impulse than the I-HAWK by 200m/s, the I-HAWK having a maximum launch range of ~39-40km against incoming sea level targets.
The in-game Phoenix which is draggier and has less impulse somehow has a maximum range in excess of the real world I-HAWK SAM.
No missile in-game reaches correct top speed, even R-27ER is underperforming by at least 100 m/s at all altitudes. The AIM-120, MICA, R-77 all have underperforming top speeds. This is a game limitation for some reason.
In surface launch, yes. The I-HAWK has superior deltaV and lower drag. Reaches top speed sooner and then sustains it.
Hawk has a more aerodynamic radome as well, the Phoenix couldn’t narrow the nose further due to the more complex seeker requirements and space constraints.
