Also worth noting Stepanovich was having productive discussion about the issues you’re heckling about and you disrupted the discussion… possibly even preventing some of this from getting fixed in the first place since they were unable to convince him of their reasoning / logic.
/Not off-topic but thanks for the flag
Maybe, but it sounded like you thought the AIM-54C should be completely smokeless like the AIM-9M currently is in game.
The 9M isn’t completely smokeless either, its smoke is low viz and low duration but it exists and is easier to see on dark backgrounds
The vid in question if you’re curious:
9M smoke code:
65D smoke code:
54C smoke code:
I have a question about multipath propagation and its relation to the missile trajectory angle.
In the left image, the missile is flying at the target from the front and same altitude. There will be a return that comes directly from the target and another return that is the target’s return reflected from the ground forming an image underground. The missile will then fly at the averaged return (point on the ground directly under the target).
In the right image, the missile is flying at the target from the front but from a much higher altitude. The image is now closer to the target and increases the chances of hitting the true target (given a sufficiently large angle from the ground).
Is my logic sound for the second image? Is this how it works in the game? Does the illuminating radar position matter here?
I have tried using this tactic to ensure a higher chance of killing targets skimming the surface, but the missile seems to still often land far ahead of the target. I don’t know if it is my perception of angles (maybe I thought the missile was much closer to the normal than I thought) or if it is not how it works IRL/in-game
Logic is sound and thats how you can score SARH hits against low flying targets, but you need to be almost directly on top. Basically airframe needs to find itself on path towards distorted lock point or at least close enough for proximity fuse to set off
Is there any such video of AIM-54C fired at low altitude then?
The question is whether you think the AIM-54C should have the exact same type of smoke as AIM-9M does in-game.
No, but it’s clearly not as smoky as previous models.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/955829235493273680/1154092677793583266/DuujBQKUUAE2v3C.jpg_large.jpg
Very limited angle, can’t see behind it. Is there any comparison to AIM-54A of similar angle?
AIM-54A launch makes viewing of the exhaust flame difficult from sheer amount of opaque smoke.
I’ll have to give you that. The next question is if it should get the same smoke type as AIM-9M. The motor is thicker on the AIM-54 than AIM-9M*.
Reduced smoke is a term that doesn’t describe one exact propellant mix… it’s possible one has more or less smoke depending on conditions.
Also, reduced smoke propellants harm ISP by approx. 15% generally.
Yet seems to not be modeled for AIM-9M currently, and might not be modeled for AIM-54C even if it gets reduced smoke, getting all of the benefits without the disadvantages.
@k_stepanovich Why was the AIM-9M given the smokeless motor without proper implementation? Seems bad form to add a big advantage (smokeless motor) without giving its accompanying disadvantage (lower ISP)?
Hopefully there will be a review on this.
A big problem I can see is people attempting to constantly report and have smokeless motors implemented into the game on several missiles without having an actual realistic implementation for it.
I went and found some sources, I was incorrect… it’s not 15% less ISP.
The AIM-9M uses HTPB-AP binder, and is very low viscosity so should use relatively harge % of binder (35-40%?).
If so, isp in comparison to AIM-9L should be 9.2-11.5% less.
Even with a conservative assumption of 10% of thrust loss, I would assume the range loss would be greater than 10% compared to AIM-9L.
A decrease in ISP does not necessarily mean lower thrust. It only means less efficient propellant, which could be due to a lower exhaust velocity or higher mass flow rate.
Burn time is stated to be the same iirc, only way to reduce ISP is decrease thrust
Regardless, 10% less thrust or 10% less burn time
Assuming the burn time is the same, the ISP would decrease if
There is no mention of increase/decrease in burn time or weight of the missile aside from changes to seeker technology from any source I can find.
