You are beyond “thick”. I already told you the context in which the word “dogfight” is being used, yet, you keep using it in a different context… You can keep strawmanning all you want, but the facts are these:
he said XYZ which you cant trust. Thats fair… But then, why do you trust other “hearsay” when it comes to other weapon systems that we have incomplete data for?
To this day, I have yet to watch an interview or read about a single pilot that said that the AIM-54 was not as advertised or failed to meet their expectations. In fact if I recall correctly, there were pilots that said that the missile worked beyond their expectations…
Please leave. Nobody wants to prove you wrong multiple times over just for you to use fallacy to ignore the point. The Aim-54 has a minimum range of around 900m. That’s first.
Second, when they say dogfight they mean ranges within 19-9km. Within visual range. That’s why “ACM” (Air Combat Maneuvering) is named that way. Dogfighting is BFM. The Aim-54 is perfectly capable of operating withing 19-9km, and the 25G obviously explains why this is.
Bonus: The Aim-120 wasn’t incorporated into the F-14 fleet as a whole because the Aim-54 was more than enough for it’s operations at the time. There’s no reason to go that route if the Aim-54 was subpar as you seem to think.
yeah im sure that referred to dogfight performance and nothing else
here, let me ask you a question: twice the minimum engagement range of aim-7. is that good maneuverability in dogfights to you? are you going to kill people in dogfights with that? your missile is incapable of killing people other than ones flying into the missile or flying in straight line below 10km
tell me, inability to kill competetive pilots at below 10km is good dogfight performance? that is what the person who sent the document is saying, that its good dogfight performance. thats what was in the document too.
yeah, i pointed out to you what was said in the document and asked if that is good dogfight performance to you and you couldnt answer
no, we dont consider that good performance even if someone who is talking on behalf of his business thinks so.
The Sparrow’s minimum range is ~3200ft. or 0.9km. The Aim-54s would be ~1.8km. That’s not very far at all for a long-range missile. Perfectly capable within 9km.
we had another person say 4-5nm so either of you is incorrect
additionally minimum range doesnt mean range of maximum maneuverability. you wont kill a competetive pilot at the minimum range of aim-54.
if you think that the aim-54 is good in dogfights with the “minimum range of 1.8km” and missile aerodynamically capable of reaching a target at 9km then go use it in dogfights. the reality is that the missile can reach this point in distance but its literally a brick. since the person talking in the document considers proximity fuzes a “great dogfight thing” (its just a basic requirement in modern missiles for any engagement) and “big warhead” another great dogfight thing despite smaller warheads like aim9 being sufficient almost always, i understand why he is saying that the phoenix is also great at dogfights if it can reach a point in distance at 9km. im sure that is great maneuverability.
again, if you agree with him that the phoenix is very maneuverable despite being a brick at those distances due to missile mass and motor impulse over the period of tens of seconds of burntime then go use it. im sure youll do great with it and totally not end up getting killed.
see i think we have a bit different idea of high maneuverability here, i consider a missile to have good dogfight maneuverability if it can hit maneuvering fighter targets at 1-10km (radar missiles context)
while your ideas of great maneuverability is just reaching an unmaneuverable target
if you consider killing a noob in rear aspect at 30sec of flight time good dogfight performance then alright
now hop into your f-14 and take a phoenix and kill me with it in a dogfight. lets see how it performs against someone not so dumb
(Ignoring the post-release, Pre-track “English Bias” Maneuver that Sparrows should perform, but isn’t implemented in game)
It would be more so, as both are Electronically limited to 25G, and so the reduced acceleration, and the lower resultant velocity allows for a Smaller radius of turn at maximum deflection. So it depends on the scenario in question. As the much larger proximity Fuse & Warhead means it should need to do less anyway.
people were literally mad at the aim-54 underperforming in the game but then agreed that the aim-54 has the capability stated in the document as “good dogfight performance”
except dodging an aim-54 going mach 1 coming from front that is launched from 10km at surface level isnt hard despite your theory.
people really think aim-54 gonna be pulling 25g’s at mach 1 . @tripod2008 give me some speed and maneuverability examples of aim-54 at mach 1 and below mach 1
