How do you do that and what was it for again?
Go on to the official Raytheon website and scroll down until you find a media request contact to email to. It’s for getting more information about the AIM-54 and it’s variants, and providing official information to compare to the ones we already have now in our possession and maybe force Gaijin to implement changes.
1 Like
Found something that hasn’t been talked about in a while. Alongside the countless sources stating Mach 5 for the Phoenix, the Aim-54C model apparently had a directional warhead.
I believe @MythicPi found an earlier source about the directional blast warhead on the Aim-54C, so knowing that wasn’t a dead end is nice.
3 Likes
Nice finds. Looks like this guy was right.
4 Likes
Considering all air to air missiles in warthunder all use the same warhead type, this won’t really affect anything.
Now if @MythicPi has sources about “aimable” or “directional” warhead that’s different
But “controlled fragmentation” doesn’t mean “aimable” warhead
Controlled fragmentation basically means you cut grooves into the metal to create weak points and control where it will break
What all missiles do have proper aimable warheads? I know the AAM-4 and 5 have warheads which can be aimed in 4 quadrants based on their proximity fuze and a multi-detonator system, but im not sure which other ones have it.
Basically every western missile post AIM-54C
Continuous expanding rods are still fairly common, and most that are fragmentation are “controlled” like the 54C’s, not proper directional systems.
Yeah no. The pictures of the actual detonation show very clearly it is a directional detonation, and not just the preformed shrapnel pattern.
Perfect example of how disgustingly bad the Aim-54 is nerfed.
It doesn’t loft at all.
How Gaijin thinks this is ok, I don’t know. Anyways, buff the Rafale and cherrypick F-14 nerfs.
7 Likes
PSA: The Aim-4 they just added to the game with the Swiss Mirage III has 25G pull. If you didn’t know, the Aim-54 is based off the Aim-4.
Look familiar?
I wonder how a missile with the same body, fins, etc. as the Aim-54 pulls 34% more… Sometimes I wonder if Gaijin has any sense at all…
1 Like
-
The Aim-54 was based on the Aim-47. While true the Aim-47 shared a similar design with the Aim-4, it was no more an Aim-4 then an an IRIS-T is an AAM-5.
-
An Aim-4 weighs 117kg, an Aim-54 weighs 440kg.
5 Likes
The AIM-26 ( Not AIM-4 ) we have on the Swiss Mirage III pulls harder for two reasons:
→ Its a lot lighter.
→ Its a lot slower.
- I’m aware.
- Yet they pull the same G… I don’t see the point.
The thing is, it doesn’t pull harder… Ingame it does, but IRL they both pull 25G.
The point of my comment was the lack of 25G on the Aim-54 is arbitrary. Not that the Aim-4/26 couldn’t.
1 Like
I mean, I’m assuming the aim-4 falcon/aim-26 can pull those 25 gs single plane, while the 54 pulls it dual plane.
I can assure you AIM 26B pulled 28Gs in single plane irl
I can also assure you it went Mach 3.5
Ye as above lol
Each falcon differs completely with some pulling up to only 20 and some pulling over 40 in a single plane
So saying generally “based on the Aim 4” is like saying based on the aim 9 and not specifying which although the sidewinder does have more modern technology variants and is a wider variety when in subvariants
If you need falcon info then it is my featured topic on here
6 Likes
The AIM-54 is much larger than any Falcon, they don’t share body or fins AT ALL.
AIM-26 was ~2.1m long, the AIM-54 ~4m. It’s twice as long, with much wider body diameter.
That “based on” is doing a LOT of work here lol
1 Like
woah, since when were you a suggestion mod?