Currently, the only way to test this is to load the custom mission with the 256x256 km Tropical Coast map from Nuclear Thunder.
1 Like
you’re not gonna see anything on radar but this is very doable, you have extra 40 seconds of guidance left after this target
i guess i can just move the slider until i get the intercept at this range of 72,5 fake units
1 Like
Problem is primaries are impossible to use for bug report because of export control or classified.
Although the PAL mode is missing in the game from the AWG-9’s available radar modes, no one can report this because NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1A, a document from the 1990s or later that could confirm this, is classified.
3 Likes
Correct, it’s so over :(
From the primary Hughes Aircraft Company documents, “AWG-9 Phoenix Air Superiority Weapon System,” the performance and scenario excerpts were written with the AIM-54 Phoenix already tested and used operationally. You can argue that the lethal hit is noted as the “efficiency” here.
You can look up the documents uploaded by David_Bowie:
5 Likes
It might be worth it to give it a try, I will help if anybody wanna bother.
Good luck! It will probably be absolutely worth it with the variable thrust.
2 Likes
After calculation at Mach 1.5 near 50,000 ft, that is roughly 157 seconds, or 2 minutes 37 seconds of missile flight. That gives the Phoenix an average flight speed around Mach 2.9, while its peak speed would be higher.
This doesn’t sound like our in game missile.
4 Likes
Man that would be great
If anyone can record a War Thunder test reproducing the real Navy AIM-54 long-range scenario as closely as possible, I can use the footage and results to write a full report.
1 Like
Another images of AIM-54 guidance sequence
From what can be seen in this image, it seems the missile doesn’t receive guidance from the AWG-9 from the moment of launch until the end of its loft phase, but instead flies according to a programmed flight profile.
If the AWG-9 were to lose track of the target during the loft phase, the missile would literally go into space, just like DCS.
9 Likes
It wouldn’t go to space, the preprogrammed autopilot tells it how high it it needs to loft. That just means that it doesn’t change heading to correct for the target’s maneuvers while it’s climbing; In game terms It starts flight in IOG, switches to DL once it reaches the apex of the climb, switches to active seeker within 16 to 20 km of the target.
2 Likes
Because reports were getting denied due to sourcing planned capability, I made a new report: Community Bug Reporting System
2 Likes
It’s cruel because even if in game it doesn’t work they will tell you it’s in the code of the game. Meanwhile they rejected the range discrimination report because they don’t want to check the code of the game. Actual psychological torture lol
4 Likes
What is the purpose of the distance gate added to the fakour and apparently missing from the phoenix?
I read that it helps against chaff? notching? Both?
Helps against notching and makes it less likely for the missile to switch to different target midway, so less likely for the missile to waste energy to reposition itself and less risk of friendly fire incidents.
3 Likes
I feel saying just beam aspect capability will just get it marked as not a bug. I think the lack of range discrimination part should be addressed, which in turn will improve beam aspect capability. I think currently it can technically already do beam aspect, but only if it has high enough SCNR, basically when super close to the target.
Anyways, on the lack of range discrimination report, you can show that easily like this:
AIM-54:
can not separate in range, therefore simply goes for the highest RCS target, which overpowers the longer range target.
AIM-120:
can separate in range, therefore even though closer target has higher return signal, with same closure rate, original target can be tracked because the targets are separated in range.
In this case, target separation is 5km and launched on the rear target (such that the tracking gate is set on that target).
11 Likes
It might be worth trying the range-discrimination report again if we can include a video reproducing the real test scenario. It would also improve the beam-aspect behaviour.
For beam-aspect behavior, the problem is that it seems to be implemented only through generic Doppler-gate/seeker logic, which makes the argument much harder. Gaijin can always fall back on the “to what degree?” move, which tends to kill reports unless we can point to a very specific missing mechanic or value. Improvements they could do would be better sidelobe attenuation/sensitivity, or adjustments to seeker rateMax and prolongationTimeMax, but those are harder to argue without exact values.
4 Likes
I feel this is probably the best way to go forward, as range discrimination (as also noted in one of the source documents) is the cause for improved beam aspect capability. So best case scenario is that Gaijin just adds their generic range discrimination code to the AIM-54C (and C+), which in turn will improve beam aspect capability to whatever it will perform like then in-game.
Now idk who the moderator is that closed the original report for it, who responded only with the need for in-game proof here: Community Bug Reporting System. Because I think it’s best to try reopen that one with in-game footage to demonstrate to prevent spam, because the amount of same-ish reports is not really helping imo, and that one is probably the closest one to being accepted (as far as the moderator’s comment is the only problem).
1 Like