Both really and I never experience a aim54 relocking on even if a jet pass in front of it in sarh mode idk about if it can or can’t in arh mode
I assume it should be performing the same as the aim7m when it come to re locking but most of the time the aim54 doesn’t even attempt it
Once the AIM-54 is active it cannot re-aquire based upon host aircraft radar data as it has the line “can datalink reconnect” set to false.
Prior to doing so it can re-aquire the target like every other ARH in game as long as it is the same target.
It’s function is identical to every other ARH missile in game as none of them have that line set to true.
Mk47 is the worst burner. It NEEDS the mk60. A quicker accelerating aim54 would fix most of the issues
From my discussions with @k_stepanovich in the past, the way it (allegedly) works in the game is that even after going active, the missile can re-acquire the target through datalink, if the seeker loses the target in the notch but the launch aircraft’s radar can still track it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZSTO5XEmnNov
What “reconnectDatalink”, which is false by default and set to true in R-27 and AIM-7P configs, does is to allow the datalink updates to resume if the launch aircraft’s radar momentarily loses target but later re-acquires it.
I.e. with AIM-54 and other ARH missiles if you completely lose the TWS track file or STT lock, there won’t be any further datalink updates for that missile even if the target later re-appears on your radar, as a new track file.
@k_stepanovich argument was that there doesn’t seem to be a way (that we know of) for the pilot to tell the WCS that the new track file is the same target that the missile was intended for.
Now, granted, this is how it’s “supposed” to work in the game … There could be a bug that prevents it from happening which I’m not aware of.
Implementing this would fix most of the issues with how underwhelming this missile is right now. But knowing them, they’ll probably just write it off as a rare variant with limited service numbers and refuse to update it.
They cant let their noob premium players suffer in the slightest ever
Since they are adding it to the tech tree Im hoping that they will see that it could take the mk60 burner and make the tech tree F14D better than the premium one that way.
I hope they well fix seeker of AIM-54C and C+ to all aspect. Its a digital seeker.
This + gaijin just re-learning how drag works in their game so the 54 and AGM-65 actually accelerate.
not only acceleration, its also sheer speed loss, its crazy how quickly the aim54 looses speed once the thrust burns out, like its one of the main reason these missiles can go so far, sure they might not pull the hardest but they should hold speed.
aim54 literally reaches claimed numbers with proper scenarios.
Not sure what this mk60 motor is about but its same propellant mass so it would be same total deltaV.
And faster acceleration is generally gonna be worse
54C+ claimed 5+ mach speed…
The only scenario that hits 4,9 is from 20km altitude launch and 1,6 mach speed. Let’s start with 14B/D can do around 16km and 14A 17km max altitude, so we are already out of parameters for a launch from the only plane that used it. Even the missile has maximum altitude while on platform 18.292m , so the 20km you need in is near 2km out of the maximum altitude the missile has on a platform .
A Tomcat was capable of launching at 1,5 mach and 12-14km altitude for the missile to achieve speed 5+ mach.
Another weird thing is that in game the missile achieves said 4,9 mach…while climbing, for a 120km range shot… The missile in reality achieved those speeds on the cruise phase , and in the terminal phase (before kill) it had around 3,5-3,6 mach on it…
What i’m saying is it’s not that the missile is that much outside the data (since there is no fixed speed in data, just a 5+ mach) , it just needs a tuning at drag in a way that it will climb faster and hit said speed… and from lower altitudes and speeds. That’s a drag issue.
They just need to fix it.
Ofc it was very bad missile on deck, but it would be very lethal in the correct parameters…
Those numbers are simply not realistic if we use the same physics as everyone else
The missile currently in game is actually severly over performing in rocket motor terms. Though may not do as much as with low thrust and actually big enough nozzle that Isp may not horrendously off
The motor full burn adds 1220m/s which is around mach4 at 10km. Considering it literally burns over 27 seconds, that does not sound any way achievable, like most of those “Mach 5 missile” claims that have nothing to do with reality
30 sources write 5+ mach…
you know better…
Ok.
We are working in reality land thats guided by physics not “Mach 5” somebody wrote on page.
Unless americans have some magic fairy dust instead of solid propellants we need to work withing physics
Pure fantasy, the motor have same propellant mass. Please stop sending “estimated” numbers on a page and talk actual rockets.
And yeah maybe at 20km it could have the amount of drag to be able to speed into this magical 5 number. Tho im not sure what would carry it there at speed… blackbird lol. Remember around 1200m/s at that altitude would be mach 4.4 in full burn no drag + release speed. But again fantasy numbers, the phoenix hits its targets and might in fact be a bit overperforming on motor side
you do not know the missile better than whoever carefully calculated that figure on an official USN report
I know of physics, which you sound incapable of accepting
Again, we are not talking about details, we are talking about impossible physics. They literally didn’t change the engine.
You get mach 5 when fired from blackbird
you think they didnt? how are you so certain incremental motor manufacturing improvements didnt add up, especially in such a golden age of aerospace advancement? the motor on the 54C is different from the A too, publicly they say it was just a change to smokeless
