These are AIM-9M, mis-stated as AIM-9X. They are no more / less smoky than those other missiles you’ve shown video of. Depends on atmospheric conditions and altitude, etc.
Would depend on if it had aluminum or not. Only way to be able to tell if it should or shouldn’t have a smoky trail in standard conditions. No aluminum = no trail at low alts unless specific circumstances warranted it.
Sure, I’ll get right on that, seeing as theres such a huge amount of test footage of AIM-9M and AIM-54C test firing that specify exact altitudes for us to compare the 2 🙄
Surely you have evidence to back your claim they have the same amount of smoke then?
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA360012.pdf
As you can see the AIM-9M is stated here (has to be, since Mk36 MOD 11 is one of the reduced smoke models). In the same report…
Baseline ISP of a smokeless motor is 233s, for reduced smoke it is 239s, and for smoky exhaust it is 247. At this point in time, these would have been some of the highest average specific impulse of these types of motors.
We can actually presume that since the AGM-65D and AIM-9M motors were produced around the same time they’d have similar performance and aluminum content (as “reduced smoke” motors in the US almost always means zero aluminum). These use HTPB binders generally.
TL;DR
The AGM-65D and AIM-9M probably have similar content of aluminum and similar amount of smoke when launched in the same conditions.
I think AIM-9M has too little smoke currently in-game regardless.
Just as much evidence as gaijin and you have that the 65D has the same amount of smoke as the 9M
The 54C is confirmed to have a reduced smoke motor regardless, so the fact it produces as much smoke (if not more) than all the other non-low smoke motor missiles in WT means its wrong.
AIM-54C comes from before the improved performance low smoke motor initiatives linked above so it likely DID have more smoke than an AIM-9M / AGM-65D.
I think its more to do with the fact gaijan doesnt model the differences of smoke/contrails these motors produce at various different altitudes. The current ammount of smoke the 9M produces at sea level appears in line with the AH-1Z video but the problem is at higher altitudes it produces just as little smoke. Honestly might be worth putting in a suggestion for some variation in smoke at various altitudes especially since future BVRAAMs will have motors of similar tech.
At certain altitudes they should just have contrails, would solve the issue.
I’m pretty sure the smoke effect is literally a .png at the moment. Considering how they handle contrails for aircraft, I think yet another rework is in order.
Just completed some more tests with players and yes I think you may actually be correct. Soft-locking targets in TWS appears to update the datalink guidance during midcourse. I have a video that is currently uploading, will post when it is done.
Glad I brought this up then, good findings.
Two targets flying front aspect at co-altitude. I fire one AIM-54A at each of them respectively and lose the lock. Then they turn away to “fool” any inertial guidance. Then I reacquire soft-lock on each of them, alternating every second or so to continuously update guidance. Eventually both missiles score a kill. Very interesting indeed.
Now this isn’t how it works in reality, but it is interesting to know that the game logic is there. A better way to implement this (if Gaijin wanted to that is) would be to add a keybind to designate TWS targets that correspond to the missile fired (TWS target 1 = first missile fired, TWS 2 = 2nd missile, and so on).
Edit:
Same video in 1080p quality, dunno why the first exported in 720p…
Theres a good possibility they just got acquired by the 54’s own seeker there, those were rather short range launches
No not here, they were fired from 30 miles, datalink correction started around 25 miles. The active radar range is closer to 6-10 miles.
It isn’t in the video also but when we recorded I remember the two targets told me in voice chat they got RWR pings around 50 seconds in that video.
Also the video quality is kind of bad, but these are miles not kilometers.
its in Miles not Kilometers
As I said to MiG-23M I strongly doubt that video actually shows an AIM-9M (I can’t find any information on Denmark using the AIM-9M, and similar firings are all labelled as AIM-9Ls by official sources - that video is from some random YouTube channel).
Here’s a 9X at contrail altitude, and we have multiple videos of its low smoke at lower alts as well if you still want to argue.
Low smoke/smokeless motors still produce contrails at the appropriate alts
The fact were still arguing “if” tge 54C has a reduced smoke motor, despite it being a widely documented fact jusr because some people cant figure out that contrails will occur at contrails altitudes is quite frankly simply mind boggling.
The bug reports have been accepted, the documentation was not only provided by players, but by gaijin technical moderators themselves. Its idiotic were even having this argument, nvm the fact that the devs keep dilly dallying on the subject
This is LITERALLY one of the first arguments that was had and resolved back when the 54C reduced smoke motor bug report was suggested, and was resolved MONTHS ago. At this point its just childish idiocy.
Sidenote, does anyone know if gaijin actually models rocket motor thrust increase along with decreases in atmospheric pressure? This would exxplain some underperforming on teh 54C’s speed despite lofting:
So model contrails in game then an AIM-54C being almost invisible at high altitude (as the AIM-9M currently is) would be both ahistorical and unbalanced.
I’m not arguing that the AIM-54C doesn’t have a reduced-smoke rocket motor, just that it should not behave in the same way that the AIM-9M currently does (which is what you are arguing for with your “just change one line of code” comments).
