wait , don’t you recognize the video?
it is the F-22 shooting down the Chinese balloon over the ocean with deactivated warhead few months ago
You replied to the comment in which I was replying to this video:
Which most certainly is not the balloon video, that was posted later.
AIM-9L also use reduced smoke motor after a certain point. The smoky motor stopped production and they are pretty far past shelf life otherwise unless they are using expired rocket motors.
Not necessarily actually, seeing as contrails are excessive in their occurrence altitude in WT for the most part, and the vast majority of gameplay in WT occurs at lower alts. There’s also this paper, published a few months ago discussing the formation of visible contrails from rocket motors which indicate they form/become visible at altitudes between 10-15km (though the steps were in increments of 5km, and other sources such as NASA do discuss contrail formation around 8000m(26000ft), which corresponds roughly to the temperature ranges shown in the above graph I posted regarding H2O contrail formations for missiles (< -35°F).
As for HCl contrail that occurs below -10°F, roughly 6100m (20000ft) alt, that is still well above the altitude most players even bother flying at in WT atm, particularly with the massive disadvantages of flying at alt currently from the mix of H2O contrail formation being much too low, coupled with the specifics of the spotting mechanics and the absurd levels of multipath that all radar missiles suffer from, making it unadvisable to fly at altitude anymore.
So no, in most WT flight cases, barring winter maps, high alt maps, or full EC maps, Pheonix launches would actually occur below H2O contrail altitudes, and might be near/in the HCl contrail altitude, and they may climb for a momentary period of time above contrail formation altitudes, so it ISNT really that “ahistorical”. Its also not “unbalanced”, as as I’ve previously indicated, the missile diamond from the rocket motor burn (visible even on low smoke 9M’s because thats how gaijin models it) would remain visible for the totality of the 30 second burntime of the motor within 10km, while the active radar seeker would trip the RWR out at 16km. The missile would also still be visible on radar due to gaijins frankly absurd modelling of the AIM-54’s RCS. Even with a reduced smoke motor, the missile would still give you tons of warning regarding its impending impact, it would simply allow the missile to be less visually visible at range, punish players who arent paying attention while flying at altitude, and would allow closer range shots to occur in a slightly more favorable fashion.
My argument regarding this statement remains the same; if the 65D, which is closer in size to the 54C than the 9M, and has limited/no proof of actually using a low smoke motor, gets to behave the same as the 9M, there is no reason why the 54C shouldn’t pending a rework of contrails and smoke mechanics in WT. This is an unnecessary nerf to an already niche and heavily nerfed missile with hyper limited usability in WT.
4 Likes
Did some further testing today, and I am now convinced the AIM-54C underperforms in speed by a fair margin.
Launch conditions:
Spoiler
My speed: 1524kph (~423.33m/s)
Closure rate near launch: 1013.4m/s
Launch aircraft speed: ~588.08m/s (M2.0)
Launch aircraft altitude = ~12000m
Kinematics at max closure rate:
Spoiler
My speed = 1600kph (~444.44m/s)
Closure rate = 1748.4m/s
AIM-54C peak speed = ~1303.96m/s (M4.42)
AIM-54C dV = ~715.88m/s
These launch conditions, which are borderline ideal , still do not permit the missile to reach Mach 5.0+ speeds, and represent a paltry total missile dV of ~715.88m/s. I don’t think the missile could ever reach the in-game coded max speed of 1800m/s it has, as its still 496.04m/s (M1.68) too slow, which is around 69% of the total dV it gained.
Missile impact kinematics:
Spoiler
Closure rate = 1575m/s
Aircraft speed = 1563kph (~434.17m/s)
AIM-54C speed = 1140.83m/s (M3.87)
This is aggravated considerably at lower altitudes and lower speed launches, such as those seen in WT.
Launch conditions:
Spoiler
My speed: 1265kph (~351.39m/s)
Closure rate near launch: 655.7m/s
Launch aircraft speed: ~304.31m/s (M1.0)
Launch aircraft altitude = ~9000m
Kinematics at max closure rate:
Spoiler
My speed = 1478kph (~410.56m/s)
Closure rate = 1326.1.1m/s
AIM-54C peak speed = ~915.54m/s (M3.02)
AIM-54C dV = ~611.23m/s
Missile impact kinematics:
Spoiler
Closure rate = 1058.6m/s
Aircraft speed = 1662kph (~461.67m/s)
AIM-54C speed = 596.93m/s (M1.97)
At these speeds, the warning time between the missile going active at 16km and impact was a whopping 14 seconds (3:09 launch warning time, 3:23 impact time) while flying directly at the missile, and I was ACCELERATING from M1.38 to M1.51 at impact.
Even these tested conditions are more ideal than those seen in a regular WT air RB match. 9000m altitude M1.0 co-altitude launches against M1.1 targets that continue to accelerate directly at your missile are unheard of unless the target is actually AFK.
Pretending the AIM-54C would be in some way “unbalanced” if it was given a low smoke motor when it gives you at minimum 15 seconds of warning under effectively any launch condition seen in WT air RB is laughable @Flame2512
The missile is embarrassingly slow, it can’t pull anywhere near what it should pull, and its seeker is more than likely also underperforming seeing as its a literal copy paste of the AIM-54A’s seeker in-game.
On a comparative note, the R-27ER’s irl peak speeds are;
5km alt, ~480m/s (M1.5) launch = 1400m/s
10km alt, ~600m/s (M2.0) launch = 1600m/s
15km alt, ~600m/s (M2.03) launch = 1800m/s
According to this graph:
So the AIM-54C, launched from M2.0(~588.08m/s) at 12km altitude in WT will NEVER reach the top speed of the R-27ER, launched from M1.5(480m/s) at 5km altitude in real life.
This is despite;
- The air density at 5000m being 2.37x higher at 5000m than at 12000m (0.73606kg/m^3 vs 0.31081kg/m^3), meaning the drag on the missile is ALSO 2.37x higher.
- Rocket motor performance INCREASES with altitude, which I dont believe is modelled in-game despite it being a very simple equation:
6 Likes
The drag index is much higher than that of the R-27ER.Considering that the max flight range of the R-27ER is 130 km.AIM-54 With 160km
You’re just proving my point lmao.
The R-27ER, which if we’re to believe WT, is both substantially faster AND substantially less draggy than the AIM-54C, has LESS range than the AIM-54C?
Of course the R-27ER has less drag than the AIM-54, its a smaller missile (260mm vs 380mm). That still wont make up for a 2.37x increase in drag AND reduced motor performance that the R-27ER would be incurring at 5000m vs the 12000m launches I tested.
Nvm the fact that with 30 seconds of burn time vs the ER’s 8 sec, the AIM-54C suffers the effects of base drag for a shorter period of time, or that drag increases with velocity squared, which means that for the ER to acheive higher speeds, it must push through even higher levels of drag.
Theres no good reason to suggest the ER, launched from over 100m/s lower launch speed than the 54C, at an altitude where its motor doesnt work as efficiently, and the air is 2.37x denser, would outspeed the 54C by around 100m/s.
The descrepency in velocity gained by both missiles is MASSIVE.
The 54C launched (ingame) at 12000m from ~588.08m/s(M2.0) only gained ~715.88m/s, while the ER launched from substantially less optimal conditions gained 920m/s? Thats a 28.5% increase in gained velocity in favor of the ER.
Thats not even saying the ER is too fast, thats aaying the 54C is too slow. The missile is know to acheive/surpass hypersonic speeds (M5.0) irl, but doesnt even get particularly close to Mach 5.0 at near optimal conditions. Considering drag increases with velocity squared, I woulsnt be suprised if doubling the 54C’s burntime ingame from 30sec to 60 sec still wouldnt allow it to acheive Mach 5.0. I think gaijins thrust numbers for the AIM-54’s motor are inadequate for it to ever reach the high speeds its known for.
The ER has every single advantage ingame besides launch and leave capability, and even then, the 54C is such a bad missiles ingame that it doesnt actually matter. The ER outperforms it in every way but range, and the range is irrelevant considering the combat ranges in WT anyways.
even if the Cd is the same for the missiles, then due to the area of the AIM-54 midsection, it will be worse.The EP is limited to a battery life of 60 seconds. Phoenix has no such problem. It already reaches 5M speed in the 1800m/s card.Both have a dual-mode engine
The ER is still limited to a minimum G and a minimum collision velocity with the target.Perhaps the Phoenix accelerates more slowly due to this it retains its energy longer
that is the speed of mach 4 , one mach is missing here , which is a massive amount of energy
1 Like
where is missing, what is the launch height as he determined max. speed? if you compare with the ER, then you need to be at the same heights
yeah
this is the rocket launch speed, not the maximum speed
it is as stated
With the range most players fire AIM-54s at I can’t remember the last time I saw the red diamond on an AIM-54.
But fair point on the RWR I probably didn’t consider that fully in my original comment.
Ultimately though there is no reason contrails shouldn’t be modelled in WT.
Do we have any idea what ballpark the RCS of the AIM-54 should be in? I agree it seems a bit overkill at the moment.
Approximately 0.02-0.03m2 if you’re talking about the rocket itself
Under those initial launch conditions
(10km alt mach 1.5)
Missile should be able to travel ~76nm in 158 seconds and reach a maximum altitude of > 100, 000 feet
Anyone know how to scrape data from missiles in-flight?
Its hard to actually compare the 54C’s max range with irl figures and actually get much of anything useful actually, reasons for that are multiple;
- WT uses a pretty rudimentary lofting mechanic
- WT doesnt have particularly dynamic missile characteristics (like increased thrust at higher alts or different drags for different stages of motor burn/burnout)
- Getting to the speeds/alts/distances specified in the image you are referring to takes a while and I didn’t have the patience, nor the exact image on hand, so we didn’t test the exact conditions specified
As an aside, the mix of the lofting mechanic being rudimentary in WT coupled with the lack of increase in thrust for rocket motors at altitude likely doesn’t help with the speed and speed retention of the missiles, and likely compound on each other. It would still be interesting to test if the 54C can reach the stated range in similar timeframe as specified in this though.
1 Like
In WT on code level max radar search/lock distance 93-97Km. We can’t repeat this launch
Players are obligated to fire the AIM-54As in WT at such ranges due to the simple fact that the only way you’re hitting anything with them is if they are AFK, or somehow didn’t clue into the missile being launched at them until it went active (and even then it should still be relatively easy to defeat, 15sec+ is a LOT of time). The massive contrails, subpar seeker and terrible maneuverability don’t exactly make this a threatening missile if you have any idea of what you’re doing, and the average player manages to avoid them by accident or by abusing multipath.
As an extra piece of info (you can choose to trust it or not, since its pilots word of mouth), by the end of the AIM-54’s career with the US, Top Gun was teaching to fire the AIM-54C either at/below 20 miles (considered a great shot) or from 30-40 miles (iirc, I cant find the source atm but ill post it when I can) against maneuvering targets. In WT by comparison, any shot where the 54C can be easily seen is a bad shot, and there’s basically no chance you’re getting a kill while the motor is still burning with a paltry 17g of pull and its mediocre seeker.
Never said contrails shouldn’t be modelled, but they should be modelled properly, and the AIM-54C doesn’t deserve to have its reduced smoke motor withheld pending gaijin actually doing so, seeing as other missiles already have their reduced smoke motors. Its an unfair and imbalanced implementation of the mechanic AGAINST the 54C.
Not exactly sure, but I can tell you its considerably smaller than any modern aircraft in-game with the missile only having a diameter of 380mm. I have a theory that all missiles RCS’ in WT are too high, which would explain (in part at least) why radar missiles get decoyed/pulled off course by other missiles rather easily.
We will probably get the Phoenix fix when they add more jets so its no longer relevant anymore. It will be strong in a tier but never top tier. Russian bias cant have that. Its the natural cycle of US equipment in WT:
Find Ways to Artificially nerf US tech on Dev > Continue to deny it should be buffed for reasons > Release new tier above tech > Oh yea you were right lets fix that > old tech gets buffed 7 patches later, but no one cares.
Im really shocked they decided to fix their borked F-16 flight model that the scabs here were saying was “fine and realistic.” Then again they had to add a jet from 2006 for the F-16 FM to be fixed. So its was probably more because they knew they were going overboard with bias.
4 Likes