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.
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.
The more info we find on the AIM-54C, the more we realize its underperforming. For current known or strongly suspected issues we have:
Underperforming in max pull (17G instead of 25G is a 32% loss in max pull)
More than likely underperforming in max speed by a fair margin (stated max speed is in excess of M5.0, 1800m/s coded in-game should be enough for that and theoretically would allow it to match the R-27ER, but I literally cant think of any scenario where you could actually get it to hit 1800m/s, nvm a game relevant scenario)
Missing a reduced smoke motor
Multipath is excessive (granted this affects all radar missiles to some degree)
Seeker lacks the precision for stream raid capability, struggling with multiple targets nearby each other
Seeker lacks NCTR (gaijin doesnt “think” “An ability to identify targets by individual characteristics through pre-stored computer simulations” is NCTR, or that NCTR would even be on a missile, or that NCTR would be useful on a missile, because I totally cant think of a situation where being able to identify the specific target its locked to would be help, such as, oh idk, acting as another feature preventing the missile from being decoyed or transferring lock to a different target…)
Seeker lacks dogfight mode (or active off-rail) increasing the time required for an engagement at closer ranges (not that it currently matters since the low pull, low speed and bad seeker make the missile terrible in WVR shots despite all evidence to the contrary irl.
Struggles with beam aspect targets
All of these points are either contested by gaijin devs, or being outright ignored by gaijin devs. Its clear that the AIM-54C will NEVER match its irl capabilities when the devs themselves contest sources because they don’t “think” a capability mentioned in documentation is “realistic” or have “no idea” how one of its irl capabilities is relevant to its function as a weapon.
Its being deliberately mismodelled and no amount of bug reports will fix this, because its being modelled based on the devs opinions instead of facts. Even if it EVER gets buffed, which I quite frankly doubt at this point, it will never be relevant. Just a bad gimmick on 2, maybe 3 aircrafts in WT (if they ever bother adding the F-14D, which they’ll likely completely butcher anyways and copy paste the AWG-9 for the AN/APG-71 and say they “don’t see how major upgrades to most components and a switch to an all digital system would improve the radars capabilities” just like they did with the 54C’s seeker.
This is worst than talking to a wall, this is like trying to help someone with a project while they spend their whole time gaslighting you about the meaning of very obvious source material with specific performance metrics and/or capabilities outlined.
It wouldn’t even be so bad if they said something like “we understand the AIM-54 is underperforming, but this is a deliberate modelling decision as we believe it would be unbalanced”, but they cant even admit that if that’s their real justification, not that its even a good justification when the R-27ER outmatches it in literally every single metric that matters in WT…
Trash like this is why I don’t even waste my time bug reporting anymore.
Quite frankly, it would be comical if it wasn’t so infuriating.
I haven’t tested much, but the rocket engine for the Me163 maintains the same thrust to a point where I actually gain speed during a steady climb after about 12,000ft due to lower drag. Overall, the missile feels too slow in acceleration although I can’t support or accurately describe why.
Interesting info (tho atm seems to be word of mouth from an unverified AIM-54 test engineer);
The new WDU-29warhead on the AIM-54C, replacing the Mk82 continuous rod warhead, was a directional entrainment blast warhead, and would concentrate the majority of the blast directly towards the target as the AIM-54C neared it.
This would explain why the WDU-29 is stated as having a higher lethal range than the Mk82 despite it having a slightly lower warhead weight, and also explains why the AIM-54C had increased capabilities in high clutter environments such as near the surface.
Granted this is simply a claim (and I will be looking into getting official documents to back it up) this would increase the AIM-54C’s fusing range from the current 20m seen in-game, to at least 30m(100ft) if true)
And this lil tidbit indicating it could reach speeds of Mach 6:
AND, as an incredibly interesting coincidence, 1800m/s (coded top speed in-game) corresponds to roughly Mach 6.1 at/above 40 000ft. So theoretically, the AIM-54C COULD achieve this stated speed in WT, if their wasn’t something wrong with its speed…
130km is maximum launch range at very high altitude (20km) at a very high launch speed against a very fast target
kinematic range is likely around 170km since thats the max range estimated for the R-27EM which was planned to use the same motor but has an improved seeker/battery
Its seeker is claimed to be frequency agile, and operate over a “wider range of frequencies” than the 54A’s.
As stated tho, grain of salt, I can’t verify if this is actually an AIM-54 test engineer yet. Its just interesting, specific, and very detailed info, so itd be a little odd if it was just some random person, but who knows.
AIM-54C warhead doesn’t focus the blast in any specific direction as seen from this 1984 footage… pretty bad for the credibility of this “AIM-54 test engineer”
Maybe if you attached some sources to the bottom and links we’d be able to actually verify whether or not you have sufficient information for them to pass these issues along.
Instead, we’ve got a very unhelpful rant. You’re also stuck on “NCTR” which I really don’t think it’s capable of.
i think it does, as you can see , explosions go around and not forward , which means the head is not explosive but solid .
you can see such effects on HEAT warheads also
this is also another one :
video is timed , i don’t mean the vampire system here
Kinda? HEAT warheads use a blast wave to form a shaped charge penetrator with a very directional effect.
Directional Warhead just concentrates the blast cone towards an Area, likely so as to improve range and concentrate damage.
Now I need to find definite proof linking the WDU-29 to the claim and the patent. Cuz god knows gaijin wont accept anything less than a signed letter from the CEO of Raytheon, the lead Engineer of the AIM-54, and both Vladimir Putin and the President of the United States before they consider implementing this, and even then, there’s a good to fair chance they call them all idiots and claim the warhead is filled with marshmallows
