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.
Have you even played the 29 or are you talking from your ass, seriously
R-27ERs have inferior range because their battery life is only 60 seconds they simply cannot fly further than 130km because of this.
AIM-54 on the other end does not have this battery limitation and is purely limited by kinematics
AIM-54 is battery limited at extreme ranges, its longest-range recorded shot was 158 seconds time in flight iirc
130km it’s kinematic range
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
The speed of the carrier is 2.05M. The target should move at a speed of about 1100km/h
As a final tidbit from this claimed AIM-54 test engineer, regarding the 54C’s seeker:
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.
What was I being tagged for?
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
Directional warhead not in the same way as a HEAT warhead.
If you read the claim, the blast cone is directed towards the target.
This is the patent for it from the looks of it:
Fits the approximate timeframe, the company, and supports the claim.
the concept is the same ,
maximize force on a single or multiple projectile to maximize the damage of said projectile
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
Re-watching the vid I think it’s quite clear it is no different than the AIM-54A style.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1159903229912551534/Top_Guns__The_Documentary_7-45_screenshot.png?ex=6532b70f&is=6520420f&hm=c2bbd9d5df1471277d71e52f22e62355fabfe36914d893443c461556ca037d2a&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1159903485697990767/Top_Guns__The_Documentary_7-46_screenshot.png?ex=6532b74c&is=6520424c&hm=a5c4b9768080da318ece454ce31a71f761ef860c4d3e0d5a14f6161532cfda2c&
AIM-54C entered service in the early 80s, that patent is in the 90s. If they were just discovering this at that time, it is highly unlikely it was applied to the AIM-54C since 1984.
I do also think the fact that the person claiming to be an ex AIM-54 test and development engineer stated the WDU-29 is a directional warhead, despite this being (afaik) not written anywhere obvious, is a very good sign regarding this persons claimed experience with the missile and credibility.
This is hyper specific info about an obscure subsection of a relatively rare, and still largely classified missile, that happens to line up with a patent from the correct company around the correct time period?
Seems like more than a simple coincidence to me
1 Like
Clearly not a directional warhead as seen in test footage.
The patent and documentation is almost 10 years after the missile was in service.
This is why your complaints are not being taken seriously.
you can not see the effect , as the solids with speeds of Mach what-ever or faster can not be seen with human eyes , specially from a 360i VHS video
1 Like
You just claimed to have seen the effect? In any case, the blast is apparently not being focused in any specific direction. What happens if the contact fuse is set off? Does it focus the blast forwards or does it do blast-fragmentation as expected of earlier models?
There is nothing to go off of here, and his own evidence seems to discredit the claim and shows us they would not have applied this technology to the production missile made a decade earlier than the patent.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1159906002502680606/Gruman_F-14_Tomcat_Phoenix_Missile_Test_Six_on_Six_Awesome_Multiple_Missile_Launches_1-39_screenshot.png?ex=6532b9a5&is=652044a5&hm=3fe201e7bd497bd4d3ba9c37e98a8cdeee20bf6e34a6f9152333fa594a457001&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1159906002150379550/Gruman_F-14_Tomcat_Phoenix_Missile_Test_Six_on_Six_Awesome_Multiple_Missile_Launches_1-39_screenshot_1.png?ex=6532b9a4&is=652044a4&hm=b53e0c8aeca809787273039207cbbbcb5611f9445fd67a5f050a6c92ec64267d&
I think what you are seeing is just the fact that the missile was traveling in the direction it was going at a high rate of speed and the cone of the “focused blast” is actually just the result of it’s momentum and motion. Nothing more. Above is AIM-54A.