The secondary source you cite says that the mk.60 is “functionally” the same.
The adjustments they’ve made on the linked patch notes has the missiles functioning pretty closely in final results. The mk.47 with the longer burn performs slightly better in short range engagements, and the mk.60 slightly better in very long range shots.
I’m curious what items you think they are so off base on, and whether that’s a function of poor research or ED’s failure to give Heatblur a custom API to properly implement the missile.
I know we’re focusing on getting an accurate version of this missile into WarThunder, but a lot of people have an impression that Heatblur’s implementation is pretty definitive. It might help if you pointed exactly where you think they are so off base and why.
will have a possibility of a changelog to change the burn time of aim-54A and its thrust, same as aim-54C, but with active seeker turn on if you don’t mid-course it?
And how works the ability to fire 6 phoenixes at 6 different targets at once?
I’ve done the same thing, ultimately does nothing for us because Gaijin adjusts thrust, burn time, and drag to meet the correct range figures on their own. They do not follow the exact numbers from sources regarding thrust and burn time so long as they can properly replicate the flight performance of the missile.
Outsider’s view of the AWG-9 / Phoenix document states the full-up and empty weights but knowing the actual weight of the propellant from other documents suggests that the information listed in outsider’s view is wrong. Either the pre-launch weight is incorrect, or the post-burn weight is incorrect. It is after all, a document focused on the discussion of what official sources are saying about the missile, how they differ, and what information is supposed to have been classified. I suspect the pre-launch weight of the AIM-54 is 12 pounds too heavy, and the post-burn weight is correct.
The AIM-54C however is still 100% wrong. That missile needs some love and I’m still very surprised it hasn’t been adjusted yet. I suspect big changes for it once other fox-3s start coming to the game.
So, what is right and wrong about we have about of aim-54 or need to search? lets make a list
aim-54A mk47 engine
weight of engine-???
engine thrust-???
burn time-???
some guidance proprieties
radar seeker range-???
how much need the missile to shift to the active seeker turn on if you abandon it?-???
resistance of ecm-???
how much of altitude can max loft-???
how good hit low-level targets-???
some guidance proprieties
radar seeker range-???
how much need the missile to shift to the active seeker turn on if you abandon it?-???
resistance of ecm-???
how much altitude can max loft-???
how good hit low-level targets-???
some different feature-???
aim-54C
weight of engine-???
engine thrust-???
burn time-???
some guidance proprieties
radar seeker range-???
how much need the missile to shift to the active seeker turn on if you abandon it?-???
resistance of ecm-???
how much of altitude can max loft-???
how good hit low-level targets-???
some differential feature-???
some guidance proprieties
radar seeker range-???
how much need the missile to shift to the active seeker turn on if you abandon it?-???
resistance of ecm-???
how much of altitude can max loft-???
how good hit low-level targets-???
some differential features-???
I tested the phoenixes a lot. Based on my experience, Gaijin coded the lofting trajectory in a way to allow the missile just to reach the target, instead of maximizing the energy to impact.
When the Aim-54A was buffed in the lofting and autopilot, I tested it with one of my friend. I shooted the missile from 100km (Radar can’t see further, limited by game detection ranges), and it lofted at about 15km Altitude (shooted it at mach 1, 8km altitude). My friend didn’t manouvre and got hit everytime. I tried again this scenario but this time I shooted from 50km away. The missile didn’t loft at all and reached my friend with the same energy of the 100km shot.
I have to admit, my knowledge of the Aim-54 flight attitude is limited to DCS ':). I know that that flight model is wrong in some way but it just make more sense than the one in war thunder. Can’t wait to see the Aim-54 capabilities when gaijin will maximize the energy to impact.
@MiG_23M I think you are right, Gaijin will probably buff it the moment other fox-3s are introduced
Pls someone could pass to me the datamines with all missile drag coeficient numbers? I want to know the coeficient drag of skyflash super temp and aim7F and others ones.
And i have a question? What mean wing area multipllier? What it do in missile performance?
You actually don’t disprove my point… " AIM-54A has no beam aspect acquisition"
Key word being acquisition. Acquisition is not tracking its a very specific process where the missile is trying to place the tracking speed gate onto the target. Acquisition would have difficulties yes especially in lookdown over land. As the speed gate won’t be able to clearly establish itself on the target.
But tracking is a different ball game. Tracking even beam targets in HPRF is possible but its reliant on good S/N which is possible in look down in some situations. If over the water or your close enough that the targets side or top/bottom on returns overpower the ground returns. Also not an issue in look up as the near 0 doppler returns from the sidelobes will have great difficulty in competing against the target when side on which will be in the main lobe. Would be worse if the missile is at low altitudes. This is relevant for targets that try to defeat the missile by getting into the 0 doppler return clutter, ‘nothcing’.
