We wouldn’t need to clarify nonsense so often if you’d stop posting it.
The AIM-54 misinformation you post was bad enough, Western equipment enthusiasts were posting misinformation about the R-27 in here (Ziggy & Co) and that had to be dispelled. The topic carried on despite multiple efforts on the Ru enthusiasts side trying to bring it to the relevant thread.
To put us back on topic, we could certainly discuss the capabilities of the AIM-54 to do some similar passive guidance such as home-on-jam. I wonder what the difference between HOJ and anti-radiation guidance is? (In relation to effectiveness vs fighter sized targets).
My understanding is that if a target is jamming, it has a constant emission in whatever radar band the launching radar + attacking missile use. So as long as the target keeps jamming, all the hardware needed to detect the signal is already there for active homing. So it probably just changes the guidance profile since it has elevation+azimuth data but no distance data. Like a heat seeker but with radar.
Actual anti-rad is more sophisticated since it has systems for distance calculation, proper inertial guidance, etc. And it can guide onto more bands.
There are some jamming systems that instead of directing the beam onto a target, bounce it off the ground so that it then hits the target. This is one of the early forms of countering HOJ, so it will probably not work against systems that were designed with that reflection method in mind.
Also, if you have a library of known radars and their mode-power-range correlations, you could probably do an estimate of how far away the emitter is. But this is again fairly modern, as on top of all the guidance electronics, you will also need a device to recognize those emissions.
Yeah, especially for a 1970’s era missile I don’t think any of these are a concern though. Maybe for AMRAAM but sensor integration has gotten so good now that aircraft probably have the ability to trace the bounced jamming signals and fire against them with the standard datalink/ARH guidance. Even if one craft/AWACS is getting jammed all the others should still have a good signal/track right? Even F14s equipped with link 4C should have some amount of counterplay even without useful HOJ capability
Relative to the question you asked in the previous thread;
No there are no conditions that I have tested where the AIM-54C reaches M5.0, nor are there any situations I can imagine in WT where the AIM-54C gets anywhere near its stated max speed of 1800m/s.
That being said, I have not tested any launch conditions above M2.0 at 12000m+ because setting that shot up in the first place is already tedious, and Mach speed remains constant for a while beyond 12000m.
In a regular WT game, I don’t think there’s any conditions where the AIM-54C even hits M4.0 quite frankly. As can be seen in my testing, at a relatively realistic (although somewhat generous) M1.0 launch at 9000m (you probs wont be launching under these conditions unless you’re on one of the real EC maps) the AIM-54C tops out at a measly ~915.54m/s(M3.02), just over half its top speed of 1800m/s in the code.
Mach 2.5 launch at 9000m should net a top speed of mach 5 at ~9000m, if it lofts it should be capable of mach 6.1 when the missile is around 18,000m or 60,000 feet.
I also did a M1.0 test at 6000m and iirc it peaked at like M2.3 or something stupid low, I cant remember the exact peak speed tho for that test, ill have to check if i have footage still to give you accurate numbers.
It can’t in-game, I’m not certain how easy it was to do in real life. It’s just a calculation based on the total impulse of the missile and the drag coefficients.
Dont think so, struggles to even hit Mach 2.0, and thats with min fuel (unlimited fuel in a custom battle so as to speed things up) and only 2 AIM-54’s
It almost certainly couldn’t. Highest ‘maximum speed’ i’ve seen is mach 2.3 something. Even then you would probably run out of fuel trying to burn to mach 2.5
