Actually, I think this is not bad. DCS Studio once used the “most accurate” data to make a completely incorrect missile.
1 Like
Their AIM-120 and AIM-54 are still incorrect, despite more accurate data that is currently available.
Regarding my propellant weight report…
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.
2 Likes
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-???
Aim-54A mk 60 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 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-???
aim-54C eccm/sealed- (possible f-14D addition)
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 features-???
We have most of that information. There are only small discrepancies with AIM-54A. AIM-54C is mostly incorrect.
2 Likes
If you agree let give a force to go
and usa can also receive the VTAS III (AN/AVG-8B) hmd, the issue is, what about other countries?
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?
In response to the below post can’t tag him since he hasn’t posted here but hopefully he sees my response
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’.
3 Likes
when the aim-54 changes of engine and smokless engine will be apply?
Probably never, seeing as gaijin seems to have a bone to pick with the AIM-54, F-14, and western tech in general.
4 Likes
Likely next major update or sometime after this major update during the “It’s Fixed!” imo.
1 Like
did you see that? Mig-29 will get a 90-degree notching BVR radar?
I heard something about that this morning, which is interesting news. I believe they might be trying to give AIM-120 to some other nations and leave Russia with the R-27ER… the exception being the Yak-141 which may receive only 2x R-77 in the future. We’ll see if this assumption is correct or not.
One of the potential buffs coming to the AIM-54 is combined plane overload. I believe the missile is forced to use bank-to-turn maneuvering guidance in terminal (active phase) to efficiently hit a target and thus would be capable of a maximum overload of 25G at all times once it is pitbull. Stuff like this may be put off until other fox-3s arrive though (if they’re even considering this).
1 Like
my tatic is fire aim-54, crank falling my plane and go away and missile goes pitbull and him loses the lock, i think the f-14 should receive the VTAS III (AN/AVG-8B), and the f-14A the aim-9l, because the aim-9g/h is kinda worthless in top tier, a new br i think will be needed.
i made a forum of this topic
and a guy made a video of it
Not only does it get a full 180° azimuth radar, it has the smallest notch width at a tiny 24 m/s. The MiG-29 SMT has the best radar in-game (by FAR) the best radar missile in-game (by FAR), the best IR missile in-game, and top 5 flight models. Good thing I’m quitting air RB with this idiotic patch instead of continuing to play this clown balancing game.
Gaijin wasnt even gonna add the 9M until massive outrage got them to reconsider lmao.
1 Like
the RDY, APG-66, APG-68, APG-76, APG-65 have smaller notch widths of 20m/s assuming youre going with the doppler speed width value in the code, all of them also have the same 40m/s main beam notch width APG-68/65/RDY are still overall better than the N010M
well，I have a question. What is AIM-54 seeker is using Illumination signal when it enter the active?I mean active radar activation. It HPRF either or CW？Then, I heard that missiles guided by HPRF have accuracy issues. If AIM54 uses PD HPRF, how did they solve it?