Turns out there is no speed cap.
The speed cap doesn’t matter because it has a metric load of drag which has it lose double the velocity it gains while the motor is active. (while falling)
It’s too slow in basically every way. It’s just too much drag.
It will never hit 4.3, especially since the F-14 itself can’t hit the proper mach 2.3 speed, capping out at about 2.01 at height, after a full fuel load of climbing and accelerating.
2 Likes
There is, but its not a hardcoded thing. Seems to be an engine limitation for ehich at a certain speed range, it becomes realistically impossible for a missile to go any faster in-game.
Spoiler
There’s a few noteworthy things that can be identified from these graphs:
The AIM-54C is hit brutally hard by the missing AAT due to its larger motor area (~0.11m^2) compared to the AIM-120A (~0.025m^2), with the largest difference between AAT and in-game thrust being M1.5 for the AIM-54C (at 10 000m) and M0.43 for the AIM-120A (at 14 000m).
The AIM-54C’s AAT peak velocity runs into what appears to be an in-game issue/limitation above 10000m altitude. Between roughly 5400-5500kph, missiles struggle immensely to accelerate, which is why the AIM-54C’s AAT peak velocity breaks from its trend and flattens out above 10000m. If this “wall” did not exist, it would likely continue following the trend.
This “wall” does not appear to be a function of drag, altitude, missile dimensions, coded speed limit, or any other variable I can identify, and seems to be an issue with the game itself.
War Thunder Hypersonic Research Institute (ie: Testing The Wall):
I did some testing specifically regarding “The Wall”, in which I tested what it would take to go beyond it. Here are some of the results:
AIM-54C “GO FASTER”:
Thrust : 50000N, dragCx : 0.018 → 0.08, launch conditions : 14km M2.8.
Results: unable to surpass “The Wall”, tops out around 5489kph before dropping like a rock back down to the ~5400-5410kph range BEFORE motor burnout:
AIM-120A “Basicly Zeus’ Lightning Bolt At This Point” :
Thrust: 100000N, Motor burn time : 30 sec, dragCx : 0.018 → 0.08, launch conditions : 14km M2.8. Max speed : 1500m/s → 1800m/s
Results : Missiles thrust is so excessive, it immediately breaks M5.0 leaving the rail, and takes ~5.8 seconds to go from 5400kph up to 5500kph. Once cleared of 5500kph, it begins RAPIDLY accelerating, increasing from 5500kph to its 6480kph speed limit in 14.5 seconds.
From a 4000m launch, both missiles once again hit the 5400kph mark and struggled to go any faster as well, suggesting it is not realistic drag imposed speed limit, nor is it a thrust limitation, but a game modeling one gaijin will need to fix:
4 Likes
How did you test this? In a custom? That’s why, live matches have different limits. Which is why fakour 90 and co can hit Mach 6 nearly.
1 Like
Yeah was a custom, I’ve never actually seen anyone post the F90’s hitting M6.0 in sensor view so im not sure if it can actually hit the speeds you claim.
Casual hypersonic activities, i never knew anything could do it in wt tbh
1 Like
No luck so far, maybe others could try doing a media request and we might get something
How do you do that and what was it for again?
Go on to the official Raytheon website and scroll down until you find a media request contact to email to. It’s for getting more information about the AIM-54 and it’s variants, and providing official information to compare to the ones we already have now in our possession and maybe force Gaijin to implement changes.
Found something that hasn’t been talked about in a while. Alongside the countless sources stating Mach 5 for the Phoenix, the Aim-54C model apparently had a directional warhead.
I believe @MythicPi found an earlier source about the directional blast warhead on the Aim-54C, so knowing that wasn’t a dead end is nice.
2 Likes
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.
Nice finds. Looks like this guy was right.
3 Likes
Considering all air to air missiles in warthunder all use the same warhead type, this won’t really affect anything.
Now if @MythicPi has sources about “aimable” or “directional” warhead that’s different
But “controlled fragmentation” doesn’t mean “aimable” warhead
Controlled fragmentation basically means you cut grooves into the metal to create weak points and control where it will break
What you are talking about is called “Aimable Warhead”.
“Controlled Fragmentation” is just a fancy name for pre-cut grooves (rather than fill a pipe with explosives and wish for the best, i.e. “Natural Fragmentation”):
Spoiler
Tactical Missile Warheads J. Carleone 1993 Volume 155 Progress in Astronautics & Aeronautics
Seems like continuous rod warheads eventually fell out of favor, due to their poor performance against aerial targets, especially at non-ideal angles:
Tactical Missile Warheads J. Carleone 1993 Volume 155 Progress in Astronautics & Aeronautics:
Spoiler
@MiG_23M @SE_8749236 Also, seems like due to the poor performance of the continuous rod warhead on the AIM-54A, they went with a fragmentation warhead for the C model:
Spoiler
http://danida.vnu.edu.vn/cpis/files/Encyclo_All/Encyclopedia%20of%20Modern%20US%20Military%20Weapons.pdf
Likewise, SM-1 used continuous rod warhead, but SM-2 switched to “controlled fragmentation” warhead:
Spoiler
At first I though “Controlled fragmentation” means aimable warhead, but seems like it’s just another fancy name for a regular fragmentation warhead with pre-cut grooves:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5157225A/en
What all missiles do have proper aimable warheads? I know the AAM-4 and 5 have warheads which can be aimed in 4 quadrants based on their proximity fuze and a multi-detonator system, but im not sure which other ones have it.
Basically every western missile post AIM-54C
Continuous expanding rods are still fairly common, and most that are fragmentation are “controlled” like the 54C’s, not proper directional systems.
Yeah no. The pictures of the actual detonation show very clearly it is a directional detonation, and not just the preformed shrapnel pattern.