Man that would be great
If anyone can record a War Thunder test reproducing the real Navy AIM-54 long-range scenario as closely as possible, I can use the footage and results to write a full report.
1 Like
Another images of AIM-54 guidance sequence
From what can be seen in this image, it seems the missile doesn’t receive guidance from the AWG-9 from the moment of launch until the end of its loft phase, but instead flies according to a programmed flight profile.
If the AWG-9 were to lose track of the target during the loft phase, the missile would literally go into space, just like DCS.
9 Likes
It wouldn’t go to space, the preprogrammed autopilot tells it how high it it needs to loft. That just means that it doesn’t change heading to correct for the target’s maneuvers while it’s climbing; In game terms It starts flight in IOG, switches to DL once it reaches the apex of the climb, switches to active seeker within 16 to 20 km of the target.
2 Likes
Because reports were getting denied due to sourcing planned capability, I made a new report: Community Bug Reporting System
2 Likes
It’s cruel because even if in game it doesn’t work they will tell you it’s in the code of the game. Meanwhile they rejected the range discrimination report because they don’t want to check the code of the game. Actual psychological torture lol
4 Likes
What is the purpose of the distance gate added to the fakour and apparently missing from the phoenix?
I read that it helps against chaff? notching? Both?
Helps against notching and makes it less likely for the missile to switch to different target midway, so less likely for the missile to waste energy to reposition itself and less risk of friendly fire incidents.
3 Likes
I feel saying just beam aspect capability will just get it marked as not a bug. I think the lack of range discrimination part should be addressed, which in turn will improve beam aspect capability. I think currently it can technically already do beam aspect, but only if it has high enough SCNR, basically when super close to the target.
Anyways, on the lack of range discrimination report, you can show that easily like this:
AIM-54:
can not separate in range, therefore simply goes for the highest RCS target, which overpowers the longer range target.
AIM-120:
can separate in range, therefore even though closer target has higher return signal, with same closure rate, original target can be tracked because the targets are separated in range.
In this case, target separation is 5km and launched on the rear target (such that the tracking gate is set on that target).
11 Likes
It might be worth trying the range-discrimination report again if we can include a video reproducing the real test scenario. It would also improve the beam-aspect behaviour.
For beam-aspect behavior, the problem is that it seems to be implemented only through generic Doppler-gate/seeker logic, which makes the argument much harder. Gaijin can always fall back on the “to what degree?” move, which tends to kill reports unless we can point to a very specific missing mechanic or value. Improvements they could do would be better sidelobe attenuation/sensitivity, or adjustments to seeker rateMax and prolongationTimeMax, but those are harder to argue without exact values.
4 Likes
I feel this is probably the best way to go forward, as range discrimination (as also noted in one of the source documents) is the cause for improved beam aspect capability. So best case scenario is that Gaijin just adds their generic range discrimination code to the AIM-54C (and C+), which in turn will improve beam aspect capability to whatever it will perform like then in-game.
Now idk who the moderator is that closed the original report for it, who responded only with the need for in-game proof here: Community Bug Reporting System. Because I think it’s best to try reopen that one with in-game footage to demonstrate to prevent spam, because the amount of same-ish reports is not really helping imo, and that one is probably the closest one to being accepted (as far as the moderator’s comment is the only problem).
1 Like
Yeah, I’ll probably submit another report tomorrow. It would be nice to find another test scenario that makes the lack of range discrimination harder to dismiss, since Gaijin might argue that the issue is just the quality or width of the range gate, not that range discrimination is missing entirely.
The navy has specific locations to test their missiles, among other things, and it turns out the government asked for them to produce a report on the environmental effects of their testing on the vast sea . Mostly worthless bureaucracy, but since they tested phoenix missiles they also had to define a safety area to for vessels to avoid unless they are willing to risk getting bombed by a stray missile.
The safety area for the phoenix missile is 49 nautical miles long, and according to statshark, the ingame version would strugle to get anywhere near that perimeter in a ballistic trajectory:
even after adding extra flight time to let it hit the ground (gain becomes zero after 160 seconds), and increasing the thrust to 15000 N to match the thrust/altitude formula in the code for 7000 meters, you can see that it falls short of the distance the navy calculated it could reach if it went out of control despite it gliding all the way to the ground instead of following a ballistic trajectory. You need more lofting (30º) and either a bit more thrust or less drag to possibly reach that far… Compare the size of the phoenix safety area with the one for the aim-9, aim-7.
Also not sure if it was linked to before, but the test footage of the 6 phoenixes vs 6 targets is cool.
6 Likes
Yeah but as i said in my post im firing it above 9km with a launching speed of mach 1.6
The missile itself hits a peak speed of mach 4 and then once the motor shuts down it rapidly slows down and cant reach ranges ive done on live with the current missile either
3 Likes
I would imagine that 49 miles is an overcalculation just to be sure
We should definitely make a report for 30 degree loft
Those range safety diagrams always include a fairly significant safety factor, it is not saying the missile will actually reach 49 nautical miles
Updated with more sources in the comments @SwedenD. I think you should add them to the report itself as mods tend to ignore commented evidence.
4 Likes
