Okay, so I’m wrong then until further information comes out. Thanks
Thats an apg 70(f15), not 71.
If fired under optimal conditions, they should be reaching targets at Mach 3-4, thats more than enough energy to pull more than a single “good” pull…
Atm their rather trash though. R-27ER will outspeed them at any range the R-27ER can actually reach (which is… questionable), the AIM-54C pulls less than it should, its seeker is worse than it should be as well, its missing smokeless motor, and its probably the worst affected missile by the current proxy fuse issues.
I’m also fairly certain the R-27ER has a better seeker, granted I’m not 100% clear on some of these lines of code:
But what I do know is the 54C will miss a target with a slight offset from purely head on relatively often (even while fully supported all the way to the target), and the R-27ER is almost guaranteed to track you through any and all maneuvers beyond heavy chaffing + notching + ground clutter.
I should have a couple clips of the 54C’s atrocious performance with tracking anything that isn’t purely head on when i get back home, but in the meantime, enjoy this clip of a direct hit vs a MiG-29 leaving it still airworthy (this happened more than once)
https://streamable.com/r0qvha
Whats the reason all this technical stuff on the F-14A and B still classified? Is it because of of Iran?
Its cuz it was a really advanced jet and some of the stuff it used or pioneered are likely still in use today.
Also likely because they are trying to prevent any and all info going to Iran that could help them with the F-14A’s, seeing as, though Iran CLAIMS a LOT of things about their F-14A’s, we only have evidence of them actually using old US missiles from when they were sold (AIM-9P’s, AIM-7E-2’s, Hawk, AIM-54A)
AWG-9 and APG-71 share components. APG-71 is basically the unholy offspring of the F-15E’s APG-70 (an absolutely tremendous radar by all accounts) and the AWG-9.
Afaik, the APG-71 is basically a more long range and air to air focused version of the APG-70. the 70 and 71 share something like more than 75% of major components.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t consider the Pheonix a faultless missile. It’s my perception that some accuracy issues are due to some not correcting the guidance midflight. I can only share my observation on what has been effective to increase the chances of a kill. This by no means is trying to undermine the issues it currently has.
Yeah, there are def ways to improve pK% with it, granted as I mentioned, this major update has basically killed it. I went from a roughly 50-75% hitrate with the missile all the way down to probs a sub 10% hit rate, and im not the only player that has mentioned this observation. I suspect, as previously mentioned) that its largely due to the fusing issue affecting the AIM-54 more than any other missiles in-game.
This clip is from a year ago
Without the ability to pre-designate targets for each missile as you would in real life, in War Thunder you can only update the datalink track for the last missile fired. So in that video if I had ‘soft-locked’ another target to ‘update the guidance’ it would just confuse the second/last missile fired to which target it is meant to be tracking.
That has not been my experience, I have been able to independently guide Pheonixes to the intended targets and can verify what they are doing based on their smoke trails. I can make a video to back up my claims if required, but I have obeserved that the missile will stay on its selected target when fired in salvos as long as the target is highlighted “soft-locked” again at some point. I will double check as well to make sure when I return home.
At least in DCS, the VDI on the F-14 shows you which targets have been selected in TWS by having them flash. So whever gaijin decides to rework TWS functionality i hope they add some sort of way to know if that target is selected in TWS and can be fired upon.
You have remember that the Phoenixes can self guide themself with inertial navigation, so as long as the target doesn’t change course too much when it gets within 10-15 miles it will start tracking itself via the onboard radar. If you have video evidence of the contrary I would like to see it.
https://youtu.be/wsSpRzSA4fM?si=JYidMCSoc_NfJJTu this is for refrence. From what ive seen the general functions of the AWG-9 in DCS are pretty accurate.
Yeah theres a definite difference between guidance from ING and guidance from actual TWS(the data about the targets spped/location)
I know about their INS and terminal guidance but I thought we were talking about datalink and their mid-flight updates to INS. Specifically I haven’t experienced this problem:
This is what I haven’t experienced issues with, I have been able to use DL on all missiles fired.
I was only able to test against one player target in such short notice, but two missiles fired against the same target, and then reacquiring the soft-lock after the target diverted course caused both missiles to update their datalink tracking. Will try more targets later and report findings also.
Speaking of TWS, anyone know why in WT, a radar in TWS gets velocity information only after a second pass on a target (on a first pass you get a circle, on a second pass you get a circle with the velocity vector)? Is this realistic?
Also, why is it that sometimes looking at a furball some targets will suddenly show up with some while velocity readings? Like, you see it fly at you with a mildly sized vector, then suddenly (for one scan period) the velocity suddenly jumps to like double or triple in value and points in a completely random direction.
Lastly, why does the pipper sometimes jump on a different target than selected? At first, I thought that it might be when you have two targets that are close to each other in distance/velocity/angle, but I noticed it happened in cases where the selected target was flying directly at me with a different target (that the pipper jumps to) at a completely different location.
Speaking of TWS, anyone know why in WT, a radar in TWS gets velocity information only after a second pass on a target (on a first pass you get a circle, on a second pass you get a circle with the velocity vector)? Is this realistic?
This is normal, it needs see the ‘difference’ in two locations to calculate the speed and direction.
Also, why is it that sometimes looking at a furball some targets will suddenly show up with some while velocity readings? Like, you see it fly at you with a mildly sized vector, then suddenly (for one scan period) the velocity suddenly jumps to like double or triple in value and points in a completely random direction.
That may be missiles being fired and caught by the radar.
Is it how it actually gets the velocity information though? I thought it just took some more time on target to process the Doppler return and other stuff. Though maybe it is not enough for the direction.
I think so too, but it does not explain the wildly different vector direction and size (I have seem some quite a bit bigger than a terminal phoenix)