Hey, could you maybe flag/hide/remove all the R-27 post as off topic instead of contributing to it? Its been about a day now where the whole convos been about the R-27 and its getting annoying, particularly since other ppl have been abusing the flagging system to remove any post they dont like thats still on-topic
3 Likes
Its not the mods, the pro-russian players love abusing the post flagging system and the mods never really do anything to punish them. Its really not that uncommon
4 Likes
Theres a lot of NATO S/ARH (such as the AIM-54 iirc) that have home on jam, which is technically passive tracking
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.
1 Like
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
1 Like
For all of you who use the radar with target cycling set to off:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/6D7Q7Au0q8Pp
This should help with choosing the proper targets and moving the scan zone
1 Like
I swear we need a general hughes missile thread
Anywho yeah AIM-54 underperforming dramatically
(Lofting discussion here)
Range was claimed at 125 miles in several sources, which seems likely a limit based on guidance time rather than actual kinematic performance.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1156738488016830547/image.png?ex=65306e2a&is=651df92a&hm=1a36f3cf88f3a2036f467efc04790b3768eac544e874d55097c64573f5353277&
Ah, that sounds about right.
Even then, pretty similar to the chart
(Which is also an AIM-54a)
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.
ouch!
wow, yeah that’s pretty bad.
This is somewhat accurate behavior iirc, while diving from its loft it was very good at maintaining between Mach 2 and 3.
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.
Here’s the detailed breakdown of 2 of my tests: The AIM-54 Phoenix missile - Technology, History and Performance - #388 by MythicPi
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.
If its even within the ballpark of 2.3 that’s horrendously bad.
Can the F-14B even do mach 2.5 IRL or in-game?
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