ah. Also I hate mach as a speed measurement agh
It almost certainly couldn’t. Highest ‘maximum speed’ i’ve seen is mach 2.3 something. Even then you would probably run out of fuel trying to burn to mach 2.5
Yeah, thats why in the test post I used m/s while indicating what Mach that is for ppl to get an idea.
915m/s sounds really fast for a missile until you realize its only M3.0 and is only half the missiles coded top speed
Has the speed specifically been bug-reported? (Might also help with maximum pull and short-range capabilities)
Not that I know of, and as I’ve previously stated, I no longer bug report, since gaijin handling of bug reports has proven to me I’m just wasting my time doing so.
As i’ve previously said, it takes a long time and a lot of effort to make a good bug report, and even if it gets acknowledged, which can be difficult if you run into one of the mods that have a tendency of making… questionable… judgments regarding bug reports, theres a good chance the bug will persists for years before gajin decides to fix it. If they ever decide to.
Good example of this is the begleitpanzer 57 which famously took something like 4 years to get a stabilizer despite literally all sources regarding it stating it had one, and it making no logical sense for it no to in the first place.
rgr, imma see if I can figure out how to use the CDK and then try to post something
When I inquired I was informed that there are internal reports for the motor performance, as well as the overload and range, etc.
Huh, well despite everything we think is wrong with it, I just made the shot in-game in about the right parameters. (Though with 54C’s)
115 standard miles (only 100nm) mach 1.5 against mach 1.5 at their perspective altitudes, and the missile hit 135 seconds
1 Like
Not perfect because i’m a CDK noob, but here’s the recreation
(Also lol at TWS not working beyond 115 miles for some reason)
Edit: Confirmed identical on F-14A and AIM-54A as expected
1 Like
Well, as I said the performance of the motor is almost on point already. The higher the altitude, the less you’ll notice the excessive drag on the missile.
@MythicPi A launch at M1.1 at 31k ft. The max speed I get for the Phoenix A is around Mach 3.7( 1097m/s) at 45.6 kft.
What can be tried is to integrate the green curve to find the distance travelled. A rough curve can be set. But I’m lazy so I’ll eye ball. There are 20 ull squares +1 (t 0->20,M1->3)+2.5 for the rest. Mach one at 45kft and above is 295 m/s. So 138,650m= 74.7Nautical Miles.
This distance includes the loft trajectory.
Doing a bit more than napkin math, by End of burn missile alt is 90kft and at 77s(where it reaches highest point) its at 110-120kft. Down range distance in the NASA chart is less that the max distance here
It can be argued that its missing velocity… Not enough downrange distance and the missile’s peak altitude was lower(assuming it’ll follow a ballistic trajectory) on the real 110NM shot. And that at End of burn in my screenshot was at 45.6k ft and in the nasa doc its at 90k ft.
3 Likes
Do bear in mind F-14A is going to have better missile range capabilities because it can fly higher and faster.
Something of note as well, the AIM-54A is lighter than the 54C both pre and post motor burn, so it gains speed better in-game.
I’m pretty sure basically every source I’ve seen states the 54C is a faster missile irl though. I’m also not quite sure how the 54C managed to gain weight, though im sure there must be some sources for the claim, but the 54C replaced some of its bulky analogue electronics for smaller digital electronics, and its WDU-29/B warhead weights the same as the old Mk82 warhead as well. Anyone have any idea whats going on there?
1 Like
We don’t know that the move from analogue to solid state made it lighter, this is an erroneous presumption imo.
1 Like
Sidenote, regarding the WDU-29/B warhead we previously discussed on the AIM-54C, I found an official document corroborating the 20-25% increased effectiveness of the WDU-29/B over the Mk82 warhead
Found here: Navy Training System Plan
It really is depressing looking at the AIM-54C as modelled in-game the more we learn about it irl…
The (still) broken and atrociously modelled AN/AXX-1 TCS on the F-14B is also depressing, but that one already has all the info in the world from 1st party sources along with most/all the code for it to function properly in-game though so I try not to think about it too much because gaijins just outright refusing to do anything about that one…
Someone pointed out a good point regarding directional warheads in WT.
Top attack missiles such as the TOW-2B, and BILL ATGM already use a quasi directional mechanic. I wonder if this could be adapted to things like the AIM-54C and AIM-7M.
Gaijin could also just do something a lot more basic like increase their proxy range and TNT modifier, or fragment modifier by 20-30% which would be way more simple for them to do. Not that they ever will, seeing as afaik, the russians never made any directional warheads for AAM’s
As discussed previously, it’s not directional in the same methods as the TOW-2B.
All they need to do is increase the explosive mass / damage that it does when it detonates near a target so that it replicates the 20% increase in effectiveness.
Do we know if this discussion has been heard by some dev? My impression is that nobody is doing nothing to fix this problems. We already have enough documents to fix the phoenix in a realistic way.
I still think they will buff it when other fox 3s enter the battlefield, but still the current Aim-54 A/C are useless right now, so just a little buff could make them competitive.
1 Like
There are reports open for pretty much every issue discussed. Mythic’s overstating the issue in a lot of ways…
Overload should increase to 22-25Gs, range should increase, time to target should be better, proximity fuse should be reduced from 20 to 15m… overall the missile should be better in a lot of areas.
Mythic talks about some other capabilities that are either not relevant to the game, not actually on the AIM-54, or effecting all missiles currently but those are separate issues.
1 Like