https://www.mediafire.com/file/lgkcgpsdiqmnq7d/20070014861.pdf/file
Another possibly interesting source related to aim-54
Here it actually discusses it
It uses data from the Datalink to point its active radar seeker at the enemy aircraft (without actually transmitting its own radar signal), where it then guides based on the launching aircraft’s reflected radar signal.
Spoiler
I think this would make it much less susceptible to sidelobe interference because of the directional antenna but idk I’m just talking out my rear.
This doesn’t confirm, but points strongly in the direction that the Phoenix should be much faster than it is in-game.
While the document is somewhat interesting, the performance of the test missiles differ from real phoenix due to removed and/or changed components
Yep, they also don’t follow the correct path a combat Phoenix would use (such as a much flatter trajectory rather than a ballistic one)
The missile is underperforming. It has been reported internally and should eventually get a fix. My best guess is they are waiting for newer Fox-3s to appear because fixing the AIM-54 right now would destroy balance in air RB (that’s satire, I know the R-27ER already dominates).
Currently the drag is too high, motor performance is mostly correct. The maneuverability should be increased to ~22-23G. Maybe even 25G for certain variants.
Top speed should be mach ~6.1 or so and capable of reaching it at lower alts than it reaches its’ current top speed (this is for a high mach launch of course).
Anyhow, all of these reports are acknowledged if I recall… but not yet actioned. The missile will be fixed eventually when it better fits into the game and I hope that is soon.
4 Likes
We can live in hope that when the F14D comes it will bring fixed Phoenixes and drop tanks
1 Like
that chart isn’t accurate. Notably they immediately disprove the claim of 81,400ft max altitude for the 54A when they mention the distance-record launch achieved a max altitude of >100,000 feet.
Yes! a car’s wheels are a control surface that makes contact with the road. A missile control surfaces make contact with airflow. Both need motion to work, yes?
Both can be overloaded by too high of a speed and acceleration. Mass and weight have a detrimental effect in cars as wells as missiles in which the R27ER has both over the regular R27R, and both have the same exact control surfaces or “wheels” as each other.
Just think about it some more please.
That information is not accurate.
I don’t much care for the F-14D’s introduction, rather I would like to see the current missiles fixed and multi-target and launch capability etc with an increase in BR for the F-14s. Perhaps even AIM-9L for the A and AIM-9M for the B.
6 Likes
81,400ft being maximum effective altitude for 54A?
Such as reported on fighter jets, the flight ceiling of F-15 is somewhere around 60-65k feet, yet the F-15 can reach higher altitudes for short durations of time. The record was 98k feet.
That’s certainly possible, but there are no aerodynamic changes between the A and C variant, so I can’t imagine why they would be different.
Doesn’t state maximum effective altitude. We also know the speed, range, and weights are all wrong as well.
We also know that the motors have a similar (ISP or delta V?) from way earlier in this thread, right?
So they should both have relatively similar top speeds and max ranges.
Previous report indicated the AIM-54 also to be the most maneuverable missile. It was the baseline 54A which does not hold true. It appears that there are unmentioned contexts to their claims, the aim-54A can be situationally more maneuverable than counterparts at the time and the 54A can situationally reach heights that are (obviously) above the flight ceiling.
Effective altitudes for such missiles do exist, just as altitudes that they can reach but not be effective at.
I still agree to take the report not at face value mainly due to lack of sources.
Additionally forecast international has high profile clients such as boeing raytheon bae systems general dynamics and so on. It is not a randomly created blogspot site.
Yes, the Mk60 is analogous to the Mk47 mod 0… the Mk47 mod 1 having the speculatory performance and reduced smoke propellant. There should be little difference in performance between all of these motors.
It should be discarded as primary information refutes the information shown. It’s not a good source period.
Forecast international = Janes which Gaijin simply does not use as a source because of how unreliable (and most of the time outright wrong) their information is. It cannot be used for a report.
What primary sources did they add? Id like to view it.
‘‘A major step in the company’s growth was taken in 1989, when Forecast International acquired the assets of DMS Inc. from its main competitor, Jane’s Information Group’’
‘‘Acquired by GovExec in January 2022, FI remains the leader in market intelligence and industry forecasting, and its insight is frequently solicited by various media outlets.’’
How can we say that the company operates under janes group with that context?
1 Like
Outsider’s view of the AWG-9 and documentation from the missiles’ motor manufacturer.
I didn’t say that, did I? I simply said that Forecast international is equal to Janes in regards to sourcing.