I get that, I’m not attacking you
The math still wouldn’t check out. Radar is subject to the inverse square law, at twice the distance the energy is 4 times lower, with the size and power output of a radar small enough to mount on a missile, there simply isn’t enough to amplify out at 200nmi (return included). I doubt the return is actually distinguishable at all
I did some napkin math, being very generous and assuming a Phoenix can put on 500W at 1 nmi, the expected return, ignoring any losses incurred due to the geometry of the target, would be 0.0125 W. Nothing is even picking that up, much less amplifying it
They almost increased detection range of the APG-71 by at minimum 33% with a digital upgrade of the AWG-9 with literally no change to the output power, meanwhile, this document claims the use of a high powered amplifier, new seeker electronics (over the already digital seeker electronics of the 54C/C+), and a new antennea, so from the sounds of it, effectively a completely new guidance section with increased power.
I think the claim is rather impressive yes, but I dont think its necessarily farfetched.
I think the 33% improvement with the APG71 comes from the fact that digital circuits are a lot better at reducing noise than analogues. When you amplify a signal you’re also amplifying any noise coming along with it AND also introducing additional noise. There is simply no way something with the power output and footprint of a missile can see that far out.
Here’s anothsr part of the report I almost forgot to add!
I am starting to see an issue here. I think the book you’re using is hot garbage. Look at those minimum ranges 200-something meters in metric and 2nmi in imperial. 200 meters is definitely not 2 nautical miles. The author is either just making shit up or the editor was asleep. Either case that looks like a bad source for anything other than toilet paper
Its Forecast International, and theres LITERALLY a metric section and an imperial section. Thats just you not reading properly
He’s got me blocked but the statistics used in that article are incorrect for the AIM-54’s. Public data from primary sources disputes heavily most of what is on that document in one way or another. You can share the same information yourself so he acknowledges it.
I am definitely reading properly. The stated minimum range for both the A and C in metric is 203.5 meters. In imperial that same stated minimum range is 2 nautical miles. This is either made up or not proofread once
Ah yeah, my bad, ur right, that does look like an error
Has a dev commented on the Aim54’s reduced smoke engine being possibly added this patch? It would be nice as with the rwr changes, imo the 54C will be almost useless to carry. At Least with the old rwr the enemy could guess if its the 54 or an aircraft’s radar. Now they will know if its a 54 or not and immediately go defensively.
Worth noting there’s a confirmed 110nm kill against a firebee from an F14A/54A
https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=724&Article=2168381
You’ll notice there is no “AIM-54D” on that list.
You mean succesfully tested, just not further produced.
Clear proof of AIM-54 rolling when maneuvering towards a target. Appears to use bank-to-turn maneuvering (or simply being roll-stabilized in “X” config) which would imply constant combined plane. Overload should be increased to 25G.
The issue with a lot of these kinds of upgrades is they make big differences to IRL problems that aren’t necessarily going to reflect in game. Like outside of rocket motor changes and then if ECM ever becomes modeled the A to ECCM Sealed Phoenix’s will behave the same in game
The bigger issue is that some of these upgrades WOULD make a major impact ingame, but arent modelled by gaijin because they dont feel like it. Kinda like how they dont FEEL like modelling dual plane maneuvrability because its advantageous for Russian planes/missiles for them not to.
The biggest thing is that the reliability of these systems is entirely irrelevant. The Phoenix was so good for its time because competing SARH missiles had atrocious reliability. Figures vary, but in testing the Phoenix had a success rate of about 80%. By contrast, Russia was still fielding the R23/24, and the 54C was entering production by the time the initial R27 variants were entering service. And if memory serves, none of the SARH missiles from that time were particularly reliable, especially not the Russian ones.
This might be referencing that test, “Fully upgraded missile” might be a the culmination of all the scattered AIM-54C upgrades
