Already verified it with 2005-0700 aiaa and phoenix (-) final propulsion delivery from hercules inc
Additionally, if DoD ‘‘regularly cites unverified information’’, can we consider them a reliable source?
The authorative datasets don’t hold any value if what you said is true.
The DOD is not a small organisation, it employes some 2.8 million people (of which 750,00 are civilians), and you can’t really make sweeping statements about whether every document it has ever produced is reliable or not. You evaluate each sources on a case by case basis. That is how research works.
If the sources you are looking that is an official DOD report on the performance of the phoenix missile, then it is probably a trustworthy source. If it is a document about the history of the US Navy which mentions in passing that the F-14 used the phoenix missile with a 100 mile range, citing that claim to Wikipedia, then it’s probably less reliable. That’s not to say it is necessarily wrong, just that you can’t treat it as gospel without additional supporting evidence.
Not that gaijin actually cares about primary sources in the case of the AIM-54, seeing as they still categorically refuse to give it its reduced smoke motor, despite being the first missile added in-game with such a motor IRL, and there being an acknowledged bug report and strong sources regarding said reduced smoke motor about it for almost a year now, and more and more high threat missiles such as the AAM-3 keep receiving low smoke motors, but NOT the AIM-54C.
Every source deserves the same equal treatment. With same logic, you can’t judge everything from FI to be false just because they owned janes. Again, i crosschecked it to be true using outside sources listed (which both of you have ignored)
No as it depends who it is from and if they are primary or not
I’m not disagreeing with that. I just pointed out that if a source is quoting a secondary sources it is by definition not a primary source.
In my experience Forecast International tend to give a decent overview of a topic, but the performance figures they give can be a bit hit & miss.
When i say every source deserves the same treatment, it means that we analyze them just as strongly. I didn’t say we believe them the same. Every source has to go by the same rules of verification and reliability examination.
Again i provided proof and yall are still stuck up with it, refusing to read it and refusing to give any counter evidence. Additionally still saying how it is inaccurate despite checking it against additional sources.
Non sense.
do you have the aim-54? the real performance and in the game now?
this report of mid-guidance dont have in the game, you cannot change the mid-course in the phoenix
Sorry my question when the aim-54C phoenix changes will be implemented, discussed in this forum?
missile performance
-wrong thrust
-wrong maximum speed
-wrong INS that does not change the target in mid-course
-wrong loft that are saying
-aim-54c does not have smokelees engine (non-visible smoke)
Radar
the tws still baucing sometimes today since yesteryear
(if you have doubts i can send the modern example video)
the missile sometimes fails to track
https://youtu.be/THoRiXtxAIs
not sure if the thrust is “wrong” so much as the AIM-54 typically lofts very high irl, and missile thrust increases with altitude irl. This is a bigger deal for long burn time and large missiles actually if you check the equation.
This is (afaik) not something gaijin models, and coupled with the terrible loft mechanics, hits the AIM-54 particularly badly.
Some other issue you forgot to mention are:
And yeah multipathing is still broken because 4 years after SAHR missiles came to the game most people don’t know how to/ are unwilling to defend properly so we get a 50m safe zone
its 95m vs a non-maneuvering target in look-down for the 7M in-game. Maneuvering targets make this safe zone even higher. I havent tested other missiles but i think theyre roughly in the same ballpark
Lofting doesn’t only occur at extreme ranges, though the missile doesn’t need to loft to an extreme level at closer ranges either. Its actually rarer that an AIM-54 would be fired at a range where it would not loft, and considering the size of the missile along with the advantage from high alt flight for large rocket motors like the one seen on AIM-54, Its likely the missile lofts pretty considerably even against a 30km range target (very very common shot in-game, actually kinda “short” ranged)
Reduced smoke motors still have less visible contrails at high alt, and the contrails wouldn’t last as long. The fact gaijin hasnt given it a reduced smoke motor is either that they outright refuse to do so, or are too lazy to model contrail altitude limits for missiles, both of which wouldnt suprise me.
The Mk60 was produced alongside the Mk47 mod 0. Less than 200 of these motors were made in comparison to the thousands of Mk47 mods. It was simply a alternative production motor intended to reduce risk and cost. The AIM-54C came standard equipped with the Mk47 mod 1 w/ the reduced smoke propellant.
The Mk47 mod 0 and Mk60 are functionally equivalent and make practically the same thrust output. There is no considerable difference in performance between the two motors to my knowledge.
That’s a tautology, a better word would be similar rather than equivalent, as we know there are differences between the motors.
If they were truly equivalent, why is it not classified as the Mark 47 Mod 1?
Two companies produced motors for the missiles, this was commonplace for missile manufacturing already. The AIM-7F used this practice having two separate names for motors that produced the same thrust profile and impulse. You have Aerojet with the Mk60 and Hercules with the Mk47. The Hercules company produced a model with HTPB propellant with reduced aluminum (low smoke)… this was known as the Mk47 mod 1.
It isn’t that rare, Aim-54 can go active off the rail and it is very effective in close range, where it defeated a QF-86 that was simulating a defending target, this usage is similar to modern MRAAM where they can be fire and forget at close range or during dogfight. If this wasn’t the intended use case, why would USN even bother to test this or add maddog mode.
If this is modeled in the game, and its load factor is not locked in the first few seconds of flight, this makes it equally effective as an IR missile with IRCCM. (The missile still has the problem of high drag and thus unable to pull all of its Gees when fired in close range, I suspect the phoenix in game can’t even reproduce the test I mentioned above)
What is the real thrust value of:
Mk 60 engine
Mk 47
Mk 47 mod 1 (less smoke i guess if i understand)
Which is better and what model whe have in game?
Its like with aim7f to m and aim54A to C, will not have a huge diference until monopulse physic come to game the way the game are the aim54A is better than C, the fox 3 missiles have signs to come in march, the guys that made a live on air superiority patch Said, “fox 3 missiles are near to coming”
If semi-active can hit farther even in acm mode but once per target, imagine a active radar missile + acm, the macth will over in seconds, its like compare a semi automatic rifle with automatic rifle, and both killing each other like the meta are rigth now.
Someone will think to solve it is just puting more farther maps in top tier and remove the shorter ones in top tier. But without monopulse physic the meta will be the same, all one flying low, its not everyone are flying high today, if the monopulse seeker come, it might see players flying in diferent high distances and more scatter with everyone with diferent strategy.
If fox 3 missiles coming, farther maps and correction about tws mecanic will be nice, if theses changes not come, how will be the meta?