Hell, I do the same thing. For example there are many potential changes that the Sidewinder could receive, but since I can’t guarantee for example that SEAM pattern(s) are universal to all carriers (which I know there are at least two Search patterns; Con-Scan & Split D, that were developed) for a given missile variant.
There is no point in bug reporting it (yet) as it would be a novel application of an existing feature, unless Gaijin abstracted the system to increase the pre-launch FoV(an arguable Nerf, as it would slightly less the double the instantaneous Field of Regard to ?4.8? or ?4.6? degrees from the current 2.5), and could be further made by some combination of FoV reduction (IRCCM method) to mimic the true FoV after lock on, but would probably be significant work, especially considering it would additionally need to account for Sensor / HMD / Manual Slewing, and impact USN / Common Sidewinder variants from basically the F-8 / AH-1T and later airframes.
The C improved alot of stuff and made a switch from juat bomber killing to fighters aswell. Handling stream raids, maneuverable targets, notching(MPRF/HPRF rather than just CW if I remember correctly), signal processing overall and definetly guidance algos. Having the missile loft a bit more under more circumstances to have better energy isn’t far stretched.
Currently if you fire a missile at 60km at 30kft to a target under 4kft ft the missile will just go straight for the interception point in a flat trajectory requiring higher AoA to keep the trajectory and increasing drag in the process. And at 60km you got a dead missile…
Not seeing this is just being dismissive. Having a curved trajectory will greatly benefit it.
Presumably if two equivalent missiles with the same battery time existed, and one had improved loft, it would be said that the missile with the improved loft has increased range, yet I have not come across anything stating that the 54C obtained improved range.
Proof for what? The fact that the AIM-54 does not (and never did) employ advanced modern guidance principles? The XAAM-N-11 was tested in 1963, the missile itself seeing very few changes before finally entering service on an airframe in 1973. The 1983 model (AIM-54C) incorporated many advancements, but would have been some of the earliest examples of the same technology seen in the AIM-120. The AIM-120 itself having had quite a few iterations that incorporated more advanced guidance methodology.
Not only do we not need proof, it is totally unreasonable to assume the Phoenix had optimized lofting trajectories. Yes… we know it isn’t correct in-game and there is room for improvement. We should not jump from the current loft mechanism to the most ideal one possible though.
Yes, that is what I said and you appear to have disagreed and then re-stated what I was saying.
The AIM-54A was already fully capable of killing fighters.
There is nothing to suggest it has MPRF guidance, but it is likely. There is a new motor, new seeker, new guidance unit… it may very well be a massive jump but we don’t have the data to make such assumptions of performance increase.
I never said that the in-game trajectory and whatnot was accurate.
This is logical.
Outsider’s view states a 97,000 lb-s total impulse. For a 25 second burn time this would be a total of 3,880 pounds thrust over 25 seconds. Divide 97,000 pounds by the 30 second burn time we have in-game and you get the total 3,230 pound-force… as seen in-game.
If you want higher thrust, you will get less burn time. The overall performance will be identical based on altitude in regards to overall impulse of the motor. The acceleration will be improved both from reduced drag and higher thrust but the motor doesn’t magically gain total impulse from AAT.
We also know his attempts to calculate the proper AAT are off by quite a long shot. The motor of the AIM-54 is not some secret, we know the size of the nozzle is not more than 9.xx inches based on the diameter of the missile body and the motor nozzle itself being visible.
The in-game thrust is 3,226 lb-f which is accurate. The total impulse given in the various sources available divided by the burn time give us correct thrust. This is for high altitude scenarios because that’s what the requirement for the motor was for.
You are assuming the exhaust of the rocket motor matches the diameter of the missile and this is not the case. This will drastically affect your math and it needs to be re-done. The diameter of the AIM-120’s nozzle can be considered closer to the diameter of the body than what is given on the AIM-54 based on photos. Stop pretending you aren’t reading what I’m saying so we can have a productive conversation.
Originally I wasn’t gonna bother with this thread but I’m glad you admitted where you got your “information” from.
First off, is Mig23M credible or no? You’ve always insinuated Mig23M isn’t to be believed but now apparently you modeled a missile based on some hearsay from Mig23M thru me.
Second, the whole write up, all of the work you did, and the missile modeling is useless for several reasons:
I read a cropped chart with little to no context incorrectly.
The chart requires perfect measurement to accurately read it, I spitballed the figures while also reading it incorrectly (see #1).
The missile possibly was a lighter earlier variant without a seeker, hence the no loft, I didn’t clarify thru Mig23M because I didn’t care too much.
Mig23M isn’t trustworthy (joke)
Forecast also isn’t a good source to determine the maximum range of the radar. Gaijin does not even accept them as a source as it’s considered to be Jane’s.
You need to come to terms with whether or not Mig23M is to be believed or not. You cannot cherry-pick and say he’s untrustworthy and then switch up the next minute and model a missile based on some “document” from Mig23M that you do not know if it exists. I also had told you I myself did not have the document.
Anyway, this is the last I’ll say of anything on this topic. But it’s clear, Mig23M as well as tech mods should be believed over anything you have to offer.
I’m gonna use them as a reference because the figures for the missile size seem credible.
According to this, diameter from control surface to control surface is 36 inches.
It also says the diameter is 15 inches.
Using this data, and this photo as reference;
Tip to tip is 135 pixels
Diameter is 57 pixels
Exhaust nozzle is 38 pixels
36 / 135 = 0.26666 inches per pixel 15 / 57 = 0.263 inches per pixel
0.266 + 0.263 = 0.529 / 2 = 0.2645 inches per pixel
0.2645 * 38 pixels = 10.051"
Exhaust nozzle is therefore, approximately 10" which seems accurate.
380mm assumes a rocket motor nozzle diameter of 14.9"…
If the 15" diameter is erroneous, and the missile is indeed a bit smaller the diameter of the rocket motor would be less than 10".
All subsequent math for AAT is erroneous and needs to be completely thrown out. This is the equivalent of erroneously adding 100% wing area to an airframe when comparing relative wing loading.
That’s because your coming part way into the development of the missile. What would eventually become the AIM-54A started life as the missile component or the LRI-X program, to arm the F-108 interceptor; the GAR-9 which of course gets cancelled, and so after some revision goes on to arm the F-12A and subsequently recycled for the F-111B as the AIM-47B, and so serves as the derivative for the AIM-54A since it was basically free design with the USAF having done most of the work and spent the money to get it to that stage (and the counterpart radar; the AN/ASG-18 was also borrowed to form the basis of the AN/AWG-9).
It heavily depends on what is being optimized, a profile shaped to minimize the time of flight(e.g. reduced penetration depth, which is of key importance to consider for a Carrier’s survival) would look very different to one that is designed to maximize available loading(Shoot down a fighter / optimize maximum range), and different again to one that aims to reduce the required guidance corrections, or a more conservative shape to increase the tracking probability, break out targets in specific scenarios, or otherwise compensate for any other potential metric that the designers could justify.
Yes, but lacking that data we should not assume that the loft profile is optimized for BVR against fighter sized targets. You’d want to maximize impact velocity to improve missile end-game maneuverability. It was not intended for this, though it was certainly capable of it… ultimately the lofting even on AIM-120 was improved or enhanced without changes to the motor over time. The AIM-54 produced a decade prior would not have seen such enhancements.
Do you think the AIM-54A improved on, or degraded the performance of XAAM-N-11? Just curious.
Funny, you were the first person bothered to respond.
I originally didnt include where I got the “information” from because, as stated, I have not seen the document and can therefore not verify if the info is of any real use or not. I can however warn others that there MIGHT be information being concealed, which is what I did, and you blew a fuse about it, which is just about the worst reaction you couldve had.
I personally find him to be intellectually dishonest, which is why I dont interact with him and have blocked him, but if he’s got a document stating “X”, I can test “X”.
Also, I didnt “model a missile based on hearsay from MiG_23M through you”. I modelled approximate AAT for 9km alt and tested the conditions you gave me, which resulted in the AAT missile perfprming closer to what you suggested was on the chart.
Once again, didnt model a missile after what you told me. I modelled a missile using math (of which i have already stated the errors that would arise from my modelling as well) and then tested them with the conditions you asked me to test.
You either havent actually bothered reading the post, or are just lying about its content, both of which would suggest you arent actually arguing in good faith.
You modeled AAT for a nonexistent motor and the assumption that performance metrics given were for sea level already and then ramped them up for altitude. The performance assumes a nozzle size 1.5x that of the real thing for the AIM-54 and then of course… are double dipping because the total impulse and thrust given was already for 10-15km.
You modeled them after what he erroneously told you, having misread what I told him. You further erroneously modeled AAT for the reasons stated above. All of your testing is useless and was a waste of time.
Late production AIM-54C’s included reprogrammable memory so it would have been much less restrictive after that point, and with the way the earlier Sparrow worked, revisions during maintenance periods to revise these sorts of things isn’t unheard of.
Heavily depends on the scenario and target set that is envisioned. Not everything comes down to kinematics, and the comparison is complicated due to the 82kg weight delta, and diameter(13" vs 15"). further the specific configuration of the GAR-9 as there are a number options that were tested or investigated which would be fairer than the final configuration vs AIM-54A.
If it came down to including consideration of the launch platform against a '50 / '60s bomber threat (Slow, high altitude type e.g. Tu-95 ) the AIM-47 would probably do better due to the longer range and faster launch speeds leading to a shorter time of flight (assuming similar launch range) and so the bomber is less likely to release stores.
But against a fighter or Later Threat bomber (e.g. Tu-160) that AIM-54 due to simply being cognizant of said threat(s) and more able to deal with potential jamming methods and fancy RWRs, the F-14 is definitely also more able to respond should the distances close since the provisional F-12B isn’t able to do much more than missile joust and flee, at speed.
The XAAM-N-11 shared the same dimensions as the AIM-54A, in fact it was re-designated XAIM-54A by at least 1962. See this lineage from outsider’s view.
Essentially, the primary changes between XAAM-N-11 (XAIM-54A) and the production model were… reliability enhancements. Small changes were made that may have reduced weight and increased MTBF for various systems and parts. Other issues may have been identified and amended similar to how it was done on the AIM-7 series.
Anyhow, I concur with the rest of your statements. I still do not think that the loft should be the absolute peak of optimization, though.
Alright, so I’ve been informed via discord that @MiG_23M is once again being disingenuous about the data I provided and spreading lies. Usually, I’d let this slide, but I put too much work into this one to do so, so here we go.
I literally stated that as a disclaimer in my original post. You either didn’t bother reading properly, or are misrepresenting my data (shocker!)
As stated, the rocket motor diameter was known to be wrong and stated to result in a notable increase in AAT. This was done to save time and because my goal was to display a general trend along with a visual representation of the impact of differing exit nozzle area, which is why the AIM-120A AAT test was included and had the same simplifications. The AAT also doesn’t account for the change in altitude from lofting (which would be advantageous for the AAT).
The AIM-54C’s introduction date predates that of the AIM-120A by 5 years (1986 vs 1991), AIM-54C’s first flight was 1980 vs the AIM-120A’s 1981. The missiles are both developed by Hughes around the same time-frame as well. I have heard that the AIM-120’s have more advanced guidance systems, but haven’t seen any specific info on the subject or variant. The more likely cause for the discrepency in adoption time is that the AIM-120 is a brand new missile, while the AIM-54C is an upgrade of an existing one. This is also touched on in the document I provided;
Once again showing you either didn’t bother reading the whole thing, or are lying through your teeth.
None of my testing is based on this assumption? Is your reading comprehension that poor? AAT tests never included any adjustments beyond thrust adjustments, loft profile tests were simply loft profile tests to visualize the impact different loft profiles would have on the AIM-54C’s performance at various ranges, as you would’ve known had you properly read what I posted.
As for your statement of “1960’s computers and technology” the AIM-54C entered service in 1986, only 5 years before the AMRAAM, and, once again as stated in my original post you’re disparaging:
Nobody stated it should have “the most optimal trajectory” you’re strawmanning hard on this point. All I did was test the effect of different loft codes and compared them to in-game for others to see. As far as I can tell, there isn’t a single use of the word “optimal” in the entire section regarding loft profiles tested.
Funny you should say this, I actually gave the exact equations and papers used to calculate the AAT and you STILL got it wrong! Either not reading the information provided, or lying. I’ll post it for you again:
Notice (Equation 3) specifically states the equation for the change in impulse by altitude is the same as (Equation 2), but multiplied by the motor burn time!!! Turns out the motor does “magically” gain total impulse from AAT, if math and science is magic to you, which I’m starting to suspect they are.
As previously stated, the goal of the AAT calc was demonstrating the effect visually, but since you’ve done me the favour of getting the correct motor diameter, I guess I should return the favour and show the corrected impact of AAT:
Suprise suprise, the impact is lessened, but still considerable! And this is still missing the adjustment for the thrust gained during lofting as well, so its most likely underperforming to some degree. Also included the AAT thrust itself for good measure.
You’re the one assuming things about the performance metrics without understanding the science and math behind it. The idea that thrust/impulse for the AIM-54 is being given for 10-15km alt is downright delusional and is simply an example of you shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around it. You’re just spouting nonsense hoping others will eat up what you say if you say it with confidence, as usual.
Only thing I “modelled” after what he told me was launch conditions. As stated, AAT thrust calculations were done completely independently. I then provided him with the pictures of the test as well, seeing as he was originally the one who asked me to test it.
Hilarious statement, after either not reading the info from my testing, or just outright lying about its contents and my claims, you’re going to state all my testing was a waste of time? The only waste of time here was all of your and DirectSupports angry reactions to my posts. The lies, the strawman arguments, pinging a mod to try to get me banned, accusing me of “derailing the thread”, hiding documents from other players which may or may not provide more info for testing and comparisons or even just general new knowledge, the fact I had to write up this whole reply to correct your flagrant intellectual dishonesty. Its for this exact reason I’ve had you blocked for the last year or so, and honestly why I intend to return to doing so again not to waste more of my time interacting with you.
I don’t have a copy of outsider’s to hand at the moment to double check, but I do have my doubts about that. Giving the thrust at an altitude above sea level, without specifying the altitude makes the number essentially meaningless. Especially because the Phoenix can be used over a range of altitudes, and lofts.
In US documents Sea Level seems to be the standard used when listing thrust / impulse; a bit like how jet engine ratings are typically stated as sea level, static, uninstalled, unless stated otherwise:
For example:
AIM-7C (also designed primarily for high altitude use against bombers):
If there is evidence that I’ve missed to show that the figure quoted in outsiders is for high altitude operation, then I’ll stand corrected. But at the moment it sounds like an assumption that runs contrary to the established norms.
@MiG_23M do you know of NC machines? they have custom hardware that can give orders if certain scenarios accor (such if the energy used was more than certain after enough time it would stop the system for some time until it would start again). these were developed at 1950s. tho not as advanced as digital computing, they should be able to provide trajectory shaping methodes, like english bias which was on Sparrow missiles even before Sparrow F which was the first to use solid state electronics
This was a little harsh. @MythicPidoes not patrol around the forum and must have a hand in everything that goes on in the game. He quietly researches his interest objectively and stays in his own lane. He can care less if people don’t follow him around and agree with him 24/7. He does not feel a need for constant validation from everyone & goes looking for it.
He has nothing to prove to anyone, these are individuals to be believed.
You have subconsciously held my old friend in high regard and rarely question anything he says because your only sustained interaction with him has been to buff French equipment. The moment you two actually & genuinely disagree on something for more than 30 minutes you will understand.
Being a tech mod doesn’t grant someone divine insight. They are capable of making mistakes just like anyone else.
As for mig23m - I don’t believe they are even remotely credible after seeing some of the stuff they’ve posted.
That’s crazy! So out of character for them!
There is no sound logic to what they said. Just because the requirements of the motor included high altitude scenarios, doesn’t mean the measured thrust would be at those conditions. Same as how jet engine thrust is reported at sea-level and not the altitude ceiling…
