Aren’t all A2A radar guided missiles incapable of hitting helicopters? Even the semi-modern Fox 3 missiles tested earlier can’t tell the difference between a chopper and a boulder.
Constantly spinning rotor blades should generate a small radar return even on PD radar settings, but I guess the snail has other ideas. Doubly so for tandem co-axial designs such from Kamov.
Yeah, would be impossible to hit a stationary helicopter target without heavily modifying the missile seeker in the file. Accomplishes nothing because the test I conducted is also perfectly valid and verifiable. The test mission is there for anyone else to validate it as well.
Putting in significant additional effort for zero gain is what we like to call “a waste of time”. The test conducted shows the discrepancy with no issues.
So the aim54 is underperforming.
Because sky flashes and r27s still work. I always carry one in squadron battles. However range is just reduced.
If I prove the aim54 can hit helicopters in hover will you do the test? Or nah?
I have a big Mi-8 we can surely connect aim54s on. You don’t have to heavily modify game files.
got some hits with 530Ds on helos hovering a bit high, but really close (<3 km)
As for ARH tested earlier, they had abnormal amount of multipath and their seeker were very prone to notching, so you could forget about hitting a helo.
Basically 1990s missiles with a 54A seeker
The satement should not be taken as en exact performance indicator, both the distance and time given are ambiguous. Its purpose is an indicator as to the relative poor performance of the sea eagle.
“More than 13 and 1/2 miles (22km)” - So what is the distance? 22km is slightly more than 13.5 miles for sure, but even that seems like an aproximation…
90 sec this is also really just not a relaibale measurement of time to use… and also seems like an aproximation of the time rather than an exact specification…
“According to military historian Bull Gunston”
What is the primary source? This doesnt even count as a secondary source because its quoting what a historian apparantly said in 1976 and as such makes this a tertiary source…
You cant use this in a bug report or attempt to recreate test data from it… The information just isnt reliable.
It was quoted that the Sea Sparrow (AIM-7E) would have less than half the range. Currently, it hits at 10,250m… half of 22 being 11,000m. This seems to indicate that the test showed the missile could hit sea skimming targets from at least 22km in 90s… While the performance could be a bit higher, I doubt that it is so much higher that it is hitting 27+km shots in less than 80 seconds…
Yet, using the guidance time of the AIM-7E (40s) and conducting the test, we get exactly what they quoted… a bit less than half the range.
A rough estimate can be used as a datapoint regardless. The quoted performance for the Sea Sparrow is highly accurate and can be used as a basis for determining that the other datapoint is also valid. The missile currently matches the known high alt scenario datapoint that was tested either way.
If I had enough sourcing for a report I would have made one already. Likewise, If Mythic wanted to report AAT’s he’d be told the same thing I have been telling him which is why he hasn’t done it.
Going back to the point of this datapoint and test, the missile is already configured for high altitude thrust and burn time. Thus at lower altitudes it is overperforming. Modeling AAT’s would be a hard nerf.
I had hoped gaijin would change the inability for A2A radar guided weapons to track helicopters, considering the first aircraft to confirmed have the capability to launch and guide SARH to a (simulated) helicopter kill was implemented with Apex Predators (F-15A in the J-CATCH tests, predating the AIM-120).
Looks like choppers will continue to be targets fixed wing aircraft avoid most of the time. A shame, since Fox 2 and Gun attacks on helicopters are pretty much guaranteed trades at best. J-Catch tests IRL showed going for those was an excellent way to get your fighter shot down with no kill to show for it, too.
But I digress, this is the AIM-54 thread. Apologies for the minor derailing.
I have a new scenario to test.
Source
(Seems this is the same test conducted previously, but I thought it was new or longer range because normal “miles” was used instead of “nautical miles”. This is the 110nm test described in other sources.)
Before you do, can you explain what you see in the highlighted text & what it means to you.
I’m gonna fire a Phoenix on a stationary helicopter from 200km and hope it hits
I’m gonna conduct the test with known data and variables as a reference point just like I did with all my previous tests. What would you suggest the launch variables be? How should I conduct the test?
I did not ask you how you would do your test.
I asked you to explain what you interpret from the highlighted text of your own source.
You’re clearly better at understanding the semantics behind these. What do you think?
No, the Aim54A is more than capable of shooting low flying, small targets. Another one of your own sources once again points out the Aim54A and C are underperforming.
In 1969 the Aim54 scored a kill on a BQM-34A simulating a cruise missile at 50FT that was flying at Mach 1.5 (not the phoenix). The BQM-34A was tracked from 153 miles, the phoenix was launched at 127 miles and flew 83.5 miles from that launch point before downing the BQM-34A.
You are not getting that performance from the Aim54 on any target flying 50ft off the ground or at that range.
So now, what exactly is your test parameters?
Low flying, but not small targets. The AIM-54C has an improved proximity fuse and warhead for properly fusing on the emphasis “small” targets. More modernized cruise missiles the AIM-54C would have to face have a radar cross section smaller than 0.1m2. BQM-34A RCS, and BQM-34E/F RCS.
Once again you’re combining two scenarios. There was a scenario where it downed a BQM-34A at 15m off sea level and a separate scenario where it downed a BQM-34E at high alt from a range of 110nm.
I posted this because I fully expected you to misread the document once again, and you did. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Later.
Read the entire sentence carefully.
In March 1969…
The Phoenix broke all AAM records including 4 kills in one pass.
COMA
and a kill on a BQM-34A simulating a cruise missile flying 50 feet off the ground and another flying Mach 1.5 launched at 127 miles away.
WRONG. it’s really small, smaller than a fighter.
BQM-34A
I gave you two studies showing the RCS, which is more than enough for Gaijin to model the correct performance against small targets. Multipathing issues has already been reported and all missiles equally underperform in regards to this as they all explode at around ~100m iirc.
Please do, it references two separate known scenarios. You are the one misreading it.
Phoenix broke virtually all AAM records including four kills in one pass (out of a six-on-six test, there being one no-test and one miss),
a kill on a BQM-34A simulating a cruise missile at 50 ft (15m),
and a kill on a BQM-34E flying at mach 1.5 tracked from 153 miles (246km), the Phoenix launched at 127 miles (204km and impacting 83.5 miles (134km) from the launch point.
We know this is the case, because these three separate scenarios are quoted in several other reputable sources. Stop the nonsense.
Your test needs to be conducted by being able to first TRACK a fighter flying Mach 1.5 off the deck @ 50 feet off the ground from 153 miles (246km).
You then need to launch the Aim54A from 127 miles (204km)
The Aim54A needs to actually fly 83.5 miles (134km) before it strikes the target.
Now how are you going to conduct this little test?
So, do you think it is remotely possible to simulate this performance? The War Thunder AWG9 can barely detect and track someone out 90km at altitude and the missile can barely fly half that range when someone is flying at it in a Mach 1.10 head on.
That isn’t what it says. You need to stop misreading things intentionally, you’re just making yourself look… well… not good.
It has already been conducted by other users and impacts at the expected ~160s mark (guidance limit). This is a maximum launch range scenario for the given launch conditions and target speed / altitude.
Other users already tested this, and the missile hits in the expected time. I even explained to Mythic how we came up with the time to target variables. It’s quite literally in the picture.
Let’s break it down and read it carefully together, shall we?
A kill on a BQM-34a and BQM-34E simulating cruise missiles at 50ft altitude & one flying at Mach 1.5…
TRACKED from 153 miles 153 miles (246km)…
(This means the range that the F-111B’s radar detected and tracked the drone)
The Phoenix was then launched at distance of 127 miles (246 km)…
It flew 83.5 miles before point of impact.
(because the BMQ-34A was flying at it at Mach 1.5)
How do you figure you are going to achieve these performances in War Thunder? You said you were going to do a test based on the above highlighted text. Again, I ask, how are you going to conduct this?
This is not the same test. Two completely different scenarios and aircraft that fired the Aim54A.
as this
