Nothing yet.
1 Like
That is the issue, it will not be faster at closer ranges.
I just watched a replay using my Phoenixes, from mach 3.5 in just 4.5 seconds it slowed down to Mach 2.2. This doesn’t seem right at all. It was at around 23k ft
1 Like
I’ve seen some recent discussion about the state of balance regarding the AIM-54’s and their current BR placement and really believe that now, more than ever, would be a great time to properly model some of the differences between the A and C if gaijin’s been holding off on some of the stuff for “balance” reasons.
The A is, afaik, not supposed to be able to reconnect if it does not receive the “pitbull” command, and should effectively act as a SARH until that point. Afaik its otherwise largely correct in kinematics atleast to max range of its shots, but should also have its max G-load pushed up to 25g’s.
This would allow the 54A to be a bit more lethal in shorter range shots, but would lessen the quasi immunity offered by the missile at longer ranges by forcing the F-14A to guide the missile all the way to pitbull, which is more dangerous for it due to its dated RWR and ergonomic difficulties in WVR combat.
The 54C on the other could get a better seeker, the 25g overload, the directional warhead (if/when that implemented), and an improved loft profile as it very much should have, with the F-14B then being pushed up in BR as it realistically should (the F-14B should, all things considered, be more than 1 BR step above the F-14A, but was being held back by its lackluster armament and subpar avionics compared to other 4th gens). This would allow the F-14B to have the proverbial “bigger stick” with the improved lethality of the 54C at ranges while still remaining balanced due to its inferior avionics and size/fragility compared to the other 4th gen jets.
As for the reduced smoke motors, gaijin doesn’t seem to want to add them to longer range air to air missiles which we know have them, such as the AIM-120’s and MICA, so i think its generally fair to withhold it from the 54C until they decide to take that step, but only if the other known underperforming portions of the 54C are fixed to bring the missile in-line with the other fox 3’s.
These changes would allow something like the F-14A to remain around the 11.7 bracket where its avionics, ergonomics, and general weaponry are all relatively balanced while toning down the uncontested nature of having the only fox 3 at that BR by brining it more in line with what the 54A really is, which is (to my understanding) more of a quasi-fox 1/3 mix (only acts like a fox 3 once in pitbull range), and allow the F-14B to be pushed up to something like 12.7 (with a mostly fixed 54C and preferably some 9M’s to replace the 9L’s) where the ACTUAL fox 3’s (54C’s) and their (supposed but not currently modelled) improved performance over the A’s wouldn’t be oppressive in a downtier, while also finally bringing us closer to reality, instead of the current idiocy where the 54A is effectively better in nearly every way to the 54C despite predating it by ~20 years…
If they are gonna adjust the BR’s (which they probably should), they should do it right and model the missiles more correctly, instead of giving us another F-4F situation where the vehicle (or in this case, weapon systems) receive an arbitrary nerf to shoehorn it into a BR it doesnt belong in.
7 Likes
Also, need to fix loadout when using AIM-54.
F-14A and F-14B must have pylons with cooling mechanisms at stations 3/6 to cool the AIM-54.
That’s mean station 3/6 should be occupied when carrying Phoenix.
The current formula used for the 54 is wrong because as it has been said, the air density is wrong across the board. And it is because of that that missiles in general perform how they perform. So first the devs need to fix that and the remodel all missiles… (Not going to happen).
That being said, a mach 1, 40nm launch (pretty standard range) at 35k feet against a target flying low at mach 1 that doesnt maneuver much will work with some fiddling, but the missile is at like .7 mach… Its a basically a dead missile at that point xD…
1 Like
I generally consider anything below M2.0 to be a “dead missile” since the warning time at pitbull range and ability of the missile to intercept a maneuvering target degrades too much beyond that point. As previous testing has shown, a simple adjustement to loft, which we know the 54C got compared to the 54A wouldnt change much/anything in close range shots, but would substantially improve their interception performance at longer ranges, also with minimal TTI changes.
As can be seen above, the difference in TTI between the in-game AIM-54C guidance code and the best guidance code I tested is less than 5 seconds at 80km, but the difference in impact velocity is ~M0.6, with the improved loft profiles ALL managing to retain impact velocities above Mach 2 (though barely).
ie: An adjustment to the guidance code, which we know the AIM-54C should have, would barely affect time to target at any range, but would make the 54C objectively more lethal at long ranges, with a lower pitbull-to-impact time and higher energy for terminal homing vs a maneuvering target.
(Also, do note this graph is for a M1.2 9km alt launch, in normal WT launch ranges the missile would likely not retain M2.0+ impact velocities quite that far)
1 Like
where has it been said ? Genuinely curious, because as you pointed out, it would explain certain weird things
My main problem with the 54A and C is the F-14 radar is not reliable. Not in a “this radar has a bad doppler gate” sort of way, but it just straight up loses TWS lock for no reason sometimes. I think it’s even worse on the B because of the weird camera thing it has. If the AIM-54 was actually reliable at all ranges the lack of maneuverability would be less of an issue.
2 Likes
It was pointed out many times by MiG_23M and a couple of other ppl I dont remember. Just scroll up and you will find this being mentioned.
But they refuse to accept that the missile is wrong so… “its not a bug, its a feature” kind of thing XD
1 Like
This. I’m so damn sick about the radar acting crazy and RANDOMLY switching targets, throwing away the datalink at the same way. It feels like it’s getting worse every update.
Anyone knows if this also happens for other fox-3 capable aircrafts or is it unique to the awg-9??
This shit actually make this plane borderline unplayable and got me killed many times.
Just now, I’m at 11k meters or smt, F-15 got a missile launch on me, trying to get a soft lock on him before launching my phoenix and dip but then right before launching, it soft locks another target to the right making my radar antenna move all the way to the side and so completely losing sight of the F-15.
Makes using manual radar control a pain in the ass.
2 Likes
Seems like an AWG-9 problem to me, I don’t have any issues on the F-16C, Mirage 2000, J-8F, MiG-29SMT
I have had a similar issue on my F-15C many times now as it loves to switch tracking to enemy missiles and sometimes it just flatout loses TWS track outside of about 40km lol. Gaijin’s modeling for modern radars is a comedy at this point.
I have it happening a lot on the N001VEP. However, I am not sure that it is throwing the missile guidance off, just makes it annoying to choose targets.
Hilarious how the head-on only radar will prioritize a tail-aspect, almost no relative speed target over some guy doing mach 2 straight at you
3 Likes
its happening a little bit with the f15C but nothing on that scale. Again I honestly think its the TCS pod
Its not the TCS, the AWG-9 has had issues since day 1 in-game. The TCS was an issue at one point, but gaijin took the super lazy way out, and instead of properly modelling the TCS and/or giving us a “slave switch” control, they just decoupled it from the radar entirely and called it a day, which makes the TCS and TGP’s significantly worse than they could be in sim, and even RB.
Case in point, the F-14A has the same issues and does not have a TCS.
1 Like
I cant say for certain. I ve just noticed it happens on the B more than the A and that every time it happens I see the TCS also move. On top of that, as I have said before it is often that you can be tracking target A on tws and the TCS is locking on someone else. If you try to fire the phoenix, you will see that it is slaved on the TCS instead of the radar. I ll try to get a clip of this to show you what I mean.
There is also a problem with the display in the cockpit that outputs from the TCS.
F-14B in real life would have used a monochrome, low-resolution monitor from the 1970s, but the game uses a full-color monitor for somehow.
Yeah I know that’s RIO’s display(PTID) but, pilot ones(VDI) should look the same.
F-14A is still understandable because they didn’t get it in 1970s.
1 Like