it does?
reaches an altitude of just over 15km(the target altitude), i.e doesnt loft to the target at all. Doesnt even get close to the target either. It does however loft for other situations, so to mythicpi’s credit, the loft profile for aim-54 definitely seems cheesed.
@DirectSupport did the missile not reach correct altitudes and ranges for the long range test or am I remembering incorrectly?
It does, people stating it does not reach the correct altitudes are mistaken. They can reference this post:
The excerpt in particular:
Long story short, the missile reached 100,000 feet in his test. I also spent half an hour testing it and it reached the correct altitude as well in the scenario.
well this shows it doesnt at all, maybe thats different in game but it shouldnt be?
okay there is a chance the software doesnt run for the AIM-54 because it uses the old loft style, if this is tested in game then i’ll accept that as valid.
I don’t have any sources on the 54C motor except that it should be low smoke @Gunjob said he nudged the report recently.
The motor was in production since 1983 so presumably uses similar impulse low smoke HTPB as the AIM-9M which would put it at equal performance to the AIM-54A (in terms of efficiency). On the flip side, the Fuji marines yellow book claims the 54C uses a heavier motor section so additional propellant may have been added making it more similar in impulse to the I-HAWK motor (but boost-only)…
We won’t know until sources are declassified or FOIA’d.
1 Like
Or the software dertava made is just as unreliable as all the others made to test missiles in-game.
I learned this the hard way, but corrected myself. In-game tests are valid, anything else is just supporting.
it’s worked for every other scenario but this, im willing to afford it a blip this time
I would not recommend jumping to conclusions based on the software if it is erroneous even once. It needs to be validated in-game regardless and isn’t usable for reports.
First of all, a 3G turn can hardly be called a “break” , second of all it maneuvers 1 mile before the missile hits it… Which is a fraction of a second… Might as well keep going straight…
The effective range is usually between 1/2 and 1/3 of a missile’s max range. This is to avoid wasting missiles and in turn, having to return to base earlier which in turn fucks with cyclic ops in an AO
Now on the bomber example, idk what kind of RWR you are talking about but the Russian bombers of that era are carrying some significant electronic hardware so I dont think a 3G turn 1 mile before impact is a realistic scenario to consider.
Uh? When did I ever said the 54 doesnt get similar penalties? The 54 cant even work properly on its deadliest “under 20nm” shots let alone the normal 40-60nm shots or the extreme shots you are refairing to… I dont get your point.
The effective range (meaning pK higher than 90% imo) is the NEZ limit.
Nez is golden but often unatainable. I understand however that it is subjective to personal preference. From the few talks I have had with air force pilots, they confirm that its up to the flight or section lead but the general rule and training is that (depending on mission parameters) they shouldnt take shots with less than 60% pK.
Also doctrine varies from country to country and even squadron to squadron, so its all up to debate.
So take of this what you will, I cant really confirm anything, since im not a pilot myself. I am just going with what has been entrusted to me by retired aviators that happen to be family friends as long as it makes a logical sense.
No, as you can see there is a graph where it manoeuvres at 15nm.
The missile used in the 110nmi shot (performed in 1973) is an AIM-54A, which has, aside from any potential differences in the motor/propellant/weight, a new guidance section with more complex and optimized trajectory shaping. This may not affect absolute performance of the missile to a substantial degree for example, but WOULD lead to more effective use of energy for a given scenario, which is what I’ve always been trying to point out with this graph:
As I’ve previously pointed out, changes to the loft/guidance code doesn’t really change things like TTI much, but what it DOES do is increase the speed of the missile at intercept ranges exceeding ~40km (ranges at which the AIM-54 should in theory be outperforming its smaller shorter ranged competitors, but doesnt really in-game…), which would be important in scenarios requiring interception of smaller and more agile targets such as fighters, which is one of the major reasons stated for the improvements made to the AIM-54C.
At this point, I dont think any of us has actual performance figures for the AIM-54C, with the only people to have said they had info keeping it 100% to themselves and refusing to share it, but we do know the AIM-54C in WT is categorically wrongly implemented, as the 54C irl changed every major component of the missile (new seeker, new inertial system, entirely new control section, new more advanced directional warhead, new “smart” fuze, new motor), with the only thing seemingly remaining from the original 54A being the missiles body and fins.
The primary issue with dealing with gaijin on this is that gaijin categorically refuses to equate 10-20 years of tech development and KNOWN alterations/improvement as an improvement in any way, simply because they “dont have concrete numbers”, which is how we have ended up with the AIM-54C being equal to or worse in every way to the 54A in-game (same guidance, same motor, same seeker, same loft profile, worse warhead because they took the reduced TNT filler but didnt compensate it for the improvement provided by the directional warhead), with the only improvement being an improvement in inertial navigation, which is arguably just about worthless. (I guess it also got a new paint job and looks cooler cuz of it…)
You said “3G break”, on the graph it says “3G break at 1nm” for the long range shot and “3G turn at 15nm” at the short range shot…