The missile is tailored to fit the absolute maximum launch range scenario, and as such is actually SEVERELY overperforming at low altitudes. A modified efficient loft would exacerbate the issue further.
2 Likes
Most likely not. The loft on both AIM-54’s appears to be based on a single shot out to 110NM made with the AIM-54A. The AIM-54C has an all new guidance section capable of more advanced and optimized trajectories to improve hit probability vs small agile targets (ie: more terminal velocity).
The problem is, besides everything pointing to improved guidance capabilities for the AIM-54C, we dont have the EXACT numbers, so gaijin isn’t ever going to do anything about it. The 54C is doomed to forever be trash in WT.
2 Likes
Well if you can, file a FOIA request for this section from the SARs FY 1989, SARs FY 1990, and SARs FY 1991, it has max range and target altitude:
Incoming @MiG_23M claiming “these are all falsified and PSYOP” …
Also the launch weight is currently 1020.74 lb.
According to this they achieved 1018 lb in 1989 with a estimate for further weight reduction to 1014 lb. (which might have been possibly actualized, if someone manages to FOIA the FY 1990 and FY 1991 reports).
This is for ECCM/Sealed variant, but I don’t see why the in-game AIM-54C shouldn’t be assumed to be the ECCM/Sealed variant (and get all its improvements).
2 Likes
These are the numbers permissible for public distribution, not the real world numbers or tactical launch weight.
At the time of publishing the actual tactical weight of these missiles was still classified - the real numbers are redacted and the fake ones are not. It’s simple.
Practices like these began after initial problems with information leakage occurred with the AIM-54A. It is what spurred the Outsider’s view of the awg-9 / phoenix weapon system document.
I might give it a shot, though max range of the 54C wouldnt necessarily help us in determining a more accurate loft profile for the missile. When I tested various loft profiles for the AIM-54C, the general trend was that an improvement in terminal intercept velocity generally resulted in a mild increase in time to target as a negative as well (as the missiles path was longer, but spent in thinner air for more of it).
The 110nmi shot our AIM-54A/C in-game are based on technically do reach, and do appear to hit the max alt achieved by the 54A in the test shot, but reach right as the missiles battery runs out, its entirely possible that in exchange for improved performance across its most likely envelope, the missile had a reduction in absolute range.
As it currently stands, the AIM-54A is, afaik, the only missile in-game with a quasi-accurate loft profile, and this is ONLY because we have data on a test shot that gives quite a bit more detail than typically found, between launch speed, target speed, intercept range, launch range, target and launch alt, and max missile alt. THAT’s what I was referring to when I said “we don’t have the EXACT numbers”.
We know the guidance section and control sections were completely replaced, with the new WGU-11/B digital guidance section replacing the old analogue one, and the WCU-7/B replacing the old control section. We know this was done to allow for more optimized trajectory shaping for the missile, which we know was done to improve performance vs small and highly agile targets, but we dont have exact numbers on the loft trajectory, which makes it hard to bug report, and effectively impossible to argue with gaijin regarding improving the loft/guidance code.
Gaijin devs are already incredibly questionable when it comes to proper implementation of western systems with MULTIPLE primary sources (such as the infamous MANPAD situation), trying to get them to improve a missile one or more devs clearly have a significant bias against is effectively impossible as it stands, and I sorta doubt the documents you suggested would really improve that either.
As for considering the in-game 54C an ECCM/Sealed variant, idk if thats really relevant either. Afaik, beyond the fact the missile didnt need external cooling anymore, the ECCM/Sealed variant allegedly had further improvements to the seeker. Gaijin already refuses to model the current 54C seeker any differently than the 54A (with the 54A’s seeker likely overperforming in the first place as it can go active without the aircraft telling it to), so I dont see much reason in trying to get them to model it as the final variant when they couldnt be bothered to model any of the variants right in the first place…
1 Like
Worthless magazine, am I right?
LOL
I just found it interesting piece of history as it reflects the Soviet’s perspective on the missile.
Did I say we should use it for a bug report?
Though there is nothing inherently wrong with using it for a bug report. It’s still a secondary source.
Yes, if it says something that conflicts with primary sources, then that piece of information is incorrect / unusable.
But if a secondary source makes a claim that is not contradicted by primary sources then it’s a usable source (though you would need 2 secondary sources for a report).
Bug report:
AIM-54A/C & Fakour-90 incorrect antenna beam width:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/INPP9O0uE8g7/
Thats level of US predictions on mig-29
So it isnt actually
It says “according to foreign press”.
And as I said, I’m not using it for a report … Just found it interesting …
I posted something incredibly similar a long time ago, unfortunately of no use for bug reporting, but does at least confirm that all the assumptions made such as:
- New and much more advanced homing head = better homing head
- New and much more advance guidance section = better guidance
are at least based in reality despite what gaijin says…
I do wonder why none of the guidance section code failed to get touched with the C given that was half of it’s claim to fame upon introduction.
Would be interesting to see how it would preform with say the AIM-120A’s guidance section code compared to the stock phoenix code.
A. Cuz they’re lazy
B. Cuz they have some weird unexplained and unfounded hatred for the AIM-54 for some reason
C. All of the above
Modifying the AIM-54’s guidance code and including energy management code (something all radar missiles above 12.0 have EXCEPT the AIM-54) and a better loft trajectory doesnt really change time to target much, but substantially improves speed at range, as seen below:
Keep in mind, none of these are the AIM-120 loft trajectory, all of the loft codes tested here were made by me except IMPL, made by Dark_Claw. EM is however the AIM-54C’s in-game guidance and loft code, with the only change being I added the energy management section from the AIM-120A, and it showed a minor improvement right off the bat.
The annoying part being that as can be seen above, improved loft codes dont particularly affect the AIM-54 at any ranges except the long ranges, at which all it does is provide less warning when missile goes pitbull, and more energy for the missile to maneuver at ranges you’d EXPECT the missile to be used… so its not really like improved loft codes would suddenly make the AIM-54C broken, it would just have a larger effective firing envelope. As currently implemented in-game, the AIM-54’s ideal range is in the ballpark of 35-45km, with anything closer being much too visible to be a threat to anyone with eyeballs, and anything further starting to range into “too slow to ba dangerous” considering all its other characteristics. Keep in mind the above test is a M1.2 launch vs M1.2 target at 9000m alt, and that 99% of shots in WT will not occur in such good conditions.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t be surprised if you agreed with something there and tried.
Tertiary. You REALLY don’t understand the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary do you?
The majority of information conflicts between all sources. What now?
Not sure what you posted, but there is also this one:
Project W0614 - This program provides performance and reliability improvements to the AIM-54 PHOENIX missile through development of (1) a digital electronics unit with auto-pilot functions; (2) an improved receiver/transmitter; and (3) an improved
Target Detection Device. The digital electronics unit will be software programmable and will provide expanded capabilities against electronic countermeasures, high-altitude targets, maneuvering targets, very low altitude targets and cluster targets.
The improved receiver/transmitter will include a frequency modulated transmitter with a frequency reference system and will provide the capability to track through the target’s beam aspect and to guide on targets in a stream raid. The improved Target Detection Device will be totally solid state and will provide expanded capabilities in adverse environments. These new units will provide a significant increase in missile reliability over the existing AIM-54A.
1 Like
New bug report:
AIM-54A should continue receiving datalink updates after going active:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZSTO5XEmnNov
Most likely applies to basically all ARH missiles … Same was reported for AAM-4 using a patent.
@David_Bowie @Gunjob The AIM-54 in-game is tailored for the high alt launch test scenario, as you can see at an altitude of ~10km the missile burns for nearly 40s as opposed to the lower estimate given in-game of 30. If we are to correctly adjust the drag and loft profile of the missile it needs to reflect the correct burn time for that launch scenario first.
@sudo_su1 Can you tag @MythicPi about this, he claims to have me blocked (but hasn’t) and is too prideful to admit as much. Though he would be very interested in this burn time data for the Phoenix at those given altitudes.
LOL, I completely f-ed up on this one (The datalink update report is still correct though)
I sincerely apologize to anyone affected by this emotional roller coaster.
I should’ve gotten the hint from all the test launches being on the first day of consecutive months, or the fact that the detailed test launch data would not be in an unclassified thesis from 1975.
You keep saying that. In all my testing I have never seen the phoenix reach mach 4.3 like it is supposed to. I also recently recreated the 22nm shot that was posted by @sudo_su The AIM-54 Phoenix missile - Technology, History and Performance - #1906 by sudo_su1 and it was actually funny to watch.
Yes the missile hits the target but by the time this happens I am almost overflying it. It would be more efficient to let it come a bit closer and shoot a sparrow as it would have intercepted the “drone” further away.
The missile goes on its intercept course and as soon as the motor is off it starts turning hard to compensate for the massive reduction in speed. Its as if the missile is having a stroke…
So is there any video or whatever of that max range shot being done in war thunder? Idk if you posted it here or anywhere else but I couldnt find anything. And because I couldnt find anything other than you saying that “the devs tested it”, I am inclined to be highly sceptical of that claim.
Also. I cant wrap my mind around why the engineers in Hughes decided to use other motors when the M112 motor for the hawk is so much better in every way… In 1977 the M112 was available. So why not use that beast instead ?