100%
2 Likes
Grumman literally states here the F-14’s Aim-54 Pheonix can pull 25Gs in a turn at it’s standard. They also confirm the Aim-54C can loft to 100,000ft.
Incoming “We think this is clear marketing lie” BS.
2 Likes
The in-game Phoenix can loft to >100k feet when launched in the maximum range intercept conditions and players have shown that the maximum range / loft scenario is accurately depicted in-game. The overload issue is assuming that the missile has a combined plane maximum overload of ~25G indicates that the single plane overload is 17G.
Since there is no evidence of the missile using combined plane all the time currently, it will use only single plane. The same issue is preventing the Magic 2 from utilizing the 50G overload.
Here it says “from sea level to over 100k feet”… just saying
1 Like
So are you trying to say it should have 100nm range from sea level? That is also included in that sentence.
I think it is quite clear they are giving maximums here, not a combination of 25G at 100nm when launched from sea level and with a maximum loft altitude of 100k feet.
1 Like
It doesnt say 100nm from sea level tho
It is more than obvious they are not saying it should loft from sea level to 100k feet. If it was supposed to do this, why would the known launch conditions at 30k+ feet result in only a 100k foot maximum altitude against a maximum range target?
Im not part of the team that made the missile so I cant answer that, the same way you cant… Can you answer why in Gaijin’s simulated 100nm shot, the missile reaches its target with about the same energy as an Bf109? I saw a very generous approach when it comes to data accuracy when it came to the Fakour and Sedjil… But when it comes to the Phoenix, we cant even trust NASA’s data…
So the same way you are asking this very logical question, I am going to ask you the same question ive asked you some time ago. Why bother with making a new rocket motor for the phoenix when the iHawk’s motor is right there, and is apparently just better… ? And dont tell me that its wider because clearly, thats not much of an issue when the thing can reach speeds over Mach 5 as shown in screenshots from another user… (unless those screenshots are straight up made up bs, but still you get the point…)
Also why is the only difference between the A and C the weight and inertia drift (Which is irrelevant more often than not) while the C was completely different and a straight up upgrade to the A ? Again I dont expect you to have an actual answer…
And then there is the “no evidence of using combined plane maneuverability” argument… Why is it even a thing then if its not to be utilized? XD… Like, why even make it ?
3 Likes
What?
NASA’s data is wrong and the Phoenix in-game is modeled for that one specific scenario. It hits the target at a reasonable speed imo. The issue is that we know the time to target and not the maximum velocity. If the maximum velocity is higher (as it should be) the speed bleed should also be higher. You can’t escape the fact that the missile is intended to go to a specific altitude, and it does, and then glides down to the target until point of impact. The energy loss in this state currently is too low and thus it overperforms. It especially overperforms at sea level. The missile was ready around 1964… it is quite old.
There are many examples of this kind of issue in the military industrial complex. The i-HAWK is a SAM and optimized for those kinds of intercepts. The i-HAWK is also 10+ years newer. At the time the Phoenix finally saw introduction into service changes to the rocket motor and acceleration, top speed, etc would have necessitated a lot of extra spending and resulted in massive cost overruns of the project. Instead they maintained the same motor for some time. Look at the AIM-9 series. They had improved motors that could have equipped the AIM-9L/M but they continued to use the same one as the AIM-9D but with revised low smoke propellant. When the AIM-9X came out they continued to use the same very old propellant design.
I could give you quite literally dozens of examples where they sat on something instead of improving it in spite of what appeared to be an easy remedy.
This is because little information on the AIM-54C exists and Gaijin decided it wasn’t worth messing with. They gave up and stopped touching anything related to the Phoenix some time ago to focus on other things.
Some missiles can use it, some use it only in certain situations, and some can’t use it at all… they have no documentation on how the Phoenix guidance implements combined plane maneuverability.
1 Like
Which is ?
2 Likes
Its almost like you are saying that over the course of more than 4 decades, they didnt improve on anything on the missile and that the A (1964) performed the same as the C and the sealed variant…
“Gliding” is what all missiles do after they stop burning, that doesnt mean they are supposed to be well into subsonic speeds by the time they reach the target…
The energy loss… According to what data, have you determined that the missile should bleed speed as if it is a delta wing pulling 50 AOA… You are speculating based on some incomplete data of a single shot, that only confirm that it can hit a target that far and not much more than that…
2 Likes
Interesting things from DCS forum
4 Likes
Part of the problem with this game… Cherry picking data to use and data to not use…
3 Likes
According to you about the same as a BF-109 but I don’t think those are known to fly at 100k feet and then dive on things.
What does that at all have anything to do with what I said? Did you not see the part where I showed you the AIM-9 series used the same motor from the 60s into today and updated only the propellant material once, maybe twice and added a TVC nozzle on the end?
It does at rMAX unless the battery dies or it hits something first.
The in-game missile top speed is too low, thus the fact that it hits the target in the exact amount of time specified for the maximum launch range scenario means that the deceleration after burnout is too slow. If the top speed is higher IRL and the same deceleration is kept, the missile will reach the target too quickly.
There is nothing to cherry pick. We can hardly even prove it should have a low smoke motor.
Semantics are annoying. Stop.
people dont want you to talk about their favorite missile overperforming lmao
all of you are showing no evidence for the contrary. show the proof or be quiet.
1 Like
My evidence is what started this baseless back and forth.
And saying the Aim-54 is “underperforming” is just a maliciously incorrect statement. You know that’s not true.
I tested the Sea Phoenix launch test and it performs well beyond what it was claimed to do because it is optimized for high altitude maximum range scenario… which will naturally increase total impulse and improve performance but Gaijin doesn’t model the dynamic thrust and burn time based on temp / pressure & alt.
2 Likes
the missile is indeed overperforming in some aspects and should be nerfed and some other values should be heightened as per earlier mentions to provide a more accurate flight profile for the missile
1 Like
No missile in-game will be correct in certain scenarios as they only optimize them for one or a couple. The Phoenix with its’ long burn time and only a few datapoints available was optimized for the high altitude and long range scenario. This considerably buffs the low alt performance.
The issue is that Gaijin needs to overhaul the missile models in the game with dynamic thrust and drag to overcome this limitation and model them accurately in all conditions.
1 Like