DSplayer Posted July 26, 2021 Posted July 26, 2021 Overall, how well will the AIM-54 with the new API perform compared to the current AIM-54 that we have now? Will they have better CCM? Will they be harder to notch? Will they have longer range because it won't do the high-G turns that drain all its speed in the terminal? Will the AIM-54C-Mk47 be finally a viable alternative to the AIM-54A-Mk60? Discord: @dsplayer Setup: R7 7800X3D, 64GB 6000Mhz, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro Resources I've Made: F-4E RWR PRF Sound Player | DCS DTC Web Editor Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14
nighthawk2174 Posted July 26, 2021 Posted July 26, 2021 (edited) Well based on my current understanding what we'll see is: -Smother loft, no more 600+kt energy bleeds at the top of the loft -APN, smoother guidance that is damped against target maneuvers at long range. -Possible increase in its maneuverability -Possible reduction in energy bleed in maneuvers -Possible increase in range performance? As motor on drag reductions are now taken into account Beyond this I would love to see the 54C be made so that it doesn't need a signal from the AWG9 to go active. Its my personal opinion that the 54C likely doesn't have this limitation (even HB agrees), digital electronics and INU on par with the amraam. However due to the lack of documentation on this is not going to change from how it is now. Edited July 26, 2021 by nighthawk2174 1
captain_dalan Posted July 26, 2021 Posted July 26, 2021 Basically what @nighthawk2174 said on the kinetics and maneuverability. As for the ECCM, it's hard to say, as i don't think many of us here have the ability to quantify the differences between the old and new API CM rejection values. What will be made easier is comparison and calibration in relation to the AIM-120 B and C models for the AIM-54C, and with the Sparrows for the AIM-54A. Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache, F4U Corsair, WWII Assets Pack
eatthis Posted July 26, 2021 Posted July 26, 2021 5 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said: Well based on my current understanding what we'll see is: -Smother loft, no more 600+kt energy bleeds at the top of the loft -APN, smoother guidance that is damped against target maneuvers at long range. -Possible increase in its maneuverability -Possible reduction in energy bleed in maneuvers -Possible increase in range performance? As motor on drag reductions are now taken into account Beyond this I would love to see the 54C be made so that it doesn't need a signal from the AWG9 to go active. Its my personal opinion that the 54C likely doesn't have this limitation (even HB agrees), digital electronics and INU on par with the amraam. However due to the lack of documentation on this is not going to change from how it is now. is that the kind of info the smes would know but not be allowed to say? 7700k @5ghz, 32gb 3200mhz ram, 2080ti, nvme drives, valve index vr
nighthawk2174 Posted July 26, 2021 Posted July 26, 2021 15 minutes ago, eatthis said: is that the kind of info the smes would know but not be allowed to say? Basically all of the bullet points are based off of stuff that is publicly available. There are textbooks out there about missile guidance and kinematics. And a lot of the things lacking in the old API from the new would result in the improvements I mentioned. The only thing that would fit something that SME's may know but can't say is if the 54C can go active on its own. Which is a shame as I would love a definitive answer as to wether or not it can so we can be sure that the 54C is properly simulated in this aspect.
Recommended Posts