Jump to content

The AIM-54C should be able to active on its own.


nighthawk2174

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean if you are basically WVR and committed to it I'd assume IFF has been done by the pilot. Aside from of course the classic DCS asshole that lobs fox3s into furballs. 

 

So we are agreed? 

 

What he is saying is that this very thing is never a consideration for weapon development. You want your weapon to be as lethal and capable as possible, leaving ROE's up to the one who employs it. By that logic any heater or fox-1 can jump targets if the right conditions are met. Modern missiles like the METEOR can even be re-assigned to a different target when in flight. DCS airquake isn't the real world.


Edited by Airhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Exactly, at some point ALL or most DCS weapons are guesswork, especially the AMRAAM as most of what is known about it is either based on some old HUD footage, general missile guidence algo's or simply other sims which shall not be named. 

 

So what kind of evidence and proof outside of the actual weapons and employment manuals or logic diagrams (which we'll never see) would be needed to get this straight? Or why does said developer feel such resistance to these suggestions? Does he feel having the 54C behave and guide exactly like the A is more realistic despite said evidence or reports of improvements in guidence? An educated guess on new data is just as much if not less of a guess as the C behaving like an A which there is also 0 evidence for. And again it is pretty anecdotal and laughable if you claim to have some accurate simulation of both Phoenix variants yet the C underperforms in amost all aspects compared to the A in your simulation of it. 
No one here is claiming to know some secret and be in the know on how it should perform but these reports at least indicate a similarity to the 120A, especially given no space restrictions - same manufacturer, roughly the same era. I think 20 some years of development and improvement should at least make one or two leaps in certain areas. Not to mention if you asked former crew about what missile they would rather take into combat all of them say 54C no doubt.
So again, I don't understand some choices that were made at HB. Why have the 54C in the game alltogether if there is no data available on it apart from the usual CFD treatment the entire 54 family has gotten (even though the 54A has a slightly different geometry and weight)? I'd be at least happy if we could get proper, white AIM-54A textures to visually differentiate the two like you can with most munitions and missiles in DCS. Especially now that the 54C is pretty much made up and a worse A. This isn't some attack or jab at the developer or Heatblur, I just genuinely don't understand the logic behind this. To me it sounds like "We have made the choice/guess early in the development to make the 54C behave just like the A but somehow be worse, and are now just sticking with it because we don't have further hard data and documentation despite some reports and indications that came up along the road that indicate certain differences".  

 

At this point I'm not even saying or sticking with the fact that it should go active on its own but it should at least have the well documented higher ceiling, smoother guidence and reach Mach 5+ due to said higher ceiling. In short, be a better choice than the 54A in almost all scenarios. This should be the goal no matter how it's achieved. 

 

 

You're missing my point. Like I said earlier we agree that the current AIM-54C isn't better enough to warrant going with it as it is and we're hoping we can improve upon that with the new missile model when that's done. What I don't agree with is that a lot of you guys think this should boil down to the AIM-54C being able to go active on its own. Something being best guess is not an argument for or against a fact that hasn't been proven.
 

And saying that the fact that a lot of things aren't possible to implement in DCS should change this is also not something I agree upon. If some sort of clearer evidence can be found about this fact we'd very much like to see it, be it manual or whatever sort of document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

So the 54C behaving like the 54A (in some cases worse) is not a best guess on your end either? 

 

The current AIM-54C is what it is based off of our CFD modelling and the limits of DCS. Initially we had hoped that the increased countermeasure resistance would've been a bigger differentiator. As for the rest we're hoping we can mitigate some of that with the new missile modelling like I said earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

What he is saying is that this very thing is never a consideration for weapon development. You want your weapon to be as lethal and capable as possible, leaving ROE's up to the one who employs it. By that logic any heater or fox-1 can jump targets if the right conditions are met. Modern missiles like the METEOR can even be re-assigned to a different target when in flight. DCS airquake isn't the real world.

 

 

Then he is wrong.

 

Here is the scenario where your "Auto" on is a bad idea, if you have any friendlies between you and a more distant target, guess who is fucked? Or if you anything nearby your intended target. 

 

This is almost NEVER a factor in DCS, it can be IRL. 

 

The ROE is that the F14 is doing the IFF and target discrimination. Thats why the guy in back ultimately had the call to turn the missile on. Its almost never a factor in DCS though, cuz well DCS. Unless you are that guy that lobs fox3's into furballs. 

 

This is also one reason why Fox3's turn on relatively close to their intended target and are DL guided to that point. The other being the pringles can sized antenna and Walmart battery power available to the radar. 

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 1

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Here is the scenario where your "Auto" on is a bad idea, if you have any friendlies between you and a more distant target, guess who is fucked? Or if you anything nearby your intended target.

 

This is almost NEVER a factor in DCS, it can be IRL. 

And this is why nobody who would fire any kind of missile in that situation is allowed anywhere near the launch button of a jet.

This is extremely basic stuff that few pilots in online DCS seem to understand. Your friendlies would be equally fucked with a fox-1.

 

26 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

The ROE is that the F14 is doing the IFF and target discrimination. Thats why the guy in back ultimately had the call to turn the missile on. Its almost never a factor in DCS though, cuz well DCS. Unless you are that guy that lobs fox3's into furballs. 

This is complete and utter nonsense.

  1. Target identification in the real world is down to very few key tactical elements (GCI mostly) because fighter IFF is unreliable at the best of times. It goes way further than "hit button, one bar = pew, two bar = no pew". There's a reason most major conflicts required VID.
  2. The guy in the back has ZERO interaction with the missile after he pushes the launch button.
  3. If you're one of the people thinking fox-1 into a furball is any safer than fox-3 then you are badly mistaken from a real world perspective.

 

26 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

This is also one reason why Fox3's turn on relatively close to their intended target and are DL guided to that point. The other being the pringles can sized antenna and Walmart battery power available to the radar. 

It's not, the only reasons have to do with physical limitations such as seeker strength, battery life, missile weight and volume.

 

Why design an over-complicated, less lethal version of a missile when you can just make sure your pilots aren't airquake monkeys.


Edited by Noctrach
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Then he is wrong.

 

Here is the scenario where your "Auto" on is a bad idea, if you have any friendlies between you and a more distant target, guess who is fucked? Or if you anything nearby your intended target. 

 

This is almost NEVER a factor in DCS, it can be IRL. 

 

The ROE is that the F14 is doing the IFF and target discrimination. Thats why the guy in back ultimately had the call to turn the missile on. Its almost never a factor in DCS though, cuz well DCS. Unless you are that guy that lobs fox3's into furballs. 

 

This is also one reason why Fox3's turn on relatively close to their intended target and are DL guided to that point. The other being the pringles can sized antenna and Walmart battery power available to the radar. 

 

 

Harlikwin, you are talking a very contrived reason for a capability that does not exist in any missile that uses an active seeker. DCS actually makes it far worse than it is IRL for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with how missiles actually acquire and guide to targets. 
There are a thousand small miracles that have to happen for the missile to get there and terminate its target successfully. Target ID is not a part of that sequence. Once the missile is launched it is launched and the entire guidance system is doing its best to get it to the target.

 

It is on the aircrew to satisfy all of that prior to launch, not Hail Mary the missile off into nowhere land. 
A significant weakness of the radio signal to get activated command is what if that signal is jammed? Giving the opponent a vote in whether your missile can function or not seems like a much much bigger problem than being disciplined and careful with your ROE.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Like I said earlier we agree that the current AIM-54C isn't better enough to warrant going with it as it is and we're hoping we can improve upon that with the new missile model when that's done.

Is correct post launch behavior of the PH ACT switch going to finally be added?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KlarSnow said:

Harlikwin, you are talking a very contrived reason for a capability that does not exist in any missile that uses an active seeker. DCS actually makes it far worse than it is IRL for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with how missiles actually acquire and guide to targets. 
There are a thousand small miracles that have to happen for the missile to get there and terminate its target successfully. Target ID is not a part of that sequence. Once the missile is launched it is launched and the entire guidance system is doing its best to get it to the target.

 

It is on the aircrew to satisfy all of that prior to launch, not Hail Mary the missile off into nowhere land. 
A significant weakness of the radio signal to get activated command is what if that signal is jammed? Giving the opponent a vote in whether your missile can function or not seems like a much much bigger problem than being disciplined and careful with your ROE.

 

I mean fair, I guess the 54A had the guy in back flip the switch because.... (you tell me)I'm sure Boris and Natsha had jammers circa 1970...

 

And yes we are agreed the IFF part of the whole deal is important IRL, but lets be real not so much in DCS. 

 

That being said, if you want to forward credible Aim54C docs to heatblur that say the Aim54C is the Lane Bryant version of the AAMRAM I'm sure the community would be grateful. And if you want to tell everyone the specific "how missiles actually acquire and guide to targets" we would all be a bit smarter and DCS would be a better sim, we are listening. 

 

 


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Noctrach said:

And this is why nobody who would fire any kind of missile in that situation is allowed anywhere near the launch button of a jet.

This is extremely basic stuff that few pilots in online DCS seem to understand. Your friendlies would be equally fucked with a fox-1.

 

Yes... But this is DCS... 

 

2 hours ago, Noctrach said:

 

This is complete and utter nonsense.

  1. Target identification in the real world is down to very few key tactical elements (GCI mostly) because fighter IFF is unreliable at the best of times. It goes way further than "hit button, one bar = pew, two bar = no pew". There's a reason most major conflicts required VID.

Yes...

 

2 hours ago, Noctrach said:
  1. The guy in the back has ZERO interaction with the missile after he pushes the launch button.

Well the Phoenix has that button. 

 

2 hours ago, Noctrach said:
  1. If you're one of the people thinking fox-1 into a furball is any safer than fox-3 then you are badly mistaken from a real world perspective.

Yes....

 

2 hours ago, Noctrach said:

 

It's not, the only reasons have to do with physical limitations such as seeker strength, battery life, missile weight and volume.

 

Why design an over-complicated, less lethal version of a missile when you can just make sure your pilots aren't airquake monkeys.

 

Yes, the real world problems of the pringles can antenna and wallmart 12V battery are real constraints, The phoenix a bit less so since it has the pie-plate antenna and a "few" Die-hard batteries.

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Naquaii said:

What I don't agree with is that a lot of you guys think this should boil down to the AIM-54C being able to go active on its own. Something being best guess is not an argument for or against a fact that hasn't been proven.

That isnt the arguement though, at least not from me, and not from a few others ive read here.

 

Its not that being a best guess means its proven. Of course it isnt proven. The point is that its a good enough guess that its more likely than not and should be implemented until we get better information.

 

You mentioned that you think comparison from 54A to C is reasonable, that it can be inferred they are similar etc. Ok. Well we are doing the same thing from Aim-120 to 54C. Not only do we know the nomenclature being used is the same, but they were made by the same company during the same time frame. Its seems more than a bit reasonable to also infer that if they went to the trouble of upgrading the 54 to inertial guidance as opposed to SARH, which also happens to be the same method the 120 uses (and is using the exact same nomenclature) that they implemented the entire shebang. Why on earth would you go to the trouble of adding a inertial guidance with mid course updates to the missile if you werent going to give it the ability to do the other things that were developed for the amraam at the same time?

 

There is only one reason to have command inertial as opposed to simple "command" guidance: you want the missile to potentially operate autonomously. Going from SARH to Command guidance would generally be considered a downgrade (as it is on every SAM ive ever heard of) but going from command to command inertial would be even worse because this implies your sending updates to the missile less often and letting it coast on its own INS from time to time. Doing that only makes sense if the real purpose of the inertial reference is to provide guidance to the general intercept area in case of data link loss.


Edited by KenobiOrder
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, KenobiOrder said:

That isnt the arguement though, at least not from me, and not from a few others ive read here.

 

Its not that being a best guess means its proven. Of course it isnt proven. The point is that its a good enough guess that its more likely than not and should be implemented until we get better information.

 

You mentioned that you think comparison from 54A to C is reasonable, that it can be inferred they are similar etc. Ok. Well we are doing the same thing from Aim-120 to 54C. Not only do we know the nomenclature being used is the same, but they were made by the same company during the same time frame. Its seems more than a bit reasonable to also infer that if they went to the trouble of upgrading the 54 to inertial guidance as opposed to SARH, which also happens to be the same method the 120 uses (and is using the exact same nomenclature) that they implemented the entire shebang. Why on earth would you go to the trouble of adding a inertial guidance with mid course updates to the missile if you werent going to give it the ability to do the other things that were developed for the amraam at the same time?

Agreed, the fact that the nomenclature is literally the exact same heavily implies extreme similarities.  The AIM-54A lacks the ability to go active on its own as it is fundamentally reliant on the AWG-9 for everything.  Not only to give it positional updates but to keep it on course.  Without the AWG-9 the missile has no ability to know its range to the target, no ability to know if its in range for its seeker to activate.  When the AWG-9 calculates the missile should be in range for its seeker based on TOF then its told to go active. The whole point of adding an INS system would be to eliminate this weakness of the system.  The entire electronics package of the 54C was rebuilt essentially from the ground up.  I see no reason that this limitation couldn't and wasn't fixed.

 

Even with the lack of hard -1 type evidence we can still make educated guesses, we shouldn't hamstring ourselves just because we can't have a 1000% accurate simulation.  We have a bunch of other indications that the 54C is a bit more advanced than an A with just better chaff resistance.  The facts that it was upgraded while the 120 was under development, didn't have the same space restrictions that delayed the amraam till 91, that his was done by the exact same company even possible with some overlap in personal, and anecdotal evidence that the missiles shared guidance algo's should be more than enough. 


Edited by nighthawk2174
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean if you are basically WVR and committed to it I'd assume IFF has been done by the pilot. Aside from of course the classic DCS asshole that lobs fox3s into furballs. 

 

With PAL at 10-15 miles, you can easily lock a bandit, fire and the 54 will happily race after a nearer friendly, as I understand it (and evidence confirms) it's maddog off the rail! So the argument, that they wouldn't design a system that could potentially lock a friendly accidentally by going active itself, doesn't really hold any water or the current PH ACT implementation is wrong too.

 


Edited by Kula66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kula66 said:

 

With PAL at 10-15 miles, you can easily lock a bandit, fire and the 54 will happily race after a nearer friendly, as I understand it (and evidence confirms) it's maddog off the rail! So the argument, that they wouldn't design a system that could potentially lock a friendly accidentally by going active itself, doesn't really hold any water or the current PH ACT implementation is wrong too.

 

 

I mean, with the amraam the datalink helps prevent this (potentially 54C too).  If you have a solid STT lock (for better update rate) even when firing into a furball the missile will dump targets that aren't the one the main radar sees.  I've had a rhino piolt tell me straight up they train to fire into furballs and that he'd rather risk hitting a friendly then not potentially save than friendly from a HOBS missile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

@Naquaii While most of us really (!) appreciate your dedication to realism and "getting it right", I assume a lot of us don't really care about the ultimate, hardcore "proof" that much

 

I do! I do care about it a lot actually and I'm happy that @Naquaii is not willing to implement features of which there is no proof that they exist IRL. Guesswork and drawing comparisons to the functionality of completely different weapons (AIM-120) while at the same time ignoring the functionality of the same familiy of weapons (AIM-54A) doesn't proof anything.


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 2

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, near_blind said:

Is correct post launch behavior of the PH ACT switch going to finally be added?

 

If it isn't currently it's the first I'm hearing of it? What is missing?

 

4 hours ago, KenobiOrder said:

That isnt the arguement though, at least not from me, and not from a few others ive read here.

 

Its not that being a best guess means its proven. Of course it isnt proven. The point is that its a good enough guess that its more likely than not and should be implemented until we get better information.

 

You mentioned that you think comparison from 54A to C is reasonable, that it can be inferred they are similar etc. Ok. Well we are doing the same thing from Aim-120 to 54C. Not only do we know the nomenclature being used is the same, but they were made by the same company during the same time frame. Its seems more than a bit reasonable to also infer that if they went to the trouble of upgrading the 54 to inertial guidance as opposed to SARH, which also happens to be the same method the 120 uses (and is using the exact same nomenclature) that they implemented the entire shebang. Why on earth would you go to the trouble of adding a inertial guidance with mid course updates to the missile if you werent going to give it the ability to do the other things that were developed for the amraam at the same time?

 

There is only one reason to have command inertial as opposed to simple "command" guidance: you want the missile to potentially operate autonomously. Going from SARH to Command guidance would generally be considered a downgrade (as it is on every SAM ive ever heard of) but going from command to command inertial would be even worse because this implies your sending updates to the missile less often and letting it coast on its own INS from time to time. Doing that only makes sense if the real purpose of the inertial reference is to provide guidance to the general intercept area in case of data link loss.

 

 

No, what I'm saying that what we decided upon as the best guess is not the same as the one you guys are arguing for. And you're arguing with evidence that's circumstantial at best and not as good as what we've used as our basis. Both lines of reasoning have merit but not the same amount. That both are unproven does not mean yours is more right.

 

And no, using the same nomenclature, i.e. "command/inertial" for two different missiles does not prove anything. And also, saying that you wouldn't improve the navigational system of the missile if you weren't specifically designing it for being able to go active is a logical fallacy and also does not prove anything. Do you really think that all more modern semi-active missiles have useless inertial systems?


Edited by Naquaii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

 

If it isn't currently it's the first I'm hearing of it? What is missing?

 

 

No, what I'm saying that what we decided upon as the best guess is not the same as the one you guys are arguing for. And you're arguing with evidence that's circumstantial at best and not as good as what we've used as our basis. Both lines of reasoning have merit but not the same amount. That both are unproven does not mean yours is more right.

 

And no, using the same nomenclature, i.e. "command/inertial" for two different missiles does not prove anything. And also, saying that you wouldn't improve the navigational system of the missile if you weren't specifically designing it for being able to go active is a logical fallacy and also does not prove anything. Do you really think that all more modern semi-active missiles have useless inertial systems?

 

 

It does not prove it for a fact obviously and yes modern semi-active missiles, well whatever you can call modern, like the R-27 and AIM-7 all have an INS. However, we know they are semi-active and rely on the plane's radar reflection to guide on in the terminal phase. We also know that even the 54A had the capability to go active off the rail or when commanded by the WCS. So if I'm an engineer working on the 54C program and finding out that we are goimg to use a strap-down INS in said upgraded missile as well as all new digital electronics I'd have a hard time not to make it as lethal and smart as possible and give it the ability to guide better and know where it is in space at all times. It would be really surprising to me that the same company that's working on an active AIM120 during the same timeframe would simply ignore those capabilities and findings for the in-house 54C given no real space restrictions like with the AMRAAM. 

 

And yes, obviously DCS and the missile API are very limiting and by themselves an educated guess on how missiles guide and work. I'd also be curious whether you guys CFD'd the 54A or C model? Because the A had additional "bulges" on the outside which would result in a slightly different aero than the C and more drag, especially at AOA. 

 

I guess we will see where this leads us once you guys implement the full, new missile API from ED. I sure hope the C will be a noticeable improvement compared to the A by then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

It does not prove it for a fact obviously and yes modern semi-active missiles, well whatever you can call modern, like the R-27 and AIM-7 all have an INS. However, we know they are semi-active and rely on the plane's radar reflection to guide on in the terminal phase. We also know that even the 54A had the capability to go active off the rail or when commanded by the WCS. So if I'm an engineer working on the 54C program and finding out that we are goimg to use a strap-down INS in said upgraded missile as well as all new digital electronics I'd have a hard time not to make it as lethal and smart as possible and give it the ability to guide better and know where it is in space at all times. It would be really surprising to me that the same company that's working on an active AIM120 during the same timeframe would simply ignore those capabilities and findings for the in-house 54C given no real space restrictions like with the AMRAAM. 

 

And yes, obviously DCS and the missile API are very limiting and by themselves an educated guess on how missiles guide and work. I'd also be curious whether you guys CFD'd the 54A or C model? Because the A had additional "bulges" on the outside which would result in a slightly different aero than the C and more drag, especially at AOA. 

 

I guess we will see where this leads us once you guys implement the full, new missile API from ED. I sure hope the C will be a noticeable improvement compared to the A by then. 

 

That's just one aspect of it, it's certainly not the sole factor determining if the missile was designed to go active on its own. Hell we don't know if the AMRAAM should do it in all modes. It might even have been that the AIM-54C with the AWG-9 was less capable than the AIM-54C with the APG-71 just as if you put a SEAM capable AIM-9 on an aircraft not able to use that function. We just don't know and it's dangerous to assume stuff out of second hand information, especially when found on the Internet.

 

But yes, we're in agreement that the AIM-54C needs to have clear advantages over the AIM-54A and that's also what we're trying to fix in the long run.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Naquaii said:

 

Why does "command-inertial guidance" prove that it should go active on its own?

 

Why else include this system into the seeker design? What purpose does a command-inertial guidance system serve? The logical conclusion that comes to mind is that if the guiding radar loses lock at any point during mid-flight, the command-inertial guidance system takes over and guides to missile to the last known target location in relation to the missiles own position in space, and once the missile arrives, activates the missile seeker. 


Now this is just an semi-educated guess on my part and could be completely wrong. It might simply be a system that's designed to work with the more advanced F14Ds radar which might be able to reacquire a lost track and re-guide a missile in flight, or something of the kind. But it does kind of sound like the exact same system that the AMRAAM has, or at least it uses the same terminology. Not exactly conclusive proof or anything yeah 🙂


Edited by Lurker
  • Like 1

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no reason to pick the "C" variant because the analog "A" variant (from the 70's ?) is overperforming immensely already. 
Heatblur should drastically reduce the "A"'s seeker performance.
Then you'd have a reason to go for the "C" variant. 

Also, the aim120 has the "AMRAAM" behind it's name.
The aim54C does not. 

Surely the 'advanced' term stands for SOMETHING right ? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

There's no reason to pick the "C" variant because the analog "A" variant (from the 70's ?) is overperforming immensely already. 
Heatblur should drastically reduce the "A"'s seeker performance.
Then you'd have a reason to go for the "C" variant. 

Also, the aim120 has the "AMRAAM" behind it's name.
The aim54C does not. 

Surely the 'advanced' term stands for SOMETHING right ? 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have something constructive to add, then by all means do so, but every single post I've seen from you is an incessant and irrational tirade against any and all aspects of Heatblur's F14 module, and any and all of it's systems. While it makes for fascinating insight into the psychology of a certain type of person, it's getting tiresome. Please stop. 


Edited by Lurker
  • Like 8

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Why else include this system into the seeker design? What purpose does a command-inertial guidance system serve? The only logical conclusion that comes to mind is that if the guiding radar loses lock at any point during mid-flight, the command-inertial guidance system takes over and guides to missile to the last known target location in relation to the missiles own position in space, and once the missile arrives, activates the missile seeker. 


Now this is just an semi-educated guess on my part and could be completely wrong. It might simply be a system that's designed to work with the more advanced F14Ds radar which might be able to reacquire a lost track and re-guide a missile in flight, or something of the kind. But it does kind of sound like the exact same system that the AMRAAM has, or at least it uses the same terminology. Not exactly conclusive proof or anything yeah 🙂

 

To be fair, Naquaii really does have a point that it doesn't prove anything by itself. What it should do at least is render the -C much better capable to determine proper loft/intercept parameters, which would benefit terminal energy and lethality. However, I can imagine that this is impossible to represent on the old missile API where they have zero control over anything beyond initial launch parameters.

 

I'd say giving it a bit more kick in the pants on the initial flyout due to the higher motor Isp would at least set it apart slightly from the 54Amk47 but it wouldn't be very significant compared to just using the Mk60.

 

Hopefully in due time. ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...