Btw, does anyone have NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1.1?
I have NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1
1.1 contains sustaines turn rate charts
3 Likes
Boost-sustain motor for the initial Fakour-90 with 25-32 second total burn time.
Source
From the MIM-23B the missile had M112 type dual-thrust rocket engine; after 5 seconds of initial very high thrust in the traveling phase for 21 seconds provided smaller thrust but the total impulse of the engine became higher.
Source
~5 seconds boost- ~21 second sustain rocket motor.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 2 states the total motor mass as 416kg. Confirms total propellant mass as ~290kg.
Source 3
The initial HAWK rocket motor “M22E8” has 281kg of propellant as opposed to the AIM-54’s 170.55kg.
The M112 improved hawk rocket motor (used on the Fakour-90) has even more at 294.835kg.
Source
Although this source also states the AIM-54A to have a total propulsion section explosive net weight of 208.199kg. This is still a 41.6% increase in propellant quantity over the AIM-54A according to the explosive’s book.
The grain pattern and cross section of the M-112 HAWK missile motor.
Source
It can be assumed that since the Mk56 used on the AIM-7F is manufactured at the same facility and with similar tooling as the M112 that they use the same or similar propellant and have similar ISP.
Source
I have not read into this source much yet as the quality of the scan is poor but it seems to have propellant properties and composition.
@DirectSupport
Assessment:
The Fakour-90 has a higher weight than the Phoenix at 1,405 pounds (637.3kg) vs 443.6kg for the AIM-54A. This is a 43.6% increase in weight but this is all mostly additional propellant. There is 41.6% more propellant than the AIM-54A.
8 Likes
Perhaps post your findings as a comment in the report
I think 290kg is the most reliable number for propellent mass
That is not even up for debate, the exact propellant mass is known thanks to the Fuji marines site. That should be considered a primary source for propellant weights. 294.835kg total explosive mass. That is probably 290kg of propellant and 4.835kg for the detonator / igniter.
1 Like
Do any of your sources provide thrust values?
Reminder that the AIM-54 theyd be basing this on is the old analogue AIM-54A, and last i checked, you’ve argued heavily against fixing the AIM-54C’s guidance despite it ALSO having a completely new guidance system
Also, as per the bug report, the F90 is almost 50% heavier than the AIM-54A/C, and almost every source I’ve seen gives it LESS range than an AIM-54A, never mind a 54C with its improved guidance and optimized lofting which aren’t even present in-game. Its more of a Hawk with AIM-54 control surfaces than an actual AIM-54 analogue.
This is allegedly the seeker for the Shalamcheh SAM missiles which are basically Iranian upgraded Hawk missiles:
Spoiler
And this is allegedly the seeker head for Taer-2:
There is no picture of Fakour-90 (AIM-F90)'s seeker head.
I could only find pictures of the complete guidance section:
Spoiler
But I think it’s safe to assume it uses modern digital electronics …
1 Like
We can determine the thrust based on the impulse. The motor is produced by the same company as the AIM-7F’s motor and from the same facility. If the impulse is the same it should be around 260s.
The sounding rocket using the M112 rocket motor was ~400kg and had a peak acceleration of 21G.
400 kg accelerating at 21G (9.80665 x 21) = 205.93965 m/s2 would require 82375.86 newtons of thrust.
So using this spreadsheet as a basis for finding the correct values we work towards a realistic in-game missile test model.
With 82,375.86 newtons of thrust and a burn time of 5 seconds we only need to adjust the weight of the burned propellant to find the correct impulse. This should give us a realistic look at what the propellant burn during boost phase is.
I came up with an initial weight of 637.3 kg, a weight at the end of the boost-phase of 475kg. With a thrust of 82375.87kg and 5 seconds burn time we get an ISP of 258.69s.
For the sustainer we must use a different approach. We know the propellant mass, so subtracting the total mass from the propellant burned we find an end weight of 342.465kg. We know the burn time is 21 seconds. From here we only need to adjust the thrust until we get a realistic impulse similar to the AIM-7F’s sustainer.
Deriving the impulse from the standard missile characteristics.
1976
1977
The sustainer should be approximately ~215s it seems. I think the propellant weights are switched incidentally on the SMC sheet and Gaijin thinks so as well as they also have them flipped.
Anyhow, to get the sustainer to 215s impulse we find a realistic thrust rating of ~13350 newtons.
This is the resulting missile data, please note that the thrust values are PEAK and so the deltaV will NOT be correct.
Gaijin can either adjust this further by reducing burn time or reducing it from peak thrust to average thrust.
To get an idea of what that would look like I can adjust the values until the total deltaV is approximately 40% higher than the Phoenix rather than the current 80% value.
5 Likes
None of those sources are valid though unless they’re Iranian. So if an Iranian source states 20-30% more range than AIM-54 just for an example, then that would be valid for a report.
Reminder, this thread is to collect sources for the most accurate unbiased representation of the fighter in the game. If you have sources please feel free to share. Otherwise… the envious argumentative attitude isn’t welcome.
By the way, the math doesn’t work out in your favor. It’s not possible for it to have worse range than the AIM-54 with 40% more deltaV especially when one considers that drag is of no consequence at higher altitudes and the boost-sustain is lending more towards the in-game meta. Having the ability to hit a target from much further on a ballistic trajectory after some long period of time is not as good as being able to hit him first because the missile got to the target quicker.
This missile will be considerably better than the in-game Phoenix models thanks to the boost-sustain design.
6 Likes
We need to look into the capability of firing the R-27R. I don’t think it was capable.
@Smin1080p_WT are the devs aware of this or is it an intentional decision to add it anyway?
1 Like
I was more looking for confirming sources
Because the NASA source that I included in the report does provide thrust values
That’s 84516N for the booster and 13344.7N for the sustainer
1 Like
The source stating 21G acceleration for the sounding rocket confirms that indirectly as the math comes out to a very similar number. Those are also peak numbers.
So we have at least 2 sources for thrust, burn time, propellant weight… the missile should be very close to accurately modeled when it comes to the game then.
2 Likes
Was the Iranian F-14 ever proposed with better IR missiles? Maybe AIM-9H, AIM-9L, R-73, anything that was proposed as a sale even if canceled.
This site claims the use of R-73
Their Phantom’s HAVE fired the R-73, so it is not far of a stretch to say their F-14’s could also use them.
3 Likes
Already one source stating R-73 has been integrated:
10 Likes
I never said they arent using modern digital electronics, I said the comparison being made is against an old analogue AIM-54
There is the Sidewinder-based Azarakhsh IR missile with (apparently) IIR seeker, datalink and smokeless motor that is used as point defense SAM and also air launched from drones, but there is no information about its use on F-14:
There is a video of R-73 test fire from the Iranian F-4E, but, again, no information about it being tested with F-14:
So the only proven IR missile for now would be AIM-9P/J
7 Likes