No he have own small loft, but it’s still a loft :)
Proof?
https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=724&Article=2168381
Some AIM-54C (ECCM/sealed is the same missile) were retrofitted to the C+ standard
C+ (High power) was its own standard that was improved over the C (ECCM/sealed) and it was also independently produced before the C (ECCM) even entered service.
C+ was fitted with a modified AMRAAM antenna along with dramatically improved electronics
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54-variants.htm
2 Likes
Yeah, this is some of that additional info. The nomenclature is just kinda weird i find. I think its cuz the C+ is both used for the high powered phoenix (D?) and the final product retrofit to the ECCM/Sealed variant?
1 Like
I though that the SD-10 and the SD-10A were the same missile.
So the SD-10 is different from the SD-10A which is different from the SD-10B?
As far as I can tell the timeline goes like this:
AIM-54A (1972)
Basic Phoenix we already know, exceptional launch ranges (confirmed 100+ nm hit)
AIM-54C [AKA C ECCM/SEALED] (1982)
Improved seeker (solid state, said to be better in beam among other things), internal cooling system, heaters installed, reduced smoke motor, slightly increased range and top speed (mach 5+ capable)
AIM-54C+ [AKA High Power] (1990)
AMRAAM seeker installed, dramatically improved electronics.
So the F-14D would have been the only variant to have C+ access, which allows it to make use of its new radar with MPRF capability.
1 Like
the C and C ECCM/Sealed aren’t the same.
Thats the weird part, It looks like the timeline regarding the C goes something like;
C → C ECCM/Sealed → C+ program w/multiple upgrades → designation of C+ added to ECCM/Sealed that got some of the C+ upgrades?
The C+ seems to be the point of nomenclature issues
Who knows, only small amount of seekers were produced for tests and then project was cancelled.
Mythics forecast source is wildly inaccurate and most discussion of AIM-54C is not factual as that missile is still classified. Information for XAIM-54 / X-AAM N-11 indicates most performance metrics for AIM-54A are severely understated.
To add, pilot experience agrees with this. In practice, the Navy’s own charts and manuals underestimated the Phoenix’s performance.
1 Like
I don’t think that source’s designations are accurate. As far as I can tell, the basic C had the ECCM improvements and was sealed. There was a lot of name shifting but I am fairly confident there was no AIM-54C (No ECCM, unsealed)
Or if there was, it was only very early in production and practically irrelevant.
1 Like
Large calibre ARH seekers were MFBU-510(M, A1, A2) and MFBU-610 (9B-1388) chosen for R-37, while R-33S uses MFBU-520.
Yes but SD-10B/C/D where all rolled into the PL-15 program according to leaks back in 2015 so all modern references to 10B are a Pakistani designation of PL-15E.
SD-10B in its PL-12 form is rumoured to possibly be rolled into LD-10 to create PL-12A although there’s no concrete evidence.
Some great English sources are on Pakistani defense forum and Sinodefense forum.
Modern Chinese missiles are a confusing mess due to a strong media blackout on guided munitions unless the info comes from the manufacturer itself or the military save for a few leaks.
1 Like
your own source covers the fact there was in fact a C not designated as ECCM/Sealed tho…
interesting hearing them talk about the AIM-54 recommended ranges by top gun. 30-40mi for long range shots to try to hit them before they notice they are even being targeted, sub 20 miles was considered a “great shot”.
Definitely not reflected in-game.
1 Like
Great post, thanks for the work
Could be better with spoilers :p
that’s just following its launch trajectory before guiding, loft would have it climing +10 degrees or more
1 Like
all SARHs with ETA guidance do that its just because at long distances they restrict their guidance and maintain a constant heading, if you actually look in the code there is no loft code present
2 Likes
Isnt the R-27EA the ARH one?