The in-game thrust is 3,226 lb-f which is accurate. The total impulse given in the various sources available divided by the burn time give us correct thrust. This is for high altitude scenarios because that’s what the requirement for the motor was for.
You are assuming the exhaust of the rocket motor matches the diameter of the missile and this is not the case. This will drastically affect your math and it needs to be re-done. The diameter of the AIM-120’s nozzle can be considered closer to the diameter of the body than what is given on the AIM-54 based on photos. Stop pretending you aren’t reading what I’m saying so we can have a productive conversation.
Originally I wasn’t gonna bother with this thread but I’m glad you admitted where you got your “information” from.
First off, is Mig23M credible or no? You’ve always insinuated Mig23M isn’t to be believed but now apparently you modeled a missile based on some hearsay from Mig23M thru me.
Second, the whole write up, all of the work you did, and the missile modeling is useless for several reasons:
I read a cropped chart with little to no context incorrectly.
The chart requires perfect measurement to accurately read it, I spitballed the figures while also reading it incorrectly (see #1).
The missile possibly was a lighter earlier variant without a seeker, hence the no loft, I didn’t clarify thru Mig23M because I didn’t care too much.
Mig23M isn’t trustworthy (joke)
Forecast also isn’t a good source to determine the maximum range of the radar. Gaijin does not even accept them as a source as it’s considered to be Jane’s.
You need to come to terms with whether or not Mig23M is to be believed or not. You cannot cherry-pick and say he’s untrustworthy and then switch up the next minute and model a missile based on some “document” from Mig23M that you do not know if it exists. I also had told you I myself did not have the document.
Anyway, this is the last I’ll say of anything on this topic. But it’s clear, Mig23M as well as tech mods should be believed over anything you have to offer.
I’m gonna use them as a reference because the figures for the missile size seem credible.
According to this, diameter from control surface to control surface is 36 inches.
It also says the diameter is 15 inches.
Using this data, and this photo as reference;
Tip to tip is 135 pixels
Diameter is 57 pixels
Exhaust nozzle is 38 pixels
36 / 135 = 0.26666 inches per pixel 15 / 57 = 0.263 inches per pixel
0.266 + 0.263 = 0.529 / 2 = 0.2645 inches per pixel
0.2645 * 38 pixels = 10.051"
Exhaust nozzle is therefore, approximately 10" which seems accurate.
380mm assumes a rocket motor nozzle diameter of 14.9"…
If the 15" diameter is erroneous, and the missile is indeed a bit smaller the diameter of the rocket motor would be less than 10".
All subsequent math for AAT is erroneous and needs to be completely thrown out. This is the equivalent of erroneously adding 100% wing area to an airframe when comparing relative wing loading.
That’s because your coming part way into the development of the missile. What would eventually become the AIM-54A started life as the missile component or the LRI-X program, to arm the F-108 interceptor; the GAR-9 which of course gets cancelled, and so after some revision goes on to arm the F-12A and subsequently recycled for the F-111B as the AIM-47B, and so serves as the derivative for the AIM-54A since it was basically free design with the USAF having done most of the work and spent the money to get it to that stage (and the counterpart radar; the AN/ASG-18 was also borrowed to form the basis of the AN/AWG-9).
It heavily depends on what is being optimized, a profile shaped to minimize the time of flight(e.g. reduced penetration depth, which is of key importance to consider for a Carrier’s survival) would look very different to one that is designed to maximize available loading(Shoot down a fighter / optimize maximum range), and different again to one that aims to reduce the required guidance corrections, or a more conservative shape to increase the tracking probability, break out targets in specific scenarios, or otherwise compensate for any other potential metric that the designers could justify.
Yes, but lacking that data we should not assume that the loft profile is optimized for BVR against fighter sized targets. You’d want to maximize impact velocity to improve missile end-game maneuverability. It was not intended for this, though it was certainly capable of it… ultimately the lofting even on AIM-120 was improved or enhanced without changes to the motor over time. The AIM-54 produced a decade prior would not have seen such enhancements.
Do you think the AIM-54A improved on, or degraded the performance of XAAM-N-11? Just curious.
Funny, you were the first person bothered to respond.
I originally didnt include where I got the “information” from because, as stated, I have not seen the document and can therefore not verify if the info is of any real use or not. I can however warn others that there MIGHT be information being concealed, which is what I did, and you blew a fuse about it, which is just about the worst reaction you couldve had.
I personally find him to be intellectually dishonest, which is why I dont interact with him and have blocked him, but if he’s got a document stating “X”, I can test “X”.
Also, I didnt “model a missile based on hearsay from MiG_23M through you”. I modelled approximate AAT for 9km alt and tested the conditions you gave me, which resulted in the AAT missile perfprming closer to what you suggested was on the chart.
Once again, didnt model a missile after what you told me. I modelled a missile using math (of which i have already stated the errors that would arise from my modelling as well) and then tested them with the conditions you asked me to test.
You either havent actually bothered reading the post, or are just lying about its content, both of which would suggest you arent actually arguing in good faith.
You modeled AAT for a nonexistent motor and the assumption that performance metrics given were for sea level already and then ramped them up for altitude. The performance assumes a nozzle size 1.5x that of the real thing for the AIM-54 and then of course… are double dipping because the total impulse and thrust given was already for 10-15km.
You modeled them after what he erroneously told you, having misread what I told him. You further erroneously modeled AAT for the reasons stated above. All of your testing is useless and was a waste of time.
Late production AIM-54C’s included reprogrammable memory so it would have been much less restrictive after that point, and with the way the earlier Sparrow worked, revisions during maintenance periods to revise these sorts of things isn’t unheard of.
Heavily depends on the scenario and target set that is envisioned. Not everything comes down to kinematics, and the comparison is complicated due to the 82kg weight delta, and diameter(13" vs 15"). further the specific configuration of the GAR-9 as there are a number options that were tested or investigated which would be fairer than the final configuration vs AIM-54A.
If it came down to including consideration of the launch platform against a '50 / '60s bomber threat (Slow, high altitude type e.g. Tu-95 ) the AIM-47 would probably do better due to the longer range and faster launch speeds leading to a shorter time of flight (assuming similar launch range) and so the bomber is less likely to release stores.
But against a fighter or Later Threat bomber (e.g. Tu-160) that AIM-54 due to simply being cognizant of said threat(s) and more able to deal with potential jamming methods and fancy RWRs, the F-14 is definitely also more able to respond should the distances close since the provisional F-12B isn’t able to do much more than missile joust and flee, at speed.
The XAAM-N-11 shared the same dimensions as the AIM-54A, in fact it was re-designated XAIM-54A by at least 1962. See this lineage from outsider’s view.
Essentially, the primary changes between XAAM-N-11 (XAIM-54A) and the production model were… reliability enhancements. Small changes were made that may have reduced weight and increased MTBF for various systems and parts. Other issues may have been identified and amended similar to how it was done on the AIM-7 series.
Anyhow, I concur with the rest of your statements. I still do not think that the loft should be the absolute peak of optimization, though.
Alright, so I’ve been informed via discord that @MiG_23M is once again being disingenuous about the data I provided and spreading lies. Usually, I’d let this slide, but I put too much work into this one to do so, so here we go.
I literally stated that as a disclaimer in my original post. You either didn’t bother reading properly, or are misrepresenting my data (shocker!)
As stated, the rocket motor diameter was known to be wrong and stated to result in a notable increase in AAT. This was done to save time and because my goal was to display a general trend along with a visual representation of the impact of differing exit nozzle area, which is why the AIM-120A AAT test was included and had the same simplifications. The AAT also doesn’t account for the change in altitude from lofting (which would be advantageous for the AAT).
The AIM-54C’s introduction date predates that of the AIM-120A by 5 years (1986 vs 1991), AIM-54C’s first flight was 1980 vs the AIM-120A’s 1981. The missiles are both developed by Hughes around the same time-frame as well. I have heard that the AIM-120’s have more advanced guidance systems, but haven’t seen any specific info on the subject or variant. The more likely cause for the discrepency in adoption time is that the AIM-120 is a brand new missile, while the AIM-54C is an upgrade of an existing one. This is also touched on in the document I provided;
Once again showing you either didn’t bother reading the whole thing, or are lying through your teeth.
None of my testing is based on this assumption? Is your reading comprehension that poor? AAT tests never included any adjustments beyond thrust adjustments, loft profile tests were simply loft profile tests to visualize the impact different loft profiles would have on the AIM-54C’s performance at various ranges, as you would’ve known had you properly read what I posted.
As for your statement of “1960’s computers and technology” the AIM-54C entered service in 1986, only 5 years before the AMRAAM, and, once again as stated in my original post you’re disparaging:
Nobody stated it should have “the most optimal trajectory” you’re strawmanning hard on this point. All I did was test the effect of different loft codes and compared them to in-game for others to see. As far as I can tell, there isn’t a single use of the word “optimal” in the entire section regarding loft profiles tested.
Funny you should say this, I actually gave the exact equations and papers used to calculate the AAT and you STILL got it wrong! Either not reading the information provided, or lying. I’ll post it for you again:
Notice (Equation 3) specifically states the equation for the change in impulse by altitude is the same as (Equation 2), but multiplied by the motor burn time!!! Turns out the motor does “magically” gain total impulse from AAT, if math and science is magic to you, which I’m starting to suspect they are.
As previously stated, the goal of the AAT calc was demonstrating the effect visually, but since you’ve done me the favour of getting the correct motor diameter, I guess I should return the favour and show the corrected impact of AAT:
Suprise suprise, the impact is lessened, but still considerable! And this is still missing the adjustment for the thrust gained during lofting as well, so its most likely underperforming to some degree. Also included the AAT thrust itself for good measure.
You’re the one assuming things about the performance metrics without understanding the science and math behind it. The idea that thrust/impulse for the AIM-54 is being given for 10-15km alt is downright delusional and is simply an example of you shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around it. You’re just spouting nonsense hoping others will eat up what you say if you say it with confidence, as usual.
Only thing I “modelled” after what he told me was launch conditions. As stated, AAT thrust calculations were done completely independently. I then provided him with the pictures of the test as well, seeing as he was originally the one who asked me to test it.
Hilarious statement, after either not reading the info from my testing, or just outright lying about its contents and my claims, you’re going to state all my testing was a waste of time? The only waste of time here was all of your and DirectSupports angry reactions to my posts. The lies, the strawman arguments, pinging a mod to try to get me banned, accusing me of “derailing the thread”, hiding documents from other players which may or may not provide more info for testing and comparisons or even just general new knowledge, the fact I had to write up this whole reply to correct your flagrant intellectual dishonesty. Its for this exact reason I’ve had you blocked for the last year or so, and honestly why I intend to return to doing so again not to waste more of my time interacting with you.
I don’t have a copy of outsider’s to hand at the moment to double check, but I do have my doubts about that. Giving the thrust at an altitude above sea level, without specifying the altitude makes the number essentially meaningless. Especially because the Phoenix can be used over a range of altitudes, and lofts.
In US documents Sea Level seems to be the standard used when listing thrust / impulse; a bit like how jet engine ratings are typically stated as sea level, static, uninstalled, unless stated otherwise:
For example:
AIM-7C (also designed primarily for high altitude use against bombers):
If there is evidence that I’ve missed to show that the figure quoted in outsiders is for high altitude operation, then I’ll stand corrected. But at the moment it sounds like an assumption that runs contrary to the established norms.
@MiG_23M do you know of NC machines? they have custom hardware that can give orders if certain scenarios accor (such if the energy used was more than certain after enough time it would stop the system for some time until it would start again). these were developed at 1950s. tho not as advanced as digital computing, they should be able to provide trajectory shaping methodes, like english bias which was on Sparrow missiles even before Sparrow F which was the first to use solid state electronics
This was a little harsh. @MythicPidoes not patrol around the forum and must have a hand in everything that goes on in the game. He quietly researches his interest objectively and stays in his own lane. He can care less if people don’t follow him around and agree with him 24/7. He does not feel a need for constant validation from everyone & goes looking for it.
He has nothing to prove to anyone, these are individuals to be believed.
You have subconsciously held my old friend in high regard and rarely question anything he says because your only sustained interaction with him has been to buff French equipment. The moment you two actually & genuinely disagree on something for more than 30 minutes you will understand.
Being a tech mod doesn’t grant someone divine insight. They are capable of making mistakes just like anyone else.
As for mig23m - I don’t believe they are even remotely credible after seeing some of the stuff they’ve posted.
That’s crazy! So out of character for them!
There is no sound logic to what they said. Just because the requirements of the motor included high altitude scenarios, doesn’t mean the measured thrust would be at those conditions. Same as how jet engine thrust is reported at sea-level and not the altitude ceiling…
I really hope this is some kind of advanced sarcasm or humour i’m not getting
Techmods, mig, devs have been wrong regarding stuff quite alot of times. I’ve been, you’ve been we’ve all been. Them being them does not give them divine intellect.
You know, you are falling to the (2nd) lowest of the low resorting to ad hominem in argumentation.
You really can’t track a target during a beam with CW alone. Even then with HPRF/FMed CW the target needs to be really really close but it doesn’t even matter as using these waveforms you don’t generally see range through the time(but in frequency if FMd) it takes for the pulse to travel. Thats why you got MPRF to see velocity AND range. Tracking through beam is not just doing memory and moving antenna on the opposite side of the MLC where the target is expected to be if hes turning 180.
And by all means having all shit done digitally is just processing time thing. A specific trajectory to this emgagement geometry or close, another trajectory when target’s geometry changes, another trajectory when shooter changes, another when velocity increase, another when is just a high fast flies, another and anothwr and another and so on.
And I’m quite sure stuff of AI radars went to the missile, Hughes after all made the APG 63 which was the basis for apg 65, 70, 71, 73(and successors) and they did aswell the awg 9 and amraam, sparrow
Sample Data Active - outside of 30 miles Most feared capability
Continues Semi Active - when used in PD single target track mode 25-10 miles Missile never goes active, only one phoenix is able to be fired at a time in this mode.
ACM Active - dogfighting mode under 5 miles Aim54 is active immediately off rail. A very lethal mode (As stated by actual F-14 RIO).
This mode is not modelled in game, its performance is greatly held back.
The Iranians used ACM active to great effect. Be advised that when war had broken out with Iraq in 1988 The United States had not yet integrated the Sparrow and Aim9s and deliveries where halted.
The Iranians Tomcats only weapons against the Iraqis for the majority of the war was Aim54As and M61 cannon.
The Aim54 was designed to kill targets of all range’s shapes and sizes. The F-14 is not just in interceptor for one type of target like the Mig25. It was an air superiority fleet defense fighter. The Aim54 was designed be able to perform in all aspects in the event sidewinders and sparrows were not equipped.
The Aim54A has killed more fighters than all R27 variants ever produced combined.
I directly quoted that portion of your post. So you knew your data and testing was pointless.
This doesn’t do anything for us but double dip in the sense that the given thrust and ISP are already for high altitudes. They would not have made the nozzle to perform most efficiently at sea level, that’s absurd.
The dates are not as important as the point being made. Do you think the AIM-54 somehow overcame the guidance limitations that all AIM-120s had until the mid 2010s?
They are made with these assumptions.
The AIM-54A’s guidance system was practically unchanged from 1963-1973.
You’re right, total impulse increases slightly as well but isn’t nearly as big of a change as implied due to assumptions made about the basic variables involved on your part.
Again, applying this assumes it was optimized for sea level to begin with.
Applying AAT would only reduce thrust from current numbers.
You should read more into flow separation at the nozzle.
You doubt me, but if the math is sound… Make a report. Ask for the thrust of the AIM-54 be adjusted based on AATs to match the medium alt configurations as Gaijin does with all current SARH / ARH missiles.
