The AIM-54 Phoenix missile - Technology, History and Performance

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

The Sea Phoenix test in the text you highlighted was conducted in 1976. It states later (1983) that it was tested against Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles. This would have been the early test firings of the AIM-54C utilizing the improvements it has to intercept low flying and small targets as outlined in the budget documentation @MythicPi has posted.

Yes, and that is why I am asking you when have you seen Mach 4 performance at low altitude in any aim54?

It’s simple question.

The aim54A is not going to fly and cover 22km from a stand still in 90 seconds in war thunder. It can barely fly out 30km effectively from altitude being launched from supersonic at targets flying right at it at the same speed.

The aim54C has been PROVEN to in test of downing Sea skimming cruise missiles in excess of Mach 4 at 80 nautical miles. (It’s your own source.)

Your own source is telling you the missile is grossly underperforming at lower altitudes.

It does not matter two tests happened at two different periods of time. That is so irrelevant.
The subject is regarding the aim54 and its low altitude performance.

I will ask you again, how is the aim54 severely overperforming at low altitude in wt as you claim? Being that your own source doesn’t even agree with you and specifically says in detail the missile has been proven to shoot down 11 of 11 sea skimming cruise missiles in excess of Mach 4?

Because the nozzle is smaller than the body of the missile!?

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

Yes, and that is why I am asking you when have you seen Mach 4 performance at low altitude in any aim54?

It’s simple question.

You don’t, because it can’t.

@Ziggy1989

The aim54A is not going to fly and cover 22km from a stand still in 90 seconds in war thunder. It can barely fly out 30km effectively from altitude being launched from supersonic at targets flying right at it at the same speed.

That’s not true, it meets the range and time to target criteria for some of the demanding conditions such as the maximum launch range scenario for high alt.

@Ziggy1989

The aim54C has been PROVEN to in test of downing Sea skimming cruise missiles in excess of Mach 4 at 80 nautical miles. (It’s your own source.)

You are not reading this correctly.

@Ziggy1989

Being that your own source doesn’t even agree with you and specifically says in detail the missile has been proven to shoot down 11 of 11 sea skimming cruise missiles in excess of Mach 4?

You’re claiming that they fired 11 Phoenix at 11 separate cruise missiles when the missiles were at 80nm… yet those specific cruise missiles have a maximum launch range less than 70nm…

The math doesn’t add up because you misread the document.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

You don’t, because it can’t

So why are you using such a ridiculous source that states it can shoot down sea skimming cruise missiles in excess of Mach 4 at 80 nautical miles?

Because you wanted to cherry pick on item out of it to prove a point about the sparrow.

That’s totally fine, but it’s also states in plain English it shoots down sea skimming cruise missiles in excess of Mach 4 at 80 nautical miles. You don’t believe it. That’s cool.

But since you used part of the source. I figured you believed all of it and so I asked how is the aim54 over performing like you been stating.

@MiG_23M

You’re claiming that they fired 11 Phoenix at 11 separate cruise missiles when the missiles were at 80nm… yet those specific cruise missiles have a maximum launch range less than 70nm…

The math doesn’t add up because you misread the document.

lol nooo. The 80 nautical miles is the maximum range the aim54 was able to intercept a sea skimming anti-ship missile (harpoon).
That does not mean the harpoons were flying for 80 miles before they were intercepted….

The aim54 was tested and downed harpoons 11 out of 11 and clocked in speeds of excess Mach 4.

I am not claiming anything. Whoever tested the thing is. Lol Friedman reports it.

Anyway I don’t want to hog up the topic. You guys explain it to me if I’m reading it wrong

[MiG_23M]

You’re grossly misreading the source, not long after misreading another source provided to you by tech mods. I’d argue it’s trolling at this point but I’m not even certain that’s true because what would be the goal?

Anyhow, feel free to test the scenario I referenced.

@MiG_23M

So, the test scenario is simple. 0.9 mach target at 50km distance from moment of launch. Target heading directly towards the launching vessel. If the AIM-54 is configured properly the missile should impact the target at 90s and a distance of 22km from the launch point.

[Ziggy1989]

@tripod2008

We can work backwards to figure out the characteristics of the intercept based on the Harpoon’s SAC

Reading it now. Ty btw.

[MiG_23M]

I conducted the test myself.

- YouTube

Launch conditions

Spoiler

Target distance at launch: 49,600m
Airspeed at launch: 236 km/h (0.191124 mach)
Closing speed: 379 m/s (1.10496 mach)

The target speed was approximately 0.913836 mach.
That is 313.445648 m/s at sea level.

The missile from launch till impact traveled for 75 seconds.
During this 75 seconds, the target would have traveled 23,508.4311 meters. (313.445648 * 75).

The launch distance (49,600) - target distance covered (23,508.4311) = 26,091.5689m covered for the missile in 75 seconds.

Now to account for the fact that I did not launch from a stationary target, but instead a moving one.

Calculated stationary launch performance

Spoiler

The launch was at 236 km/h or 65.55 m/s. To adjust the performance of the missile to account for this we must take into consideration how long the missile might have taken to accelerate to this speed given no initial airspeed.

The thrust is 14,350 newtons and the weight is 443.613kg. This indicates an initial acceleration of 32.35 m/s.

Not taking into account the increased acceleration from spent mass during motor burn time, that would require an initial acceleration of approximately (66.55 / 32.35) = 2.026s.

75 + 2 = 77 seconds total.

Now, the target would also be getting closer for 2 additional seconds. 313.445748 * 2.026 = 635.041m

Therefore, the adjusted results are 25,456.53m traveled by the AIM-54 in just 77 seconds. Compared to the real world results of 22km in 90 seconds, this is a 15.7% increase in range and 14.4% reduction in time to impact.

This further suggests that the current thrust and total impulse are already correctly modeled for higher altitudes and not for sea level imo. Either way, it shows the missile is overperforming according to this datapoint.

@MythicPi @MaMoran20 @tripod2008 @DirectSupport @Ziggy1989
Let me know if any of this math is off or if I’m not conducting the analysis properly. Perhaps there are errors I did not consider in my testing or something.

For reference, I used the stock in-game F-14A and the stock missile. There was no custom missile or aircraft files used for the test. This is as-is in-game with the inefficient loft.

[Gunjob]

@MythicPi

@Gunjob any idea if gaijin has any other source regarding the motor characteristics for the MK 47 Mod 0/1?

We don’t nave access to developer resources sorry.

[AlfiestheName]

@simbadumba

While dcs is not a valid source for bug reports, i think we as players can trust their data studies to be correct enough to point out differences between different weapons.

lol, lmao even

[MythicPi]

aw, that’s unfortunate to hear

[SE_8749236]

According to tests conducted by MythicPi, the loft has very little impact on time to target.
On top of that, we all know Aim54 pulls 25G in dual plane, so it bleeds more energy IRL (and Aim54 don’t have energy management code “timeToHitToGain” in game, so it bleeds more energy in game too).
So it is entirely possible that there are multiple trajectory and settings will cause Aim54 has the same time to hit (say better energy management so its flies faster but loft higher yet still hit target with same amount of time). Thus the test shows it has correct time to hit does not mean the shape of its trajectory is correct.
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/f/6/f6acbd168df0ce606d760b01cd452390664ca4ba.png

[SE_8749236]

@MiG_23M

Compared to the real world results of 22km in 90 seconds, this is a 15.7% increase in range and 14.4% reduction in time to impact.

IIRC, 22km is ground distance covered. Do we know the trajectory of the ground launch Phoenix test? Is it parabolic or launched horizontally with slight offet above horizon or something else?
If the trajectory of ground launched Phoenix is not flying horizontally, then Phoenix will travel much less than 22km if fired horizontally.

[Ziggy1989]

It does not say.

I would assume at slight offset above horizon like older naval surfaces launch platforms. Not vertical cells used more modernly.

[Prophet1313]

Can’t seem to find any sources on that other than this article and the very official looking schematic of a Ground-Launched Phoenix installation. If that is accurate, looks like a 25-35 degree angled up launcher

[MiG_23M]

@SE_8749236

IIRC, 22km is ground distance covered. Do we know the trajectory of the ground launch Phoenix test?

We can assume the lofting code was unchanged since they claim it is just a normal AIM-54A being launched from a boat at an incoming target.

@Prophet1313

Can’t seem to find any sources on that other than this article and the very official looking schematic of a Ground-Launched Phoenix installation. If that is accurate, looks like a 25-35 degree angled up launcher

Should loft at a certain angle anyhow.

[MythicPi]

I’d also like to point out that the test point for the 110nmi shot does not have any actual time provided to it, afaik the 160 sec time limit seen in-game for the AIM-54 is completely arbitrary and is the equivalent of gaijin drawing a bullseye around an arrow they shot

“It took 160 seconds for our missile to make the 110nmi shot described, so our missile must be right and the flight time must be 160 seconds!”

Afaik, theres been claims of a top speed of M6.1, and nobody contests the fact that the missile does not reach this speed in WT under any launch conditions, so its a bit weird that some people are claiming the missile is accurate because it “can” hit certain shots.

Were also applying AIM-54A test shots to the AIM-54C despite knowing it has more optimal loft trajectories available to it than the AIM-54A irl, but does not in-game, which like plain confirmation bias on the part of the people who think the AIM-54C is modelled correctly.

Theres also the possibility gaijin has more info than us proving their model right, but instead of sharing it are just continuing to waste our time by having us keep looking.

[MiG_23M]

We know the model isn’t correct based on the datapoint I just tested, but now you’re ignoring that because it isn’t a buff. Get off the high horse.

@MythicPi

I’d also like to point out that the test point for the 110nmi shot does not have any actual time provided to it, afaik the 160 sec time limit seen in-game for the AIM-54 is completely arbitrary and is the equivalent of gaijin drawing a bullseye around an arrow they shot

This is a good point, let’s analyze this.

The reasoning for ~160s time to target figure.

Spoiler

The target was traveling 1.5 mach at 50,000 feet.
1.5 Mach at 50,000 feet is approximately 860.7 knots or 442.78233 m/s.

It states that the missile was launched from a speed of mach 1.5 at 44,000 feet. Once again, this is approximately 442.78233 m/s.

Allegedly, the missile flew 72.5 nautical miles before it made a lethal hit. The launch range being from 110 nautical miles. This means the target traveled 37.5 nautical miles before it was hit.

The target would be covering 37.5 nautical miles (69.45km) before impact with the missile. Dividing distance traveled by the speed of the BQM-34E (69450 / 442.78233) = 156 seconds.

The time to target should be approximately 156 seconds… the battery limit per Outsider’s view is a minimum of 160s. This is how they determined these datapoints. Thanks for asking where the figure came from and not just accusing people of assuming things and whatnot again… oh wait.

The ~160s limit is not arbitrary, the datapoint being reached in ~160s is also not just an assumption. You want to be objective and yet you ignore anything that might end up being a nerf and dismiss it whenever possible.

[MythicPi]

From the pic, 32 deg it seems, so looks like you were right in the ballpark most likely 30 deg launcher with inaccuracies being from resolution. Would be an interesting thing to test, I have seen someone test air to air missiles fired from a ground vehicle, but haven’t figured out how to do so myself yet.

[SE_8749236]

If you know how to fix an aircraft mid air in CDK and don’t allow it to move, you can simply fix F-14 and fires the missile.

[MiG_23M]

@MythicPi

Would be an interesting thing to test, I have seen someone test air to air missiles fired from a ground vehicle, but haven’t figured out how to do so myself yet.

When I tested it, it was with the inefficient loft profile and launched from near 0 degrees. It still overperformed ~15% in range and time to target at the same time.

I’ve been informed you’re reading these comments. Feel free to keep ignoring them after having done so, though.

[MythicPi]

idk how to do that atm, i could try it tho