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

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
1540

I conducted the test myself.

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.

3 Likes
1541

We don’t nave access to developer resources sorry.

1542

lol, lmao even

1543

aw, that’s unfortunate to hear

1 Like
1544

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

5 Likes
1545

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.

1 Like
1546

It does not say.

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

1547

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

image
image1920×1080 199 KB

2 Likes
1548

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.

Should loft at a certain angle anyhow.

1549

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
image

“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.

3 Likes
1550

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.

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.

1 Like
1551

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.
image

2 Likes
1552

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.

1553

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.

1554

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

1555

What is it with AIM-54 as of late?

Follows through different changes of direction and sustained g-loads after fuel is spent for a considerable amount off time and ignores chaff while it is also being notched.

What is happening? Is the current AIM-54 a Meteor testbed or sth?

1556

Thanks to @TheSeeker for showing me how to freeze aircraft in place and creating these two user missions for me. He’s currently working on fixing the overperformance of the AIM-7F’s thrust and I figured a good additional datapoint would be the China Lake source previously. It was stated that the AIM-54 should travel 22km in 90 seconds when launched from a boat (sea level, 0 initial speed) at a 30 degrees upward angle. It was also stated that the 22km range figure was more than double that of the Sea Sparrows’ … so we can test both of these missiles per the same scenario I did before… but a bit more accurately this time.

As you can see, the AIM-54 is heavily overperforming.

That is ~26km in ~78s when it should be ~22km in ~90s…
As expected, this is in-line with my original test.

1 Like
1557

I made an error with the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow test, as in 1976 the RIM-7E/H was the only model in service and is a modification of the AIM-7E, not the AIM-7F. Interestingly, the RIM-7H in spite of the later suffix is actually based on the RIM-7E and not the RIM-7F as I had assumed.

This is because the RIM-7E incorporated folding wings for use in more compact launchers. The RIM-7E and RIM-7H are stated as having the same kinematics according to NAVAIR.

The launch range for the Sea Phoenix was said to be “more than double” the Sea Sparrow’s… this holds true in-game as the AIM-7E-2 when launched in these conditions explodes just short of half the 22km range stated for the Phoenix.

Conditions for test

Spoiler

0.9 mach target (representing exocet cruise speed), 308.7 m/s.
Missile guidance time is 40 seconds, so we multiply the speed by guidance time to find the maximum range missile will be able to be launched on a target and intercept at 11km.

308.7 * 40 = 12348m + 11000m = 23,348m.
For the test, I used 23,350 meters.

In my opinion, this validates the expected data for the AIM-54. In-game the AIM-54 is most certainly overperforming at sea level launch conditions at least from standstill.

1559

Why can’t you just run a helicopter in hover?

There is no way to verify the targets airspeed in these videos.

1 Like
1560

Closure rate shows target airspeed because it is flying directly at launch point and launch aircraft is at 0 airspeed frozen in place. 306 m/s at 500m is 0.9 mach as quoted.

Regardless, the math is there explaining why the target is at that launch range and airspeed. The test is valid.

1 Like