This missile is too slow and it doesn’t turn very well. Terrible at Jousting. I need a better lance.
Yeah the AIM-54 is definitly underperforming. Testing from from dark_claw of all the ARH’s has the AIM-54C getting outperformed at long range by the AIM-120C5…:
6 Likes
AIM-54A was produced since’ 1963 and is being beaten by a ~2005 missile. I’m not seeing the issue.
The former was produced when third generation fighters were still becoming prominent in major world powers and the latter after the introduction of 5th generation fighters.
1 Like
So AIM-54s have much higher drag than they’re supposed to? And also go slower?
2 Likes
Color me not surprised that a missile with a 100km absolute maximum range is somehow outperforming one that should be hitting targets out to 180 km maximum.
It has vastly too much drag and has always had vastly too much drag.
I would love the C’s seeker to also be more capable than the A’s but here we are.
Hopefully at some point these missiles will actually become more than a AFK check. As it still stands right now there is little to no reason to take them over the AIM-7s.
7 Likes
That’s not the case, the 100km quoted figure is for conditions less than what would yield maximum.
The AIM-54 has 160s guidance time iirc, and even the standard AIM-120A was claimed to be able to hit a target under certain conditions when launched from 250km provided battery life was not a limitation.
We know the near maximum launch range conditions for the AIM-54, not for the AIM-120C.
Uh? All sources I ever found put the Aim-120A/B/C-3/4 range at around 50km. Only the Aim-120D is estimated (of course still classified) to approach the Phoenix’ territory at about 160km, while later C variants somewhere in between (105km).
What’s certain is that there is zero way that the Aim-120A had anywhere near the range of the Aim-54.
I mean the name literally says, Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile . It was never designed to replace the long range capability of the Phoenix.
5 Likes
Further it would have defeated the point of developing the AIM-152 (A3M) as well.
1 Like
It’s been confirmed the AIM-120A’s range figures are usually subsonic vs subsonic targets. It is ~80km for 0.9 mach launch on 0.9 mach target iirc.
The performance against a much faster target when launched from higher speeds can double this range in theory.
It was designed with pre-planned improvements to be made. The term “medium range” has little to do with comparisons to other missiles. The Phoenix was not specifically designed for long range, rather a particular mission.
The US for example states that any missile with more than ~20 miles range is a “medium range missile” in regards to air to air ordnance. The AIM-120 has more than double or even close to triple that number.
The AIM-120C-5’s claimed ~105km range is likely in the same parameters as the earlier models ~80km range figures. The extended battery time increases the maximum range even further.
You failed to note the name “Advanced air to air missile”… They did not put “long range air to air” in there anywhere. It was simply meant to be a lighter missile that matches or beats the performance of the Phoenix in the 80s. The GD / Westinghouse design was too complex and dropped due to them wanting multiple pulse rocket motor (no ramjet) with multiple seeker types for terminal homing. The missile was lighter than the Hughes / Raytheon model.
In fact, it was the introduction of AMRAAM variants such as the AIM-120C-5 that made the transition away from the Phoenix more comfortable for the Navy. It’s no wonder that if they could produce a similarly capable and smaller missile than the Phoenix in the 80s that by the 2000’s an AMRAAM sized missile caught up.
For comparison:
AIM-152 = ~172 kg
AIM-120 = ~162 kg
If the former was built in the 80s prior to the AMRAAM (and likely using a heavier warhead, seeker, guidance unit), and the latter was built in the 2000’s with replacing the Phoenix in its’ role in mind for the Navy… How does it not make sense that it could perform well enough, if not better?
Correct on all counts.
And this as well, the US has not had a AIM-54 equivalent range wise to this day, bar the few tests of a air launched SM-2ER and the AIM-152 which were, at the end of the day just tests.
Regardless, though the AIM-54 is grossly underperforming as it is now and the performance of the AIM-120A in game is incredibly indicative of that.
5 Likes
That’s not true, AMRAAM took over and exceeded the AIM-54’s performance almost a decade ago.
Again, this was built in the 80s and was only 10kg heavier than AMRAAM. To assume the 2000’s AIM-120C-5 couldn’t exceed the performance with more booster and lighter electronics / warhead is absurd.
Perhaps, but comparisons to the AIM-120C-5 with nothing but guesswork to compare the two aren’t going to get it fixed.
To my knowledge and speaking only range wise, I think the only amraam that exceedes the performance of the phoenix is the D model. C-5 has a launch range of about 40nm on a hot aspect target that doesnt maneuver proactively(30-35k ft Mach 1+ launch against similar altitude and speed target). At least in simulations :p. To my knowledge, in terms of range the C7 should be the same since its the same motor and fin configuration unless I missed something.
1 Like
If I recall correctly, @Flame2512 and @Gunjob have a source that indicates more than 40nm for AIM-120A let alone the C-5. The scenarios may differ slightly.
I don’t believe the models after C5 maintained the same motor. Perhaps the same size and grain pattern… but it is very likely new propellants were introduced that increased performance in the last 20 years.
1 Like
When will AIM-54 range and speed be fixed?
1 Like
It’s not an absurd assumption, there are some unofficial accounts for those who are still in the military claims Aim-120D restores some capability of Aim-54 that USN lost when Phoenix was retired. Since, by your definition, Aim-120 had better lighter electronics over Aim-54, and we know Aim-120 turn better and has better trajectory shaping, then the only thing those people are referring to is range.
Also, many retired USN pilot calls retiring Aim-54 is a mistaken since it is the only thing that can counter Chinese PL-15.
We will likely never know the details since these missiles are still in active service until we are all old.
5 Likes
How exactly does it restore the hole the AIM-54 filled if the time to target of the AIM-54 is still double for certain ranges that of the AIM-120C-5? The usefulness certainly wasn’t there for the Phoenix unless the later models had upgraded motors or performance.
There is absolutely no way an aim 120A/B can hit a target at 40nm in any realistic scenario… The battery is dead long before that.
As for the TTI, while the C-5 is faster in certain scenarios, when we are talking for high altitude, realistic engagements, (like the example I provided) the 54 first of all outranges the C5 by quite a bit, and even on a 50nm shot which is a long shot for the 120, the difference on time to impact is a few seconds at best… If I remember correctly between 40-50 seconds
Again, all this is from simulations and simulations is all we have to get data from. Pilots that are willing to talk and have talked about such things, speak of engagements in much shorter ranges because first of all, ROE, second of all, High Pk shots… Yea the phoenix has a max range of 114nm… Will it ever hit anything at that range? Other than a dummy aircraft, unlikely…
4 Likes
Never because they refuse to fix the extreme amount of drag the missile has…
1 Like
Theres primary sources of those kinds of shots iirc.
That being said, 40nmi is nowhere near adequate for the range of striking long range bombers, and is significantly below the range demonstrated by the AIM-54, with the AIM-54A and its subpar guidance system and inferior trajectory shaping being able to hit a target at a launch range of AT LEAST 110nmi in a shoot up scenario.
2 Likes
You might not like it but during OAF, Cesar Rodriguez fired his amraam
beyond 38 Nautical Miles
at the MiG 29