“RealShatter” Aka what made every single 20/30mm HE round useless for quite a while before being removed, is used for missile fragmentation pattern… lmao…
And how far do these fragments really go? Go figure… You are the one that is asking for accurate HE filler amount, you figure out if this corresponds to a continious rod warhead or not and whatever else it affects.
Still waiting for buf reports for the HE fillers on the rest of the missiles in game…
“it must be done”
Well, I’m not aware of any, but if there is a missile that is missing its correct filler mass, it should also be corrected. So yes, “it must be done”
The AIM-54C uses a reduced smoke Mk47 mod 1 as opposed to the AIM-54’s Mk47 mod 0.
The Mk60 mod 0 is nearly identical to the Mk47 mod 0 in total impulse but has supposedly a higher thrust and slightly lower burn time. It is an equivalent and less than 200 were ever ordered. It’s primary purpose was cost and risk reduction.
There are clear photos with clear markings showing the location that each section is attached, it can be used to deduce the length of rocket motor with pixel counting. But I haven’t seen them on foreign forums so I will refrain from posting that photo.
But you can deduce from PL-15’s 4m length.
Let’s overestimate PL-15’s rocket motor length, assume missile’s entirety is rocket. I.e. length =4m
Calculating internal volume:
r=0.1015, l=4m, volume=0.129
Aim-54 rocket motor has length of around 1m, excluding nozzle.
r=0.19, l=1m, volume=0.113
Even when grossly overestimating PL-15’s rocket motor length, it only has 0.016 m^3 more volume than AIM-54.
And we all know PL-15 cannot has 4m rocket motor, since warhead/radar/control servos/nozzles takes space, too.
Here is a lower res photo where you can see the nozzle/tail control section and radar section. They takes up around 1m.
This means PL-15’s rocket motor length cannot exceed 3m, and we haven’t included the size of warhead.
With l=3m, volume = 0.97. Less than Aim-54.
If you use the marking in the middle as where the rocket motor section ends. Then the rocket motor length is now less than 2m.
With l=2m, volume = 0.645, around half of Aim-54.
I’m gonna stop here since all of these is based on public info available outside of China.
But it clearly shows Aim-54 has way more volume in its rocket motor than the PL-15 that is feared by USAF and USN.
Side note: imagine Aim-54 is still around and received upgraded rocket motor to have higher specific impulse.
You don’t have such a photo.
I never said anything about AIM-54, or compared the two. Why is that the datapoint? There are smaller missiles with more range than the Phoenix today, so why would the PL-15 not have similar performance?
There is a 52 year gap between XAIM-54A (1963) and PL-15 (2015)…
Wildly unusual comparison.
Seems like continuous rod warheads eventually fell out of favor, due to their poor performance against aerial targets, especially at non-ideal angles:
Tactical Missile Warheads J. Carleone 1993 Volume 155 Progress in Astronautics & Aeronautics:
@MiG_23M @SE_8749236 Also, seems like due to the poor performance of the continuous rod warhead on the AIM-54A, they went with a fragmentation warhead for the C model:
Likewise, SM-1 used continuous rod warhead, but SM-2 switched to “controlled fragmentation” warhead:
At first I though “Controlled fragmentation” means aimable warhead, but seems like it’s just another fancy name for a regular fragmentation warhead with pre-cut grooves:
Thats’ how it currently works, 20m isnt a bad thing, moving it to 15 would simply cause those 20m scenario’s to miss entirely.
Bug report:
Polymer Bonded Explosives TNT equivalence (Used in AIM-54A):
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dV8HeuLy4P4g
Do you live in the US?
Is the loft for the C accurate. This missile feels like a complete downgrade
It’s missing a smokeless motor and can’t hit its max range (neither can). Just gaijin being gaijin…
The Fakour really killed the phoenix. Before the IRIAF, even in an uptier, climbing to spam 6 phoenix and going back to base was a viable tactic but now you don’t have time to guide them with datalink before eating a Fakour - you have to leave them in IOG which combined to the terrible maneuverability means a certain miss. It is now outclassed at short, medium and long range. At least the F-14B can be fun in a dogfight and the improved rwr is always a big + but the US F-14A has been made largely obsolete imo.
F-14D with amraam can’t come soon enough.
Since when did they not meet the maximum range? Even without the efficient lofting they meet the maximum range launch scenario with the correct loft height elevation and everything.
Does it? I co I’lld have sworn last I checked it doesn’t. Then again, it was a long time ago I checked, so maybe it did change. I thought it had excessive drag or something like poor lofting that was preventing it from reaching its maximum speed and range.
The missile is tailored to fit the absolute maximum launch range scenario, and as such is actually SEVERELY overperforming at low altitudes. A modified efficient loft would exacerbate the issue further.
Most likely not. The loft on both AIM-54’s appears to be based on a single shot out to 110NM made with the AIM-54A. The AIM-54C has an all new guidance section capable of more advanced and optimized trajectories to improve hit probability vs small agile targets (ie: more terminal velocity).
The problem is, besides everything pointing to improved guidance capabilities for the AIM-54C, we dont have the EXACT numbers, so gaijin isn’t ever going to do anything about it. The 54C is doomed to forever be trash in WT.
Well if you can, file a FOIA request for this section from the SARs FY 1989, SARs FY 1990, and SARs FY 1991, it has max range and target altitude:
Incoming @MiG_23M claiming “these are all falsified and PSYOP” …
Also the launch weight is currently 1020.74 lb.
According to this they achieved 1018 lb in 1989 with a estimate for further weight reduction to 1014 lb. (which might have been possibly actualized, if someone manages to FOIA the FY 1990 and FY 1991 reports).
This is for ECCM/Sealed variant, but I don’t see why the in-game AIM-54C shouldn’t be assumed to be the ECCM/Sealed variant (and get all its improvements).
These are the numbers permissible for public distribution, not the real world numbers or tactical launch weight.
At the time of publishing the actual tactical weight of these missiles was still classified - the real numbers are redacted and the fake ones are not. It’s simple.
Practices like these began after initial problems with information leakage occurred with the AIM-54A. It is what spurred the Outsider’s view of the awg-9 / phoenix weapon system document.
I might give it a shot, though max range of the 54C wouldnt necessarily help us in determining a more accurate loft profile for the missile. When I tested various loft profiles for the AIM-54C, the general trend was that an improvement in terminal intercept velocity generally resulted in a mild increase in time to target as a negative as well (as the missiles path was longer, but spent in thinner air for more of it).
The 110nmi shot our AIM-54A/C in-game are based on technically do reach, and do appear to hit the max alt achieved by the 54A in the test shot, but reach right as the missiles battery runs out, its entirely possible that in exchange for improved performance across its most likely envelope, the missile had a reduction in absolute range.
As it currently stands, the AIM-54A is, afaik, the only missile in-game with a quasi-accurate loft profile, and this is ONLY because we have data on a test shot that gives quite a bit more detail than typically found, between launch speed, target speed, intercept range, launch range, target and launch alt, and max missile alt. THAT’s what I was referring to when I said “we don’t have the EXACT numbers”.
We know the guidance section and control sections were completely replaced, with the new WGU-11/B digital guidance section replacing the old analogue one, and the WCU-7/B replacing the old control section. We know this was done to allow for more optimized trajectory shaping for the missile, which we know was done to improve performance vs small and highly agile targets, but we dont have exact numbers on the loft trajectory, which makes it hard to bug report, and effectively impossible to argue with gaijin regarding improving the loft/guidance code.
Gaijin devs are already incredibly questionable when it comes to proper implementation of western systems with MULTIPLE primary sources (such as the infamous MANPAD situation), trying to get them to improve a missile one or more devs clearly have a significant bias against is effectively impossible as it stands, and I sorta doubt the documents you suggested would really improve that either.
As for considering the in-game 54C an ECCM/Sealed variant, idk if thats really relevant either. Afaik, beyond the fact the missile didnt need external cooling anymore, the ECCM/Sealed variant allegedly had further improvements to the seeker. Gaijin already refuses to model the current 54C seeker any differently than the 54A (with the 54A’s seeker likely overperforming in the first place as it can go active without the aircraft telling it to), so I dont see much reason in trying to get them to model it as the final variant when they couldnt be bothered to model any of the variants right in the first place…
