Yes we do, the in-game missiles use the Mk47 mod 0, though the AIM-54C should at least receive reduced smoke propellant for the Mk47 mod 1.
The Mk60 mod 0 was produced in small numbers as a risk reduction method (ensure there were always available motors early on - and as competition to reduce prices). They produced somewhere around 200 of them at most. Performance was equal to the Mk47 mod 0 although likely had slightly higher thrust and slightly lower burn time depending on temp and altitude.
What do you mean “according to what”. So there is no confirmed data on the missile’s max speed?
Every source states a top speed of mach 4.3 for these motors…
No? The NASA source calculates a minimum top speed of mach 5 when launched from 2 mach and some sources or studies indicate a maximum top speed based on the thrust and drag profile of mach 6.1 provided it has the deltaV to get there. When launched from 2.4 mach it is capable of mach 6.1 at altitude.
In-game, drag does not get as low as it should at very high altitudes. The drag profile of the missile is thus adjusted to ensure it reaches the correct ranges. This is also why it overperforms at lower altitudes. (Also because the total impulse and thrust is adjusted to the high alt launch scenario, which is going to be higher than sea level conditions naturally).
What are you talking about man? How is it “overperforming” when its going so slow that you overfly it in a 22nm head on shot ? “the drag profile is adjusted to ensure it reaches the correct ranges” But you disregard the energy state it reaches those ranges… Your “adjustments” are napkin math
Vastly overperforms the surface launch “Sea Phoenix” performance datapoint
It is expected to reach 22km distance from launch position in 90 seconds, instead we see it travel ~24km in 80 seconds.
So yeah, 49.8 - 26km = ~24km is napkin math but math is math. When it is supported by real sources and real datapoints - it is undisputable.
It also says this here in the source you posted
“The air-launched version of Phoenix was clearly capable of downing
antiship missiles; Friedman reports that “in a 1983 test, Phoenix shot down
eleven of eleven Harpoons.” And with a maximum speed in excess of Mach 4
and an 80-nautical-mile range, the Phoenix had the ability to engage enemy
antiship missiles at a safe distance from the targeted ship.”
What of it, it’s discussing as launched from the F-14 in that excerpt quite clearly. It has less impulse than the I-HAWK by 200m/s, the I-HAWK having a maximum launch range of ~39-40km against incoming sea level targets.
The in-game Phoenix which is draggier and has less impulse somehow has a maximum range in excess of the real world I-HAWK SAM.
Show me a shot in game that reaches a maxium speed “in excess of Mach 4”…
Are you saying that the phoenix should have less range than an i-hawk ?
No missile in-game reaches correct top speed, even R-27ER is underperforming by at least 100 m/s at all altitudes. The AIM-120, MICA, R-77 all have underperforming top speeds. This is a game limitation for some reason.
In surface launch, yes. The I-HAWK has superior deltaV and lower drag. Reaches top speed sooner and then sustains it.
Its one thing to not be able to reach the top speed and another to not be able to go anywhere close to it. Make your own tests if you dont believe me…
Also how does the i-hawk have lower drag ?
Smaller diameter
Phoenix has a diameter of 15 in = 381mm in (rounded to 380 in the game).
I-Hawk has a diameter of 14 in = 355.6 mm (incorrectly set to 370mm in the game)
(381 / 2) ^ 2 / (356 / 2) ^ 2 ~= 1.145
I.e. Phoenix has 14.5% more cross sectional area.
Not sure how their lift induced drag compares, but Phoenix’s zero lift drag would be higher.
Hawk has a more aerodynamic radome as well, the Phoenix couldn’t narrow the nose further due to the more complex seeker requirements and space constraints.
If you launch the Phoenix from 2 mach at 12,000m against a 15,000+ meter target in-game, how fast does it go?
Phoenix has quite a low density, most likely to accommodate the large antenna required (which forces a larges than otherwise needed diameter).
For comparison
Comparison of motor aspect ratios:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2011-6941
https://www.scribd.com/document/203700086/TM-9-1410-530-14-GOOGLE
https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/ADA017241.xhtml
Source please?
The New ALSM paper never mentioned Mach 2 launch, you also discredited that paper as inaccurate and unreliable back when I did the Math. Since it used inaccurate public data and used “a simple in-house trajectory analysis code” according to the paper.
I don’t need it to prove it.
And you are dodging the issue.
Given that PL-15 length of 4m and diameter 203mm, even if we treat it as perfect cylinder filled with solid fuel, with no voids.
The volume for propellants are 0.13m^3
Aim-54 with diameter 380mm and, even if we assume it’s motor section is only 1/3 of its length, it still has more volume, 0.15m^3, for propellants than the most unrealistic overestimate of PL-15’s propellant.
A slightly more realistic estimate of PL-15’s propellant, say 3m rocket motor, means it has volume of ~0.1m^3
Unless there is some magical advance in solid fueled rocket efficiency, this shows that Aim-54 is seriously underperforming at high alt.
The motor section is actually around 1/4 of the total length:
(129.12 - 89.30) / 156 ~= 0.255
129.12 - 89.30 = 39.82 in = 1.011428 m
1.011428 * pi * (0.381 / 2) ^ 2 = 0.11531207973 m^3
And keep in mind, this is the external volume of the propulsion section of the missile.
The internal volume of the rocket motor will be lower (and is not necessarily comparable between the two missiles).
Furthermore, there is hollow space inside the propellant grain … You can’t assume that the empty space inside the propellant is similar between PL-15 and AIM-54’s motors.
We had the argument about AMRAAM weight, the same pertains to the Phoenix. It could easily be a modified AIM-54A or one equipped with the MK60 motor that was referenced. Either way, if it is the AIM-54C it is worth noting that the AIM-54A would have larger less advanced seeker technology as well.
2007
They calculated most scenarios for mach 2 launch.
While the data was based on information that meant it is not usable for a report on the AIM-54’s top speed, it was quite clear the intent was to utilize the missile as a testbed for hypersonic research. The calculations even though not quite correct show us that the missile is certainly capable of more than 4.3 mach as claimed previously. That measure came as a datapoint from a lower speed and possibly lower altitude launch and was spread erroneously as the maximum “top speed”.
I am not dodging anything, and yes if you want anyone to take the statement seriously you need to provide sound logic, reason, and back it up with evidence. You have none of the puzzle pieces here.
Absolutely not.
The AIM-54 uses quite a lot of ablatives to ensure safe operation of the motor and longer shelf life. Modern missiles do not use anywhere close to this amount of ablative, if at all. The AIM-54 is a late 1950s and early 1960s design. The XAIM-54A was first tested in 1963 and was ready for production but was waiting for a flying platform to be serviced on. Once the F-14A entered service, so did the AIM-54 with only minor changes to fuzing and other parts for reliability concerns.
Thinking that the PL-15 could not vastly outrange the Phoenix due to size when there is a 60 year gap in missile technology between them is crazy.
Additionally, the ISP of the motor is going to be vastly different. You’re talking two or three generations of propellant difference between the two. Modern high performance propellant is going to have more than 50% higher specific impulse for the given weight and better density as well.
I hope this is not more napkin math and wishfull thinking.
If anything, you should be the one testing that, but I ll do it anyways.
