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

[MiG_23M]

@Neko nya

If the Mk 60 has a shorter/harder boost profile compared with the Mk 47, then even with similar overall motor energy it can be more efficient in a lofted shot. It would accelerate and climb earlier, spend more of the flight in thinner air, and then coast in a lower-drag regime. That can matter a lot for long-range/high-altitude shots, even if the motor difference looks small on paper.

The burn time and thrust differences are minimal and only change drastically with altitude. To utilize the MK60 more effectively you’d likely need to be at a high speed and launch it from a higher altitude IRL.

War Thunder does not model total thrust and burn time changes dynamically - to achieve the same characteristics and launch profiles as the AIM-54A they would give it a similar thrust and burn time and that static number would cause the same issues as the existing Phoenix. Long burn time, slow acceleration, overperformance at sea level, underperformance at high altitude.

The issue is not that the motor could benefit us from a different thrust and burn time, rather that Gaijin’s implementation of it would neuter those advantages.

@Neko nya

That is also why the AIM-54A can overperform at sea level while underperforming at altitude if the game model does not handle the loft/drag/energy tradeoff properly.

No, this has nothing to do with the loft profile issue. The AIM-54A overperforms at sea level when launched flat and level as well as when lofted. It is a raw overperformance of total impulse at sea level because it was adjusted to hit a high flying target when launched from medium altitudes at a longer range. It is a specific Phoenix Scenario that they assume took the entire battery lifespan, so the missile is configured for only that scenario.

Likewise, almost all other ordnance in the game is modeled for a little bit lower altitude and with more data, specifically the R-27 series are pretty decently modeled for that and thus overperform at sea level as well. The massive thrust and acceleration makes people feel those a lot more, though. The MK60 equipped Phoenix will not enjoy the same advantages because there just isn’t sufficient evidence that the motor burns for 20s instead of 30 with the same overall impulse as the MK47 in identical conditions.

When testing burn times in static chambers a variety of atmospheric conditions are used for the testing, we would need data showing the max thrust and burn time at a variety of pressures (altitudes) and temperatures. We do not have that.

[Neko_nya]

That is fair from an implementation/evidence perspective, but I think you are exaggerating and misinterpreting my point a bit.

I am not saying the Mk 60 should automatically get a major buff without source data. My point was conditional: if the Mk 60 had a shorter, harder burn with similar total impulse, then its advantage would not necessarily appear as a huge increase in total impulse on paper. It could show up through burn timing, earlier acceleration, higher loft efficiency, and reduced drag losses at altitude.

Even with a simplified static motor model, burn timing still matters because the missile is flying through an atmosphere where drag changes heavily with altitude and speed. A shorter, harder burn can still produce different practical results from a longer, weaker burn, especially during lofting, because the missile reaches its climb and coast conditions differently.

Also, I never said the Phoenix issue was only a loft-profile issue. My point was about the loft/drag/energy tradeoff as a whole. If the missile is tuned around one specific reference shot, that same tuning can cause it to overperform at sea level even in a flat launch, while still underperforming in other altitude/energy conditions. That does not make loft irrelevant; it just means the problem is broader than loft alone.

I agree that War Thunder’s simplified motor modeling could neuter or distort the real advantage, especially if the Phoenix is tuned around one specific reference scenario. But I do not agree that this has nothing to do with loft. Loft profile, burn timing, drag, and altitude performance are all linked, both in-game and in real life factually.

So yes, without hard Mk 60 thrust/burn/impulse data, it is hard to force a specific implementation. But the general point still stands: similar total impulse does not mean identical practical performance if the thrust profile and loft/drag environment are different, even if the difference ends up being minor.

[MiG_23M]

@Neko nya

Even with a simplified static motor model, burn timing still matters because the missile is flying through an atmosphere where drag changes heavily with altitude and speed. A shorter, harder burn can still produce different practical results from a longer, weaker burn, especially during lofting, because the missile reaches its climb and coast conditions differently.

You can create a missile in-game and test this. As I said earlier, the AIM-54A in-game with MK47 is already overperforming. If they add the MK60 and keep the same aerodynamic drag values, yes, it could be beneficial. Yet then it would not fit the performance metrics expected of the Phoenix based on the launch data. They’d have to nerf the drag or adjust the thrust / burn time until it did, and you are effectively making the same missile.

Whether that results in a slightly better or slightly worse missile is anyones guess because we don’t know how Gaijin would correct it. The current Phoenix overperforms at low altitude as it sits, so benefits from getting out of the high drag lower atmosphere are already sullied by that fact.

[Xeno_quaza]

It might just be a revised lofting algorithm. Phoenixes IRL can loft way higher then they do in game; up to over 30 kilometers altitude.

Being at a higher altitude, or climbing more shallow could either be ways to obtain a higher top speed.

Having a sharper loft IRL then in game could also explain it’s overperforming low altitude performance, due to math around drag and launch speed, sharper lofting angles at low altitude launches can be a little bit worse compared to slighter ones. Particularly in warthunder due to how it’s lofting target calculation works to account for closure rates.

[Neko_nya]

I agree from an implementation perspective. If Gaijin tunes the Phoenix around one specific reference shot, then a different Mk 60 thrust profile could easily be flattened out by later adjustments to drag, thrust, or burn time until it matches that chosen scenario again.

But that does not disprove my original point. A different thrust profile does not automatically mean a huge buff, but it also does not mean “same total impulse = same practical performance.” Burn timing, loft, drag, and altitude are linked, and a shorter, harder burn could matter if it were modeled accurately.

So yes, without hard Mk 60 thrust/burn data, we cannot force a specific implementation. I am not arguing for a free buff. I am only saying that the OTHER real motor profile could behave differently from the Mk 47, even if War Thunder’s simplified tuning might end up hiding or cancelling that difference.

[Michael-IR]

So AIM-54 got a buff

[exeisdefeatable]

good

[Fireball_2020]

shorter booster with higher top speed, and 22(?)G’s, holy buff, we eat good.

25G’s for the 54C, 22G’s for the 54A, interesting

However nearly every missile has had a warhead nerf, and AIM-54 is the biggest loser here, going from 54kg eTNT to 33kg.

[Mytho-GR1]

There were some.fuse changes as well

[exeisdefeatable]

What is the average top speed achieved by AIM-54 in game?

[lglscs]

So is the aim-54c’s seeker effectively all aspect pulse doppler, or is it still front aspect continuous wave that is only hitting those beam and rear aspect shots with support from the F-14’s radar?

[Neko_nya]

IRL, there is strong evidence that the AIM-54C had all-aspect target-geometry capability, or at least something much closer to all-aspect than a simple front-aspect-only seeker. This is mentioned several times during development, and post-development sources also describe capability against “retreating” or “opening” targets.

Gaijin has already accepted that the AIM-54C had front-aspect and beam/side-aspect capability. If a missile can engage front-aspect, beam/side-aspect, and opening/receding targets, then in War Thunder’s simplified seeker categories it should logically be treated as all-aspect, or at least not as front-aspect-only.

Also, pulse-Doppler does not automatically mean all-aspect, and continuous-wave does not automatically mean front-aspect-only. Those are waveform/guidance labels, not the same thing as seeker aspect capability. In game, the AIM-54C+ may be described as CW in game, but the code/datamine shows Doppler-related seeker parameters, so the stat-card label should not be treated as the full technical explanation.

[Neko_nya]

‘first stage: force: 14350 → 12981.21 N duration: 30 → 27.8 s fuel mass: 170 → 163.29 kg’

Is there a logic why they did this?

[lglscs]

Maybe i’ve been looking at datamine that’s out of date, but from what i’m seeing right now it’s coded much like a CW seeker, it’s missing the “distgate” and “distance” parameter that you’d see on a pulse doppler missile like the aim-120a. I don’t know if it’s identified as cw or HPRF/MPRF in enemy rwr either.

[Zannafrancy]

holy crap!!!

[Neko_nya]

@lglscs

Maybe i’ve been looking at datamine that’s out of date, but from what i’m seeing right now it’s coded much like a CW seeker, it’s missing the “distgate” and “distance” parameter that you’d see on a pulse doppler missile like the aim-120a. I don’t know if it’s identified as cw or HPRF/MPRF in enemy rwr either.

Yes, the AIM-54C is currently missing the same distance / distGate range-discrimination logic. The AIM-54C file shows an active radar seeker with dopplerSpeed and dopplerSpeedGate. By contrast, the AIM-120A has dopplerSpeed, dopplerSpeedGate, distGate, and distance which prove Gaijin can integrate range discrimination.

I would not call it “coded as CW” though. In the file it is not just a CW/SARH seeker; it is marked active: true and has Doppler-speed filtering. So it is coded like a Doppler-only active radar seeker, without range-gate/distance discrimination, not necessarily “CW.” Pulse-Doppler means the radar/seeker uses pulsed emissions and Doppler processing to measure/filter by radial velocity. It does not automatically prove that the seeker has strong, unambiguous range discrimination or a War Thunder-style distance / distGate function. However, if some sources describe target discrimination, then that supports more advanced seeker filtering than simple Doppler-only front-aspect behavior. We have some sources for this and I am making a report with someone at the moment.

[Zannafrancy]

fyi what happens in that second video happens in live too irrc i could get the aim54 to fly around on the migs pretty consistently

[ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn]

Oh my ⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️ god we’re so back.

[GitGood]

A whole new generation of US mains that know only how to fly up and press missile launch button 6 times will be born from this update. And I’m all for it.

[quartas121]

This time it’ll actually work pretty well