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

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
390

You’re just proving my point lmao.

The R-27ER, which if we’re to believe WT, is both substantially faster AND substantially less draggy than the AIM-54C, has LESS range than the AIM-54C?

Of course the R-27ER has less drag than the AIM-54, its a smaller missile (260mm vs 380mm). That still wont make up for a 2.37x increase in drag AND reduced motor performance that the R-27ER would be incurring at 5000m vs the 12000m launches I tested.

Nvm the fact that with 30 seconds of burn time vs the ER’s 8 sec, the AIM-54C suffers the effects of base drag for a shorter period of time, or that drag increases with velocity squared, which means that for the ER to acheive higher speeds, it must push through even higher levels of drag.

Theres no good reason to suggest the ER, launched from over 100m/s lower launch speed than the 54C, at an altitude where its motor doesnt work as efficiently, and the air is 2.37x denser, would outspeed the 54C by around 100m/s.

The descrepency in velocity gained by both missiles is MASSIVE.
The 54C launched (ingame) at 12000m from ~588.08m/s(M2.0) only gained ~715.88m/s, while the ER launched from substantially less optimal conditions gained 920m/s? Thats a 28.5% increase in gained velocity in favor of the ER.

Thats not even saying the ER is too fast, thats aaying the 54C is too slow. The missile is know to acheive/surpass hypersonic speeds (M5.0) irl, but doesnt even get particularly close to Mach 5.0 at near optimal conditions. Considering drag increases with velocity squared, I woulsnt be suprised if doubling the 54C’s burntime ingame from 30sec to 60 sec still wouldnt allow it to acheive Mach 5.0. I think gaijins thrust numbers for the AIM-54’s motor are inadequate for it to ever reach the high speeds its known for.

The ER has every single advantage ingame besides launch and leave capability, and even then, the 54C is such a bad missiles ingame that it doesnt actually matter. The ER outperforms it in every way but range, and the range is irrelevant considering the combat ranges in WT anyways.

1 Like
391

even if the Cd is the same for the missiles, then due to the area of the AIM-54 midsection, it will be worse.The EP is limited to a battery life of 60 seconds. Phoenix has no such problem. It already reaches 5M speed in the 1800m/s card.Both have a dual-mode engine

The ER is still limited to a minimum G and a minimum collision velocity with the target.Perhaps the Phoenix accelerates more slowly due to this it retains its energy longer

392

that is the speed of mach 4 , one mach is missing here , which is a massive amount of energy

1 Like
393

where is missing, what is the launch height as he determined max. speed? if you compare with the ER, then you need to be at the same heights

394

yeah

395

this is the rocket launch speed, not the maximum speed

396

it is as stated

397

With the range most players fire AIM-54s at I can’t remember the last time I saw the red diamond on an AIM-54.

But fair point on the RWR I probably didn’t consider that fully in my original comment.

Ultimately though there is no reason contrails shouldn’t be modelled in WT.

Do we have any idea what ballpark the RCS of the AIM-54 should be in? I agree it seems a bit overkill at the moment.

398

Approximately 0.02-0.03m2 if you’re talking about the rocket itself

399

Under those initial launch conditions
(10km alt mach 1.5)

Missile should be able to travel ~76nm in 158 seconds and reach a maximum altitude of > 100, 000 feet

Anyone know how to scrape data from missiles in-flight?

1 Like
400

Its hard to actually compare the 54C’s max range with irl figures and actually get much of anything useful actually, reasons for that are multiple;

  • WT uses a pretty rudimentary lofting mechanic
  • WT doesnt have particularly dynamic missile characteristics (like increased thrust at higher alts or different drags for different stages of motor burn/burnout)
  • Getting to the speeds/alts/distances specified in the image you are referring to takes a while and I didn’t have the patience, nor the exact image on hand, so we didn’t test the exact conditions specified
    image

As an aside, the mix of the lofting mechanic being rudimentary in WT coupled with the lack of increase in thrust for rocket motors at altitude likely doesn’t help with the speed and speed retention of the missiles, and likely compound on each other. It would still be interesting to test if the 54C can reach the stated range in similar timeframe as specified in this though.

1 Like
401

In WT on code level max radar search/lock distance 93-97Km. We can’t repeat this launch

402

Players are obligated to fire the AIM-54As in WT at such ranges due to the simple fact that the only way you’re hitting anything with them is if they are AFK, or somehow didn’t clue into the missile being launched at them until it went active (and even then it should still be relatively easy to defeat, 15sec+ is a LOT of time). The massive contrails, subpar seeker and terrible maneuverability don’t exactly make this a threatening missile if you have any idea of what you’re doing, and the average player manages to avoid them by accident or by abusing multipath.

As an extra piece of info (you can choose to trust it or not, since its pilots word of mouth), by the end of the AIM-54’s career with the US, Top Gun was teaching to fire the AIM-54C either at/below 20 miles (considered a great shot) or from 30-40 miles (iirc, I cant find the source atm but ill post it when I can) against maneuvering targets. In WT by comparison, any shot where the 54C can be easily seen is a bad shot, and there’s basically no chance you’re getting a kill while the motor is still burning with a paltry 17g of pull and its mediocre seeker.

Never said contrails shouldn’t be modelled, but they should be modelled properly, and the AIM-54C doesn’t deserve to have its reduced smoke motor withheld pending gaijin actually doing so, seeing as other missiles already have their reduced smoke motors. Its an unfair and imbalanced implementation of the mechanic AGAINST the 54C.

Not exactly sure, but I can tell you its considerably smaller than any modern aircraft in-game with the missile only having a diameter of 380mm. I have a theory that all missiles RCS’ in WT are too high, which would explain (in part at least) why radar missiles get decoyed/pulled off course by other missiles rather easily.

1 Like
403

We will probably get the Phoenix fix when they add more jets so its no longer relevant anymore. It will be strong in a tier but never top tier. Russian bias cant have that. Its the natural cycle of US equipment in WT:

Find Ways to Artificially nerf US tech on Dev > Continue to deny it should be buffed for reasons > Release new tier above tech > Oh yea you were right lets fix that > old tech gets buffed 7 patches later, but no one cares.

Im really shocked they decided to fix their borked F-16 flight model that the scabs here were saying was “fine and realistic.” Then again they had to add a jet from 2006 for the F-16 FM to be fixed. So its was probably more because they knew they were going overboard with bias.

5 Likes
404

The more info we find on the AIM-54C, the more we realize its underperforming. For current known or strongly suspected issues we have:

  • Underperforming in max pull (17G instead of 25G is a 32% loss in max pull)
  • More than likely underperforming in max speed by a fair margin (stated max speed is in excess of M5.0, 1800m/s coded in-game should be enough for that and theoretically would allow it to match the R-27ER, but I literally cant think of any scenario where you could actually get it to hit 1800m/s, nvm a game relevant scenario)
  • Missing a reduced smoke motor
  • Multipath is excessive (granted this affects all radar missiles to some degree)
  • Seeker lacks the precision for stream raid capability, struggling with multiple targets nearby each other
  • Seeker lacks NCTR (gaijin doesnt “think” “An ability to identify targets by individual characteristics through pre-stored computer simulations” is NCTR, or that NCTR would even be on a missile, or that NCTR would be useful on a missile, because I totally cant think of a situation where being able to identify the specific target its locked to would be help, such as, oh idk, acting as another feature preventing the missile from being decoyed or transferring lock to a different target…)
  • Seeker lacks dogfight mode (or active off-rail) increasing the time required for an engagement at closer ranges (not that it currently matters since the low pull, low speed and bad seeker make the missile terrible in WVR shots despite all evidence to the contrary irl.
  • Struggles with beam aspect targets

All of these points are either contested by gaijin devs, or being outright ignored by gaijin devs. Its clear that the AIM-54C will NEVER match its irl capabilities when the devs themselves contest sources because they don’t “think” a capability mentioned in documentation is “realistic” or have “no idea” how one of its irl capabilities is relevant to its function as a weapon.

Its being deliberately mismodelled and no amount of bug reports will fix this, because its being modelled based on the devs opinions instead of facts. Even if it EVER gets buffed, which I quite frankly doubt at this point, it will never be relevant. Just a bad gimmick on 2, maybe 3 aircrafts in WT (if they ever bother adding the F-14D, which they’ll likely completely butcher anyways and copy paste the AWG-9 for the AN/APG-71 and say they “don’t see how major upgrades to most components and a switch to an all digital system would improve the radars capabilities” just like they did with the 54C’s seeker.

This is worst than talking to a wall, this is like trying to help someone with a project while they spend their whole time gaslighting you about the meaning of very obvious source material with specific performance metrics and/or capabilities outlined.

It wouldn’t even be so bad if they said something like “we understand the AIM-54 is underperforming, but this is a deliberate modelling decision as we believe it would be unbalanced”, but they cant even admit that if that’s their real justification, not that its even a good justification when the R-27ER outmatches it in literally every single metric that matters in WT…

Trash like this is why I don’t even waste my time bug reporting anymore.

Quite frankly, it would be comical if it wasn’t so infuriating.

7 Likes
405

I haven’t tested much, but the rocket engine for the Me163 maintains the same thrust to a point where I actually gain speed during a steady climb after about 12,000ft due to lower drag. Overall, the missile feels too slow in acceleration although I can’t support or accurately describe why.

406

Have you even played the 29 or are you talking from your ass, seriously

407

R-27ERs have inferior range because their battery life is only 60 seconds they simply cannot fly further than 130km because of this.

AIM-54 on the other end does not have this battery limitation and is purely limited by kinematics

408

AIM-54 is battery limited at extreme ranges, its longest-range recorded shot was 158 seconds time in flight iirc

409

130km it’s kinematic range