Im guessing the AIM-54C ingame is one with a mk60 motor which is why it doesnt have the reduced smoke, maybe the approach for a reduced smoke motor should be a suggestion rather than bug reports
Only 150 Mk-60 motors were ever produced, it is unlikely that the AIM-54C used them. If it did, it was not for very long since their production ceased prior to the AIM-54C’s introduction. All “new” AIM-54C’s would have been built with the Mk 47 mod 1. AIM-54A’s upgraded to the AIM-54C standard could have been fielded with the Mk60.
Both the Aerojet Mk 60 and the Rocketdyne Mk 47 mod 1 are reduced smoke motors using HTPB according to (yet again) the claimed AIM-54 test and development engineer.
I’ll check if I can confirm this anywhere else.
Also, this supports my earlier claim regarding the formation of HCl contrails from this type of propellant:
And this graph:
So its actually irrelevant which motor gaijin claims it has, they’re both low smoke motors.
1 Like
The bottom line is that the Aim-54C or A isnt reaching its actual max speed at extremely idela conditions. Plus the fact that we have russian sympathizers in this chat that think its completely ok for the R-27ER to be better.
I dont mind if the R-27ER has its advantages. I’m sure it does have some, and am in no way surprised to see it out accelerate and outpull the AIM-54C. It likely even out speeds it at most lower alt, lower speed, lower range launches where the 54C doesn’t get to utilize its trajectory shaping to the fullest.
My problem is there there is a relatively large wealth of sources out there, all either outright stating, or strongly alluding to the fact that the AIM-54C is underperforming in (now that we can throw in the WGU-29 as likely underperforming) effectively ALL categories, and yet were being strung along by gaijin, pretending all this info is wrong and gaijin totally has everything right and the AIM-54C is a “bad” missile.
Hell, K_Stepanovich even brought up the idiotic myth of the AIM-54 being only for “bomber sized targets” despite dozens of sources, and the VAST majority of actual AIM-54 kills being against FIGHTER targets.
We have proven the MK47 mod 0 and MK60 are equivalent motors with differences only in grain patterns. Both use CTPB… so no. The alleged test engineer is a fake and is making stuff up in whatever source you’re citing.
According to Orbital ATK the Mk60 was a CTPB based motor functionally equivalent to the Mk47 mod 0.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1159916527064191077/image.png?ex=6532c372&is=65204e72&hm=98747b526ef63337604562e1bdb757e9b61b6fb7e973b40250f85a609da33393&
There goes any credibility the AIM-54 test engineer allegedly had.
How did you measure the maximum speed if there are no parameters coming from the rockets
Yeah i mean it was “designed” for high alt nuclear bombers. BUT during the iran iraq war, iran demonstrated the extreme capability of the Aim-54 and how its extremely lethal against a mig-21 or that size target
primary source says both are used so probably some of the converted 54s had them
The motors were interchangeable
Yes this is what I was thinking. Unfortunately his source isn’t credible since he has stated multiple incorrect things about the missile already.
It should come with the Mk47 mod 1 though, since it is simply a better motor and the one it was intended to come with. The “standard” AIM-54C would be with Mk47 mod 1.
-edit- I actually found proof of a controlled fragmentation technique for AIM-54C warhead. I will rescind my previous statement about it being no different than AIM-54A.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1159919774134964265/image.png?ex=6532c678&is=65205178&hm=fc034c3c68846655b190c5bbffb0eaa6afc6d3dd6b409006dedb8adec503031b&
(Source)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1159913882895261696/image.png?ex=6532c0fb&is=65204bfb&hm=130506cd55afdd0c13e0cbe78d667ed94b7cdf3510a8fc7e16d8ccc08261eda0&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1159913383366250617/image.png?ex=6532c084&is=65204b84&hm=3c3c6fe4cc4aaca07f9329d1c6605eaa388973d71d33e7be88c60509a24b9f0f&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1159913605253312583/image.png?ex=6532c0b9&is=65204bb9&hm=70afda5f8ab2f2f5066d948719465990271842afc65ee117435c98dae9fe45fd&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1159914081340375041/image.png?ex=6532c12b&is=65204c2b&hm=43537c6b0172c1260751ebff915617412be9dcc9f9bb0535c7bc24b4a01adfe4&
(Source)
@MythicPi Drop your pretense that you can’t see what I’m saying so you can respond to the information provided.
@ACOMETS Seems there was a method for focusing the direction of the internal blast on expanding rod warheads.
there is always a reason
1 Like
A lot of the more modern fox 2s and fox 3s are supposed to have this but no clue if they’ll ever implement this. Another term for it is focused splinters.
2 Likes
Also, do we know if AIM-120A had this?
2 Likes
I gave all the parameters in the original post. Top speed achieved was slightly above 1300m/s. I also gave all the launch conditions, and all the impact conditions. Not my problem if you cant read them.
It likely also received something similar if not from the initial model, in the AIM-120C-4 for certain.
WDU-41/B on the C-4 has reduced mass, likely to save weight and have same effective performance as earlier models if it used such technology.
