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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
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.
There also isn’t a single pilot account that I know of saying the 54 is bad against fighter sized maneuvering targets, and as I stated earlier (still need to find the source) sub 20mi shots were considered “very good” shots to take against maneuvering fighters according to the Top Gun school.
Exactly! So what exactly needs to be changed about the Aim-54
We need to Compile all the Specific Points on whats wrong and how to fix. Plus all of the data to back up these claims. Then we gotta present this to the Developers so that it can be changed.
Since I know it’ll likely be brought up regarding the the Aerojet Mk60 motor being “low smoke” (but not as low smoke as the Rocketdyne Mk47 mod 1), CTPB AND HTPB are binders used in Ammonium perchlorate composite propellants (APCP).
Neither is particularly the cause of a missiles motor being “smoky” or not. The primary cause for exhaust plumes at low altitudes is the use of Aluminium in the mixture, which is a common high energy metal fuel.
Hence the top part of this graph:
This was already covered by @Prophet1313 , seen below:
Lower quantities of Aluminium in the fuel would reduce the smoke produced for example, or the use of non-metallic fuels. The binder used in the case of Mk60 vs Mk47 Mod 1 motors is largely irrelevant to the smoke production, as neither CTPB or HTPB have any metal in them, whats relevant to the level of smoke produced are the other components in the fuel mixture.
CTPB actually has a lower ISP compared to HTPB, but has some advantages in mechanical properties.
Granted I’m not super well versed in the intricacies of rocket fuel binders, but afaik, they have little impact on actual smoke production, thats more or less up to the rest of the composition and design of the motor, which is likely how the Mk60 and Mk47 mod1 could both be “reduced smoke” motors, with the Mk47 Mod1 edging out the Mk60.
