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.
Maybe? “Smart” (anti-clutter) proximity fuse sounds like it? not 100% sure tho
I’d be surprised if it didn’t though. Feels like a waste of tech if you arent implementing in on ur brand new super cool, advanced missile
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.
BTW we have the code in game , on M830A1
I don’t think that’s similar.
Oh, btw @DracoMindC
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.
Source for the above screenshot
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.
1 Like
It’s well documented that the Mk47 mod 0 and Mk60 have similar performance and there has never been mention of the MK60 as having less smoke than the original Mk47 by any credible source.
The US never used low smoke CTPB based fuels in air to air missiles to my knowledge. Only 150 Mk60 motors were produced and they were only used as a potential alternate source for the motor, and stopped production in 1978.
Clearly you’ve read into my conversation on AIM-9L vs AIM-9M specific impulse, the earlier CTPB based propellants from the early 50s through the mid 60s had an ISP around 230s, with newer HTPB (modern day) having an ISP of 260s+. At the time the AIM-9M came out, the specific impulse of high performance reduced smoke motors using HTPB had climbed to around ~240s, matching the specific impulse of the earlier MK36 mod motors with high smoke.
Anyhow, the fuel and binder for AIM-54’s two early motors (Mk47 mod 0 and Mk60 mod 0) were very close. The primary difference between the two was a higher burn rate grain pattern for the Mk60 which resulted in shorter burn and higher average thrust with slightly lower overall impulse than the Mk47.
This isn’t totally accurate. You’re quoting a source from 2016 on the performance of modern air to air missile impulses and overlooking the history of the programs that led to the development of these higher performance fuels and binders with reduced or zero smoke properties.
The explosion gets pointed at the target by it self
The difference here is that a shaped charge forms a liquid jet that penetrates the armor. The continuous rod warhead just sends the shrapnel out in a pattern (ring), and detonating one side vs the other can cause the shrapnel on a specific side to accelerate faster than the others. This provides better efficiency when aimed in direction of a target… increasing range or lethality with the same weight or maintaining it by also lowering the size / weight of the warhead.