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.
I find it hilarious all these missile experts come out of the wood work to refute anything NATO. Look at the threads. Phoenix, Sparrow, Sidewinder threads all filled with these wannabe know it all rocket scientist scabs that only have one agenda:
Make sure its nerfed/held back/never buffed.
Then you look at missiles like the R27ER in game and how these same scabs will do anything and everything they can to defend its performance when they know its overperforming by insane margins.
Then you look at the post history of these people and you understand they have no lives. Most people who are this vested in something are payed to do so. These scabs do it for free. Think about that.
They do it for free.
1 Like
Yes, we bug report things using valid sources and spend a lot of time doing so because it’s a hobby. Most of us have full time jobs on top of this. We’re diligently fact checking all missiles not just the Western ones. Look at our work for the Magic 2 and other French ordnance. There’s no bias here, if the Russian stuff was overperforming you’d easily be able to prove it.
Don’t sit here and blame us because the R-27ER is in the game, most of us didn’t want it.
No one said any names bud. I think its hilarious you think Im talking about you though. It speaks volumes to my point.
He does it for free.
Im just wondering where all those passionate posts about the R-27ER being wrong and overperforming in game like all your posts about nato missiles. Weird how I cant find any like that. Hmmm…
1 Like
I have considered a lot of things. the R-27ER being correctly modeled is not one of them because its not. There are 10+ posts about it overperforming and it received a huge buff 12 hours before Attila was released. That missile was coded with 100% Russian bias included.
Im just wondering where all the passionate posts from all these rocket scientists about its overperformance are.
No baseless claims are something you and other scabs do here.
R-27Er overperforming is a fact, up until recently you could even launch it in IRST mode lol. The bias was and still is real. Which reminds me. Where are all the rocket scientists posts about the R-27ER being able to be launched in IRST mode?
Not a single one. Very telling.
But the second you post something in the Aim-54 post the scabs come in mass to refute it with anything they can.
If the shoe fits, I’ll wear it. You’ve called me a scab before and it seems that’s your general opinion for any active forum member who doesn’t constantly shill to your wild opinions on western hardware… and often you hand it out to the people doing the most unbiased and factual reporting. So yeah, I’ll wear it.
Several primary sources indicate it’s performing as it should minus multipathing, so if you’ve got information that suggests it is indeed overperforming do you mind sharing it in my R-27 thread?
I’ve made an entire thread dedicated to the missile…
When it was able to be launched in IRST mode basically making it a super amraam where were your posts about that being incorrect?
Or did you conveniently forget too.
My point is you scabs have only one agenda. To make sure NATO equipment is undeforming and Russian equipment is overperforming. Its blatant and you can see it in every post you make. I can go to a Russian missile post and there wont be half the documents posted lol. Its just word of mouth. You come to a post like this where we give ample information backing up the missile underperforms and we are met with
“Thats not enough proof”
I call it as i see it too.