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

[ShowerBeer1989]

I am posting this to Aid anyone who is further attempting to have the Aim-54C+ changed to all aspect capabilities that it is currently missing, A friend made a Bug Report for it, it got labeled Not Enough Info within 2 minutes of Posting it, its 3 pages of Text Alone, keep in mind so their was not a fair analysis of the information presented, They wanted further clarifications on how it would change in War Thunder, so they provided that in a New Bug Report because they could not edit the Previous one because of closed status, And he was subsequently banned till September, y’know who it probably is who is reviewing it. It would be understandably to deny a report because it solely relys on 3rd party sources, however my friend made a point to only Utilize Published Military sources aswell as a NSN Part Database to prove the Guidance section changed from 54C to 54C+. He also Cross reference the Congressional Hearing sources with Provided information by the official NAVAIR.mill website to confirm stated changes applied to there respective missiles. I will post the covers to the provided sources in a reply to this post
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PGG9ZuRBT173

Here is a rewritten version to explain in Laymans terms how These Changes to the Aim-54C+ would affect its performance in the Context of War Thunder. The addition of a Traveling Wave Tube (TWT) Transmitter/Receiver from the Aim-120 would allow the Aim-54C+ to be able to Receive and Interpret the MPRF (All-Aspect) waves Emitted from the F-14D’s AN/APG-71 radar thus allowing the missile to Track a Target whose Beam Aspect has changed from Front Aspect to Side/Rear Aspect where the original F-14A/B’s AWG-9 could not because it only emits HPRF (Front Aspect) waves.
We know with Certainty that the Aim-120’s TWT can Receive and Interpret MPRF waves due almost every plane they’re configured on In game possessing the Capability to emit MPRF.

Now i will present my Evidence from my Claims from my Previous Report:
As stated from the officially NAVAIR description of the Aim-54C+: Improved variant developed by Hughes for F-14D. Contains internal heaters, which eliminates need for temperature conditioning liquid, high-power Traveling Wave Tube (TWT) transmitter adapted from the AIM-120 AMRAAM, and low-sidelobe antenna. Latest version of RPM substitutes 6 ultra-high-speed computer chips for 45 of earlier, less-capable chips.
For the purpose of this bug report I would like to focus on the section discussing the Addition of the Traveling Wave Tube (TWT) Transmitter taken from the then in development Aim-120. https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/12701#:~:text=1977 Development%20of,54C%20flight%20tests

This can be proven to have been fitted to the 54C+/Sealed by the Difference in Guidance Section designations between the 54C and 54C+: the 54C utilizes the WGU-11C/B and the 54C+/Sealed utilizes the WGU-17A/B as Provided by a NSN part database

As is known from the base Aim-54C it has an All-Aspect Envelope as stated in Hearings on Military Posture and H.R. 1872 Part 3 of 5 for FY1980 Pg.2908: "In terms of technical performance, the Aim-54C will have increased High altitude capability [deleted] all aspect envelope (Aim-54A has no beam aspect capabilities).

As well as Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services for DOD Authorization for Appropriations for FY1980 Pg. 998:
“Beam Aspect - All Aspect”

For the increased capabilities of the Aim-54C+, According to Department of the Navy Supporting Data for FY83 (ADA114947) Pg. 1566 Project No. W0614 was funded with the stated goals of a (1) digital electronics unit with auto-pilot functions, (2) an improved receiver/transmitter; and (3) and improved target detection device. It is further stated that this “Improved Receiver/Transmitter will include a frequency modulated transmitter with a frequency reference system and will provide the capability to track through the target’s beam aspect”

I.E. when the Target transitions from Front Aspect where HPRF waves are most beneficial to Side/Rear Aspect to where MPRF waves are most beneficial

This is further reiterated in Department of the Navy Supporting Data for FY84 (ADA128173) Pg. 879:
“Project No. W0614, Aim-54C Improvement” “The improved receiver/transmitter will include a frequency modulated transmitter with frequency reference system and will provide capability to track through the targets beam aspect”

Given the vague nature of the wording specifying as to Which Aim-54C is being discussed in the context of Project W0614, we can look to Aerospace Weapon System Acquisition Milestones: A Data Base from October 1987 (ADA194386) Pg.184: Aim-54C+ began deliveries in April 1986,
The base Aim-54C had already begun production with pilot missiles delivered on October 1981
As well as the most up to date source the Official NAVAIR website for the Aim-54C:https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/12701#:~:text=1977 Development%20of,54C%20flight%20tests

This gives credence that this Aim-54C Improvement in Project W0614 is specifically discussing the Aim-54C+ variant.
Due to the Stated Above All-Aspect Capabilities of the Improved Aim-54C and the addition of the High Power Traveling Wave Tube (TWT) Transmitter/Receiver to the Aim-54C+, it would certainly give it the ability to receive and interpret the MPRF (All Aspect) PD Waves sent to it by the F-14Ds new radar. The New Radar Set on the F-14D, the AN/APG-71 which allows the emission of MPRF PD waves and HPRF PD waves, and is not limited to solely HPRF PD waves like the AWG-9 present on the previous F-14A/B. The Guiding aircraft in this case the F-14D can now provide it with necessary information to perform All-Aspect interception against Manuevering Targets, something the Previous Tomcats could not do due to them being limited to HPRF PD and thus Head on engagements.

Sources:
-Backgrounder - AIM-54 Phoenix Missile (https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/12701#:~:text=1977 Development%20of,54C%20flight%20tests)
-NSN Database for 54C and 54C+ Guidance Sections: 1420-01-267-9694 - GUIDED MISSILE GUIDANCE SECTION | WBParts, 1420-01-235-6891 - GUIDED MISSILE GUIDANCE SECTION | WBParts

-Hearings on Military Posture and H.R. 1872 Part 3 of 5 for FY1980 Pg.2908
-Committee on Armed Services for DOD Authorization for Appropriations for FY1980 Pg. 998
-Department of the Navy Supporting Data for FY83 (ADA114947) Pg. 1566
-Department of the Navy Supporting Data for FY84 (ADA128173) Pg. 879
-Aerospace Weapon System Acquisition Milestones: A Data Base (ADA194386) Pg. 184

[ShowerBeer1989]

[ShowerBeer1989]

As Previously Posted by this Gentlemen, in the Cutaway of the Aim-54C, the Guidance section is clearly positioned in the Middle of the Missile, it contains the Receiver/Transmitter Unit and Target Detecting Device, Since the Guidance Section Changed from the 54C to the 54C+/Sealed,
It would be credible to assume that the Target Detecting Device also changed with this upgrade of the Guidance section because it is contained within the same Unit,
But I have not been able to find a Direct Military Source stating this,
Except for the Objectives of Project W0614: which I believe explicitly lays out the upgrades that would be implemented from the 54C to the 54C+ given the Pilot and Manufacturing date of the Original Aim-54C which predates this Congressional Hearing that describes it.
Pilot Missiles were delivered in October 1981
This Hearing ADA114947 is from February 1982 and the Subsequent Hearing ADA128178 which continues to detail Project W0614 is from January 1983.
It makes no sense to describe an Aim-54C Improvement Project if the Pilot Missiles for the Aim-54C were already delivered

[Neko_nya]

Take whatever you find on my report so you can improve yours, there is a good amount of supporting sources but not really primary sources. Community Bug Reporting System

[ShowerBeer1989]

He got banned till September, that is why he wanted me to post this here, so if someone wanted to use the Information he collected they can and it would be in an easily accessible post, not buried underneath all the Bug Reports.
I doubt he will try again as its just not worth the effort, when you have people who refuse to even attempt to understand what is being proposed that involves more advanced concepts.
And looking at your Report you both have a decent amount of overlapping sources,
But if one was created solely like his utilizing only Official Primary Military Sources and it was denied it makes no sense to try again

[Neko_nya]

I see, I am hoping for someone better than me to do it :(

[ShowerBeer1989]

He wanted me to provide a further clarification to explain why this All-Aspect Envelope and Beam Aspect-All Aspect descriptions for the Aim-54C from these government hearings even if implemented to the Base-Aim-54C would not help it much because of the Platform it is on the F-14A/B.
Because the AWG-9 which is present on the F-14A/B can only emit HPRF PD waves. The 54C would still be severely susceptible to Clutter and Chaff when the target enters the Side Aspect and Rear Aspect in relation to the Planes Radar. This is because while as long as the Target stays in the Front Aspect the AWG-9 can still accurately provide DL information utilizing HPRF PD which can reject clutter and chaff to provide accurate information, as soon as the Side Aspect and Rear Aspect are shown to the Planes radar the HPRF waves struggle significantly to maintain track and thus must swap to normal SRC where it is blinded by Clutter and tricked by Chaff.
This is not the case with the F-14D AN/APG-71 which has the ability to emit MPRF PD and HPRF PD, which while still can be Notched just like every other PD radar set in game. It has the ability to provide significantly more accurate DL information because of the use of MPRF and HPRF, allowing it to continually provide accurate DL information with PD making it significantly resistant to Clutter and Chaff regardless of the Targets orientation to the Launching aircraft allowing it to properly DL missile and thus allowing a True All-Aspect envelope.
And with a guaranteed Receiver/Transmitter on the Aim-54C+ that can receive and interpret MPRF DL information it should improve its lethality alot against these type of Manuevering targets effectively making it an All-Aspect missile

[Fireball_2020]

This means the A model in game is roughly correct then right?
and i think the C model uses the same motor as the A model in game which might be historically accurate to some degree, so i guess the devs can claim innocence there.

[Neko_nya]

There is a document from the navy budget explaining the 2 motors can be found on A, C and C+ models of the missiles. None of them use a specific motor somehow and it can be either. It probably come from some A missiles being upgraded or some C cannibalizing A parts.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/412015l.pdf

[ShowerBeer1989]

There are 3 different Motors used by the AIM-54 throughout its variants,
-Rocketdyne Mk47 Mod0
-Rocketdyne Mk47 Mod1
-Aerojet Mk60

Mk47 Mod0 has weaker motor thrust but a longer motor burn time
Mk47 Mod1 has “Reduced smoke” motor by utilizing a different a propellant likely a reduced aluminum content to achieve this, some one more knowledgeable about this was talking about it farther up in the tread, it should have the same Impulse and Burn time as the normal Mk47
Mk60 has a Stronger motor thrust but a shorter motor burn time

For the 54A and 54C both Mk47 Mod0 and Mk60 were used at different periods of the Missiles life depending on configuration,
However later 54C+ and ECCM/Sealed for certain utilize the Mk47 Mod1

The Mach 5 claim while coming from a credible source doesn’t give any added capabilities to achieve this top speed, I have seen claims on one the Hearing documents that a more efficient radome helped with Velocity,
But without a More powerful and longer burning motor to achieve that speed, it likely had to be some type of over calculation of ability of the missile

[Fireball_2020]

You are confusing impulse and thrust.

Impulse is a metric that in effect combines both burn time and thrust under one umbrella.
By having a shorter burn time you can hit a higher top speed, Mach 5 in this case, however you have burnt for less time, which means you decelerate and potentially end up slower by the time the second motor would have finished. I very much doubt any small change in the missiles shape could produce anything other than a marginal top speed increase.

[ShowerBeer1989]

My bad

[Neko_nya]

The missile is more powerful which would help a bit in all scenarios, also a result of a slower acceleration being traded for a faster acceleration with a shorter time. It makes sense that the missile could reach its highest speed before entering denser air. At high altitude, drag is much lower, so more of the motor’s energy goes into acceleration instead of being lost to air resistance. Once the missile descends into thicker air, drag increases sharply and it would bleed speed much faster. So Mach 5 is much more plausible in a high-altitude/lofted part of the trajectory than near sea level. Nasa test, army test confirmed it already as being able to reach Mach 5, it’s a mix of both making it possible.

[ShowerBeer1989]

Again the problem is from even simulations I have seen it doesn’t reach Mach 5 even from High altitude, with either combination of Motor,
Scroll decently up in this thread there people with a lot more knowledge on this subject than I

[ShowerBeer1989]

And I guess innocence about what speed the Missile reaches yes, but there plenty of missing functions from 54C and now 54C+

[lglscs]

Honestly baffled they wrote off your report as not a bug because according to them budget documents and congress hearings were being made about theoretical plans of missiles, even when those “plans” were entering service in a couple of years, unlike some other missiles in the game. Not considering the naval institute as at least a secondary source is also nonsensical, and they didn’t even bother to deny the other sources.

Even you don’t consider the classified documents you know they have seen already because they’ve already banned people over it, for me it would be enough evidence that it could only be denied by producing a primary source that explicitly states that the aim 54 C is restricted to front aspect attacks, which definitely doesn’t exist.

@Neko nya

It’s not warthunder, but dcs/heatblur recently revamped their recreation of the Aim-54 phoenix so it might be worth looking at it as reference as to how it should perform.

- YouTube

[Neko_nya]

In simulations the NASA confirmed it could, for the army I need to find the source as it is primary but I am tired at looking for files for today ( pretty sure it was a hearing and it’s a PAIN to look through, seeing americans talk about the ‘115mm’’ of the T-54 was something quite special though) so I will share it later c:

[Neko_nya]

The worst part is that I know it is factually all-aspect, but I have to pretend to concede points. :(

When you look at the War Thunder files, the missile is somewhat beam-aspect capable, so it is integrated to some degree. I was hoping to find more sources specifically mentioning all-aspect capability. One primary source mentioned the integration of opening-target capability during production, but somehow that is still not good enough.

Opening-target capability + front-aspect capability + beam-aspect capability would make it all-aspect by definition. But it is probably a stretch to expect them to accept that kind of logic, since they do not like applying logic unless they have exact wording and exact values. The only time they do not require that level of precision is when they already planned something that fit their plans.

[ShowerBeer1989]

Your’re forgetting that while the Aim-54C Missile has a All-Aspect Envelope, the Guiding Radar does not have All-Aspect capabilities to send accurate DL information and from what is known of the Aim-54C its independent guiding radar still utilizes HPRF PD which is only effective in Front Aspect.
So both the guiding radar and independent seeker on the missile are susceptible to the same issues with utilizing HPRF

But in the Case of the 54C+ it might still have a HPRF PD seeker, but it has a new Transmitter/Receiver that is capable of utilizing MPRF waves which are All-Aspect from the Guiding Aircraft which in this case is the F-14D,
As well as likely gaining a New Target Detecting Device in the New Guidance Section that was fitted to the 54C+,
So it truly has All Aspect Capabilities as long as you Utilize DL to guide the Missile all the way to the target, DL will take over for where the HPRF Seeker may be unable to retain independent tracking,
Which is just not the case with the F-14A/B AWG-9 because it also struggles to track in PD side and rear aspect because of HPRF and then when it swaps to SRC to retain tracking it is susceptible to Clutter and Chaff

[MiG_23M]

@ShowerBeer1989

Mk47 Mod0 has weaker motor thrust but a longer motor burn time

The three motors are far more comparable than you guys make it out to be. The differences are very minimal. Gaijin will not adjust burn times and thrusts dynamically, so the two motors will effectively perform the same. There is no reason to ask for the Mk60 over Mk47.

The Mk47 Mod 1 likely has higher total impulse and average thrust than the earlier model. No public data exists that can be used on the forum.

Both AIM-54A and AIM-54C have a top speed of approximately Mach 6.1. The mach 5 limit is from lower launch speeds and altitudes.

Still, the AIM-54A in-game overperforms considerably at sea level and underperforms considerably at high altitude. It is a limitation of how Gaijin models these missiles.