not only acceleration, its also sheer speed loss, its crazy how quickly the aim54 looses speed once the thrust burns out, like its one of the main reason these missiles can go so far, sure they might not pull the hardest but they should hold speed.
1 Like
aim54 literally reaches claimed numbers with proper scenarios.
Not sure what this mk60 motor is about but its same propellant mass so it would be same total deltaV.
And faster acceleration is generally gonna be worse
1 Like
54C+ claimed 5+ mach speed…
The only scenario that hits 4,9 is from 20km altitude launch and 1,6 mach speed. Let’s start with 14B/D can do around 16km and 14A 17km max altitude, so we are already out of parameters for a launch from the only plane that used it. Even the missile has maximum altitude while on platform 18.292m , so the 20km you need in is near 2km out of the maximum altitude the missile has on a platform .
A Tomcat was capable of launching at 1,5 mach and 12-14km altitude for the missile to achieve speed 5+ mach.
Another weird thing is that in game the missile achieves said 4,9 mach…while climbing, for a 120km range shot… The missile in reality achieved those speeds on the cruise phase , and in the terminal phase (before kill) it had around 3,5-3,6 mach on it…
What i’m saying is it’s not that the missile is that much outside the data (since there is no fixed speed in data, just a 5+ mach) , it just needs a tuning at drag in a way that it will climb faster and hit said speed… and from lower altitudes and speeds. That’s a drag issue.
They just need to fix it.
Ofc it was very bad missile on deck, but it would be very lethal in the correct parameters…
9 Likes
Those numbers are simply not realistic if we use the same physics as everyone else
The missile currently in game is actually severly over performing in rocket motor terms. Though may not do as much as with low thrust and actually big enough nozzle that Isp may not horrendously off
The motor full burn adds 1220m/s which is around mach4 at 10km. Considering it literally burns over 27 seconds, that does not sound any way achievable, like most of those “Mach 5 missile” claims that have nothing to do with reality
30 sources write 5+ mach…
you know better…
Ok.
2 Likes
We are working in reality land thats guided by physics not “Mach 5” somebody wrote on page.
Unless americans have some magic fairy dust instead of solid propellants we need to work withing physics
Pure fantasy, the motor have same propellant mass. Please stop sending “estimated” numbers on a page and talk actual rockets.
And yeah maybe at 20km it could have the amount of drag to be able to speed into this magical 5 number. Tho im not sure what would carry it there at speed… blackbird lol. Remember around 1200m/s at that altitude would be mach 4.4 in full burn no drag + release speed. But again fantasy numbers, the phoenix hits its targets and might in fact be a bit overperforming on motor side
you do not know the missile better than whoever carefully calculated that figure on an official USN report
2 Likes
I know of physics, which you sound incapable of accepting
Again, we are not talking about details, we are talking about impossible physics. They literally didn’t change the engine.
You get mach 5 when fired from blackbird
you think they didnt? how are you so certain incremental motor manufacturing improvements didnt add up, especially in such a golden age of aerospace advancement? the motor on the 54C is different from the A too, publicly they say it was just a change to smokeless
1 Like
there are no incremetal motor manufacturing improvements. There haven’t been any in mass-performance since we got into HTPB mixing. The improvement since were in stability and not killing people handling it. But ultimately its still fancy ammonium perchlorate + oxiders and binder to this day
And for reference this is around same class of propellant mass to get the last few % of ISP lost to overexpansions
Its about twice the diameter of phoenix
Do I have to break out the Fakour 90 performance chart again?
No, high initial acceleration is fine as along as you don’t have abysmal drag stats like the AIM-54, the Fakour by comparison has both nice drag stats and very high initial acceleration which gives it unmatched flight performance.
1 Like
Is there a bug report open on it?
I agree with you, but have you thought of missile gaining speed after descent from 27 km alt? Since it weighs still 300 kilos? What are your thoughts on this? Gaining 0,6 Mach in 25 km region from descent?
from 20km launch where it doesn’t climb just glides down. If we take a zero drag missile like amraam, i think that would be technically possible, as it does get faster in that 20->10km drop
40km cross range shot from 20km high at target 5km high.
Phoenix motor burnout is below that peak of amraam. I think in those kind of scenarios that would be possible if we assume same deltaV with mk60 motor but reduce burn to like 20 seconds
1 Like
i just cant wrap my head around gaijin thinking the aim54 should loose speed when turning and accelerating its absolute crazy they saw that kind perfomance and went “eh it fine”. im just about 90% sure the aim54 pre patch with the new seeker would have perfomance significantly better than the crap we got
1 Like
lets use our eyes guys come on.
7 Likes
Did this thread u-turn on the mach 5 claim now thats been supported by 2000+ pages of document spam?
Like, I can dredge up quite a few other documents from this thread’s search function alone that state mach 5.
2 Likes
Wat.
"caliber": 0.381,
"CxK": 1.0,
"caliber": 0.37,
"CxK": 1.05,
This would be pretty much same net drag wat.
Please use game not famously incorrect statshark when it comes to missiles. Fakour is better because its significantly bigger (250m/s more deltaV even at insane high alt Isp phoenix currently has) and because it uses 750m/s of that in 5 seconds which is not fighting drag and gravity for so long.
It would actually be better off as a missile if it had phoenix like burn - people talking about top speed always forget that, its a huge nerf to hit high speed so fast. For example IRIS-T was much better before people cried about max speed number with more power in the sustainer.