The speed of the carrier is 2.05M. The target should move at a speed of about 1100km/h
As a final tidbit from this claimed AIM-54 test engineer, regarding the 54C’s seeker:
Its seeker is claimed to be frequency agile, and operate over a “wider range of frequencies” than the 54A’s.
As stated tho, grain of salt, I can’t verify if this is actually an AIM-54 test engineer yet. Its just interesting, specific, and very detailed info, so itd be a little odd if it was just some random person, but who knows.
What was I being tagged for?
AIM-54C warhead doesn’t focus the blast in any specific direction as seen from this 1984 footage… pretty bad for the credibility of this “AIM-54 test engineer”
Maybe if you attached some sources to the bottom and links we’d be able to actually verify whether or not you have sufficient information for them to pass these issues along.
Instead, we’ve got a very unhelpful rant. You’re also stuck on “NCTR” which I really don’t think it’s capable of.
i think it does, as you can see , explosions go around and not forward , which means the head is not explosive but solid .
you can see such effects on HEAT warheads also
this is also another one :
video is timed , i don’t mean the vampire system here
Directional warhead not in the same way as a HEAT warhead.
If you read the claim, the blast cone is directed towards the target.
This is the patent for it from the looks of it:
Fits the approximate timeframe, the company, and supports the claim.
the concept is the same ,
maximize force on a single or multiple projectile to maximize the damage of said projectile
Kinda? HEAT warheads use a blast wave to form a shaped charge penetrator with a very directional effect.
Directional Warhead just concentrates the blast cone towards an Area, likely so as to improve range and concentrate damage.
Now I need to find definite proof linking the WDU-29 to the claim and the patent. Cuz god knows gaijin wont accept anything less than a signed letter from the CEO of Raytheon, the lead Engineer of the AIM-54, and both Vladimir Putin and the President of the United States before they consider implementing this, and even then, there’s a good to fair chance they call them all idiots and claim the warhead is filled with marshmallows
Re-watching the vid I think it’s quite clear it is no different than the AIM-54A style.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1159903229912551534/Top_Guns__The_Documentary_7-45_screenshot.png?ex=6532b70f&is=6520420f&hm=c2bbd9d5df1471277d71e52f22e62355fabfe36914d893443c461556ca037d2a&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1159903485697990767/Top_Guns__The_Documentary_7-46_screenshot.png?ex=6532b74c&is=6520424c&hm=a5c4b9768080da318ece454ce31a71f761ef860c4d3e0d5a14f6161532cfda2c&
AIM-54C entered service in the early 80s, that patent is in the 90s. If they were just discovering this at that time, it is highly unlikely it was applied to the AIM-54C since 1984.
I do also think the fact that the person claiming to be an ex AIM-54 test and development engineer stated the WDU-29 is a directional warhead, despite this being (afaik) not written anywhere obvious, is a very good sign regarding this persons claimed experience with the missile and credibility.
This is hyper specific info about an obscure subsection of a relatively rare, and still largely classified missile, that happens to line up with a patent from the correct company around the correct time period?
Seems like more than a simple coincidence to me
1 Like
Clearly not a directional warhead as seen in test footage.
The patent and documentation is almost 10 years after the missile was in service.
This is why your complaints are not being taken seriously.
you can not see the effect , as the solids with speeds of Mach what-ever or faster can not be seen with human eyes , specially from a 360i VHS video
1 Like
You just claimed to have seen the effect? In any case, the blast is apparently not being focused in any specific direction. What happens if the contact fuse is set off? Does it focus the blast forwards or does it do blast-fragmentation as expected of earlier models?
There is nothing to go off of here, and his own evidence seems to discredit the claim and shows us they would not have applied this technology to the production missile made a decade earlier than the patent.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1159906002502680606/Gruman_F-14_Tomcat_Phoenix_Missile_Test_Six_on_Six_Awesome_Multiple_Missile_Launches_1-39_screenshot.png?ex=6532b9a5&is=652044a5&hm=3fe201e7bd497bd4d3ba9c37e98a8cdeee20bf6e34a6f9152333fa594a457001&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1159906002150379550/Gruman_F-14_Tomcat_Phoenix_Missile_Test_Six_on_Six_Awesome_Multiple_Missile_Launches_1-39_screenshot_1.png?ex=6532b9a4&is=652044a4&hm=b53e0c8aeca809787273039207cbbbcb5611f9445fd67a5f050a6c92ec64267d&
I think what you are seeing is just the fact that the missile was traveling in the direction it was going at a high rate of speed and the cone of the “focused blast” is actually just the result of it’s momentum and motion. Nothing more. Above is AIM-54A.
Man, this WDU-29 warhead things pretty annoying lol. I can get a quote for it (tho ill get denied), but the quote page doesn’t have the info I want/need lmao.
Is someone arguing the WDU-29 isn’t directional because of old video footage???
The patent is pretty clear: “The missile contains circuitry to determine the direction of a target relative to the missile and to selectively detonate directing charges to force the blast from the warhead towards the target.”
All test footage I’ve seen of the AIM-54C are direct hits, there wouldn’t be any need to direct the explosion in a specific direction if its a direct impact…
The claim of a directional charge not only roughly lines up with the patent, company, and rough timeframe (I have a sneaking suspicion the US military wouldn’t bother filing a patent regarding the capabilities of one of their missiles until a few years later at the very least, since that’d be like announcing the results of classified developments publicly), and also lines up with a few claims I’ve seen regarding the WDU-29 being “more effective” than the Mk82, which has a higher filler weight btw.
It was always a bit of a headscratcher for me, seeing the AIM-54 get a new warhead that offered no weight reduction, and a lower filler weight, but claimed “higher performance”. This seems to solve that mystery.
Using crappy old video footage of a 54C impacting a target despite the fact that;
- Direct impacts likely wouldn’t require a directional blast, and may even be hampered by it
- Old video footage has proven to be a point of contention because people with poor understanding of the mechanics/physics at play may make faulty assumptions(see the whole “AIM-54C doesn’t have a low smoke motor because I’ve seen that one video where there is smoke (contrails) coming from it!” argument that’s been so problematic)
- From the looks of it, some early AIM-54C’s still had Mk82 warheads, but the one we see in-game most definitely has the WGU-29 seeing as it has the reduced HE filler
- Y’all really analyzing explosion patterns from a 144p video taken at range???
Its pretty embarrassing tbh
1 Like
The explosive mass in both Mk82 and WDU-29 is designed to expand the continuous rod warheads. There is no focusing of the blast towards a specific zone.
Im guessing the AIM-54C ingame is one with a mk60 motor which is why it doesnt have the reduced smoke, maybe the approach for a reduced smoke motor should be a suggestion rather than bug reports
Only 150 Mk-60 motors were ever produced, it is unlikely that the AIM-54C used them. If it did, it was not for very long since their production ceased prior to the AIM-54C’s introduction. All “new” AIM-54C’s would have been built with the Mk 47 mod 1. AIM-54A’s upgraded to the AIM-54C standard could have been fielded with the Mk60.
Both the Aerojet Mk 60 and the Rocketdyne Mk 47 mod 1 are reduced smoke motors using HTPB according to (yet again) the claimed AIM-54 test and development engineer.
I’ll check if I can confirm this anywhere else.
Also, this supports my earlier claim regarding the formation of HCl contrails from this type of propellant:
And this graph:
So its actually irrelevant which motor gaijin claims it has, they’re both low smoke motors.
The bottom line is that the Aim-54C or A isnt reaching its actual max speed at extremely idela conditions. Plus the fact that we have russian sympathizers in this chat that think its completely ok for the R-27ER to be better.