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.
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.
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 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.
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…
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
We scoured the manuals and ascertained that it’s not possible to do mid-course updates without a STT. I forget who, but it was reported pretty fast. Prior to it coming to live.
are you referring to when R-27s were first added 10 months ago you could guide them in TWS/IRST with DL and switch to STT last second? because that was fixed after we found sources in the MiG-29 manual stating this wasnt possible, it was just a hard find because the initial theory (and why it was like that in the first place) was that DL could be updated in TWS like in most other missiles with DL.
Or are you talking about recently where you could fire a SARH in TWS/IRST watch it fail to hit because it wasnt getting any illumination, and not even be able to LOAL if launched like that. That was a thing with all SARHs and it was pretty useless since the missiles couldnt guide after being fired even if STT lock was gained.
Seems like youre getting mad over something long fixed or something useless
Replied in the R-27 thread, if there is anything else you’d like to discuss about the Phoenix we can stay here. Elsewise let’s not derail the thread. I’ll consider any further discussion on the R-27 here an attempt to derail.
NATO tech has too many things wrong to bother wasting our time working on something else than fixing NATO stuff.
Granted at this point, like I previously mentioned, ive given up on trying to aim for realism ingame, seing as gaijin is blatantly pro-russian propaganda and anti-west
But now IRST HMS can lock anytarget up to 25km though its says 10km. I can switch over to pd and maintain the same lock immediately and kill targets at long and close range. It’s an exploit they refuse to fix.
Not 10 months ago. its happening right now. So pretty much it’s the same exact same exploit offered. I don’t even have to use my radar whatsoever unless to launch and re lock last second.
Exactly. But where are all the posts from the rocket scientists about it. Dont see them anywhere. Its just something they intentionally hide because they know it gives them the unfair advantage they need.
Then you come to a post like this and see the response’s and its hilarious. The scab brigade is in full force in any thread that mentions NATO equipment.
