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

Thrust is more or less accurate in-game. The weapons file is not a good source as there are other sources (even primary ones) stating lower thrust figures. It is possible that the thrust reaches 4,000 lb-f… but the overall output deltaV would be too high if this was for 30 full seconds at that thrust rating. The rating is allegedly around 99,000 to 100,000 lb-s with 25-30 second burn time. This would indicate an average thrust rating of 4,000 pounds for 25 seconds or 3,300 pounds for 30 seconds depending on conditions.

Was not realistic at the time, but is possible today with some very experimental propellants. Nonetheless, the figure is wrong. Outsider’s view states the AIM-54 to have approximately 97,000 lb-s total impulse. This is not possible with 30 seconds burn time and 4,000 lbf thrust.

Thrust model in game is simplistic where it assumes thrust is constant for entire duration of burn. The thrust of solid rocket motor depends on the shape of propellant and their composition, this changes over time.
It is entirely possible to craft a single stage solid rocket motor that match all of these figures in its thrust curve, by adjusting propellant shape.
For example, a star shaped hollow cone, with 10 or more pointy arms, in propellant will yield higher thrust during first few seconds of burn, then reduces to a stable level of thrust.
engines - Ways to obtain thrust curves of different grain geometries - Space Exploration Stack Exchange
Also, solid rocket motor don’t just turn off at the end of burn, there is always some propellant residuals that takes rocket motor few seconds before its thrust drop to zero. Base drag reduction still exists during this time period and missile enjoy few more seconds of reduced drag after burn ends.
Sadly these info probably never will be released to the public.
So quoting total impulse is more reliable than thrusts X over Y seconds.

1 Like

He said 4000lb may be peak thrust.
If Aim54 starts the burn at 4000lb force, then reduces and reaches 2500lb at end of the burn, then the total impulse will be around 97,500lb-s = 30x2500 + 30x1500/2.
This also means the average thrust is 3250lb, which translates to 14456N of force, very close to in-game value.

On the other hand, the higher thrust at the beginning of the burn will significantly improve missile’s kinematics; since the reduced thrust at the later portion of the flight acts as a “sustainer”.
It is possible the “too much drag” issue mentioned earlier in the post wasn’t due to missile having too much drag, perhaps it was rocket motor in game uses average thrust as constant thrust, where IRL it had much higher thrust at the beginning of the burn.

1 Like

Such as?

I read it twice, it said nothing about small manuevering targets. Only made the distinction that it has had successful targeting against small targets as well as manuevering targets. It didn’t combine both.

Yes my bad, my point was that gaijins statements about the AIM-54 being ineffective against anything but high altitude strategic bombers is patently false, this is just another document to support that.

2 Likes

Fair enough, btw, do you have that quote?

I got you, here’s the full paragraph.

From this devblog:

2 Likes

This isn’t entirely true, they have modeled the booster and sustainer. There is no dynamic thrust plot, as you said… but we know the AIM-54 to be a long sustainer-only type burn at a constant thrust.

The document referenced states 4,000 pounds for 30 seconds. We know thanks to primary documentation that it does not have a boost-sustain type motor, rather that it burns for a constant thrust over a long period of time. The in-game thrust is approximately a total of ~96,780s impulse. This is slightly short of the 97,000s quoted in the currently known materials… but it is not 25% off as claimed.

One could make the assertion that to properly model the drag, the thrust would need to be increased maybe 10-15% above normal levels to simulate the reduced drag during motor burn time though. This, and the drag is already too high as it cannot reach its’ top speeds by altitude of around mach 6.

1 Like

The Aim-54 has and ACM (air combat maneuver) active mode the pilot himself can switch to for close range dogfight situations. The Aim54 was utilized this way on several occasions during the Iran/Iraq war. The Aim54 has proven record of killing small fighter sized targets. There is YouTube videos of radar intercept officers specifically speaking on the ACM active mode.

image

Whoever typed the description for the devblog is intentionally misleading the Aim-54 capability and unfortunately its evident they may intend to keep it in that state. Hope not.

7 Likes

6 aim-54A kills. Do I have the record?

4 Likes

lol probably. That was awesome.

I only ever gotten 4 kills in the Early way back.

Send it to thundershow :D

1 Like

Would be nice to get the active off the rail mode and proper TWS functionality to fire AIM-54’s without having to get a lock with the missile itself as long as the TWS has lock

1 Like

The AIM-54 is effective against maneuvering targets, to some extent, but the missile itself is very large and very heavy. You must also consider that it is an order of magnitude easier to dodge missiles in WT than it is in real life, and I think the lethality of the AIM-54 in DCS somewhat reflects that.

Also the AIM-54 is designed to shoot down anti-ship cruise missiles and heavy bombers launching those cruise missiles. This isn’t really in debate, it’s just that it happens to be relatively good at shooting down fighters also. The thing is designed for range and warhead size, not for defeating a fighting maneuvering at accelerations that would liquefy any normal human.

1 Like

Everything is effective against maneuvering targets to extent sure.

Interesting wt reference. Well how much easier is it to dodge the r27? As opposed to real life? Being that the R27 is a technologically inferior missile with a very poor success rate? How is the r27 so much better being that it relies on a signal that comes from far inferior radars to that of the AWG9 and does not have the ability to transmit a signal of its own?

The aim54 should be the most accurate missile in game as it literally has its own radar which produces its own signals and illumination becomes stronger the more it closes the distance. As you said it has the ability to shoot down cruise missiles. You just forgot to mention low altitude cruise missile part though.

The aim54 has the ability to cut out relying on the middle man, the firing aircraft’s radar signal for guidance and the distance the signal must travel and potential for disruption. Additionally the aim54 has a far more advanced fire control to calculate the proper lead and tracking. Weight should not matter unless outside of the weapon employment zone. To top it off the aim54c should have a reduced smoke signature.

Lastly the F-14 should have the greatest ability to manipulate radar frequencies via radar intercept officer in the backs seat, and many advanced digital
signal processors to filter out those returns for the best target picture. It’s TWS has the greatest ability to mask that it is targeting anyone. None of these are properly modeled in game. For whatever reason.

How does it happen by magical coincidence to be able to shoot down fighters? It has a literal mode called ACM ACTIVE MODE for close range engagements. It is by intentional design to be used as a secondary measure for targets performing air combat maneuvering. That is what acm stands for.

So, The R27 it’s primarily designed for extended range. It is much heavier with the same exact control surfaces and not much of a stronger engine than the previously. But only a longer burning motor. That is why they are called the long burning alamos.
So why does it magically retain all its dogfight capability going Mach 3 less than 5 seconds off the rail at all altitudes and retains all its performance through out the entirety of its flight envelope?

Yes you are correct, the aim54 is intentionally held back as of now as well as the awg9. It’s not really a debate.

It should be noted the AIM-54A was never intended for shooting down very small sized targets. The lack of threatening bomber fleets post-inception of the Tomcat led to them modifying the AIM-54’s proximity detection devices and other components to better be able to identify and kill smaller targets. One of these changes was the warhead type… now it can focus the blast in a specific direction. These improvements can be found in the AIM-54C…

A 22-24G missile with a larger warhead can be as lethal as an AIM-7, but only within the certain speed ranges where 22-24G is possible. Currently in-game it lacks this improved overload capacity and is stuck at 17G. The turn radius for the missile and the available AoA is relatively correct… for single plane… but the missile has some more improvement left in her. It certainly will not be spectacular in war thunder as a ‘dogfight missile’… any semblance of ‘dogfight’ capability discussed from IRL about this missile can be dismissed / thrown out the window. For the high level of situational awareness and tactical gameplay the AIM-54 simply won’t be smacking people in ‘dogfights’. This likely refers to combat at very high altitudes compared to what we get in-game.

2 Likes

I don’t think he is implying the missile should be a “dogfight” missile.

Interesting point though.

The R27ER however is not a “dogfight missile” whatsoever and was never designed to be used at close range and be a “spectacular dogfight missile” though everyone uses it at all ranges to an insanely degree in WT over the regular R. Able to kill extremely high g maneuvering aircraft under 3km with an outrageous success rate and speed off the rail.

I don’t think irl the r27 especially the ER can ever be launched at the insane performance windows we see in wt. it cannot even physically leave the rail in almost all scenarios we are able to launch in game.

fascinating point you made.

Well how much easier is it to dodge the r27? As opposed to real life? Being that the R27 is a technologically inferior missile with a very poor success rate?

The R-27 is a relatively capable missile (certainly it is agile enough) that is hampered by the fact that most soviet missiles are very old at this point, and past their shelf life. That, and who knows how well they have been maintained. The actual use-cases of the missile is not important when discussing things like reliability and etc, as WT does not attempt to model “oh they forgot to keep the damp out for a period of 20 years between 1992 and 2012”.

How is the r27 so much better being that it relies on a signal that comes from far inferior radars to that of the AWG9 and does not have the ability to transmit a signal of its own?

The AWG-9 is powerful enough to fry an egg at a hundred metres, sure, and this provides it with many technical advantages, but it is a 1960’s radar. The ability of a missile to hone in on an illuminated target is entirely to do with the missile, given sufficient illumination there will be no issue. The fact that the R-27 cannot provide its own illumination is no fault of the missile: indeed, it makes the missile an order of magnitude (or thereabouts) cheaper.

The aim54 should be the most accurate missile in game as it literally has its own radar which produces its own signals and illumination becomes stronger the more it closes the distance. As you said it has the ability to shoot down cruise missiles. You just forgot to mention low altitude cruise missile part though.

All missiles in WT are essentially equally accurate, as the game doesn’t attempt to model missile stupidity or lock quality (I mean, in some sense it does, but a missile with a lock will not experience a technical failure, it will only ever fail kinematically). I agree that all missiles in WT seem to have a problem with low-altitude targets, but I have no commentary on this as I do not know if it is a consequence of janky lead computing or something else. It’s not unique to the AIM-54.

Weight should not matter unless outside of the weapon employment zone.

Of course weight matters, velocity is the fundamental equation of missile maneuverability, and acceleration is the means by which one obtains that: a = f/m. A heavier missile takes longer to get up to maneuvering speeds from launch (at any speed) because it has proportionally less acceleration. If you try and fire the AIM-54 directly upwards in a stall at a target that is quite far in front of you (or indeed, at a target in any direction while moving slowly), then you will see the missile essentially fall out of the sky (or shoot far up in the air, dependending on launch direction) because it literally cannot generate enough lift. The engine motor just isn’t strong enough to get it to speed.

How does it happen by magical coincidence to be able to shoot down fighters?

By the same mechanism it shoots down the bombers, but applied to a smaller target.

It has a literal mode called ACM ACTIVE MODE for close range engagements. It is by intentional design to be used as a secondary measure for targets performing air combat maneuvering. That is what acm stands for.

Do you have any information to suggest the ACM mode provides the missile with additional maneuvering capacity? Why would the missile have that additional capacity available only in a certain radar mode? All the sources I’ve seen (which is to say, the heatblur manual on the AWG-9 radar say that the ACM mode is the pure-active mode: the missile is launched in automatic-active mode and acquires the first lock it can, without any information from the mothership. This is of course as a rule quite a bad thing to do, but there is no reason why a missile would not have this option, and it may be useful for pilots in some circumstances. It is only the “dogfight” mode in the sense that you want the missile to go active very quickly in a dogfight anyway because usually you are quite close to a target.

2 Likes

That didn’t answer the question brother.

How much easier is it to dodge the r27? As opposed to to real life? Being that the R27 is a technologically inferior missile compared to the aim54 especially at range where radar signal and return degrades rapidly with a very poor success rate?

How is the r27 so much better being that it relies on a signal that comes from far inferior radars to that of the AWG9 and does not have the ability to transmit a signal of its own?

As much as I am a Soviet main and my heart belongs to the flanker, the R27ER is insanely over performing at close quarters and
Can literally dogfight better than most
Small IR missiles. Remember this is WT and jets are flying at insanely higher speeds and pulling maneuvers not even remotely possible.
The R27ER has been modeled to fit the game. Why not the aim54?
The R27ER is heavier and has the same exact control fins as the smaller version and goes Mach 3 in about 5 seconds off the rail.
It does not make any sense from a physics point of view that it performs on par and even better in most instances at close quarters over the lighter and smaller regular R27R.

No one is asking for the aim54 to be a”dogfight” missile. Just that it be modeled in accordance like everything else in which gj has intentionally chosen not to at the moment.

Why must the aim54 not perform up to the standard of how the game is overall modeled but is actually under modeled? It’s not even performing in accordance with reality.

(Sorry I am on the road and didn’t get a chance to read the rest. Will do in a moment. )