Since this is an unmodified Phoenix, so we can starts with some assumptions, assuming missile is fired at 45 degrees to maximize range.
If it fired at higher or lower angle only means the rocket motor is much stroger.
Then we can do some simple estimates by assuming friction does not exist to get a lower bound (since to overcome friction, rocket motor has to be more powerful or missile being more aerodynamic)
I’ll leave it up to y’all to test. I’ve already run my own but since my opinions and testing are being highly scrutinized perhaps y’all can come to similar conclusions on your own over time… if I lead you in the right direction.
Yes true. But just by that fact it covered over 13 miles from a dead stop on the ground in 90 seconds is enough to tell me the missile is grossly underperforming in acceleration in WT.
lol I don’t even think it can cover 13 miles in 30 seconds even if it was launched from the tomcat flying supersonic in game.
A test for that can easily by done.
I don’t know if I would have exaggerated that much… to me this indicates severe overperformance at sea level.
lol ok I honestly do not think it can cover 22km in under 20 seconds that’s for sure even at ground or altitude.
I’m very interested in seeing the time it takes for the aim54 to cover 22km at differing altitudes at any speed the tomcat flies.
Someone should set up a helicopter in hover.
You guys realize just how long in game it already takes the aim54 to cover 30km from altitude launched supersonic at targets flying supersonic at you in a head on??
@Ziggy1989 the issue is that according to the testing I’m replying to, the AIM-54 has correct time to target for the long range high alt tests… So …
Yeah sure, way up at altitudes where no one flies.
Because it flies true up high does not mean it’s modeled correctly at all altitudes below.
To me, it looks like you just stumbled on direct evidence that shows it’s underperforming in acceleration and speed at sea level.
China lake goes further is saying it is in ground covered, not range to a target such as a head on or optimal combat conditions. That’s more impressive.
That missile is not going to cover 22km in WT in 90 seconds from a stand still from the ground, I don’t think so for a moment.
It is not covering let’s say, 2km+ a second when launched times the velocity of a supersonic Tomcat. GJ could have intentionally modeled performance up high and nerfed it at lower altitudes.
Has anyone ever got the aim54 to excess Mach 4 on the deck? Lol
With a maximum speed of excess Mach 4…
80 nautical mile range at seal level shooting down harpoons.
I covered that information in my post when I added the source.
Irl the thrust and total impulse is the same as in-game for high alts and performance is close. The fact that drag shouldn’t be much reduced during burn time because the thrust cone doesn’t match the width of the missile explains the reason it matches so well.
Now, the lower in alt you go from here the worse the thrust and total impulse should be. In war thunder no such changes are modeled so id expect it to overperform in this regard. If it underperforms, points to an error in the model for high alt as well…
Either way, matching as many datapoints as possible brings us closer to realism. I’m interested to see what y’all’s testing finds.
Your China lake source states that the aim54 is more than capable of shooting down harpoons (sea skimming anti ship missiles) and has been proven in test downing 11 of 11 missiles flying at excess of Mach 4 and ranges 80 nautical miles.
You are never getting that performance in WT.
How is the aim54 severely over performing?
We can work backwards to figure out the characteristics of the intercept based on the Harpoon’s SAC
You are combining three separate quotes that are unrelated except that the latter two were from the same source.
The first quote was from Gunston, World’s Rockets And Missiles, page 204-205.
The second set of quotes (not related to each other) are from Friedman, World Naval Weapon Systems, page 253.
We know they can’t be related because the overall deltaV of the missile is less than 4 mach even stretching our imaginations to account for AAT and increase thrust for high alt scenarios. Even then, accounting for some level of lofting… the in-game deltaV of 1224 m/s is only above 4 mach when you consider the reduction in airspeed for mach at altitudes … at 9km.
Essentially, what you are implying is that the missile suddenly gained 15% overall deltaV and was able to convert 100% of that into airspeed (this would imply 0 drag)…
Of course, then you must consider that the maximum range of the Harpoon is less than 80 nautical miles and has a top speed of mach 0.71… indicating that in 90 seconds it would travel a total of ~22km maximum from point of origin before the missile impacted… and according to the first source it wouldn’t have reached because the missile would still be 126km from the boat the Sea-Phoenix is mounted on.
None of this math adds up, quite clearly the sources are saying that the AIM-54 can achieve mach 4 and hit targets out to at least 80nm (in high alt, high launch speed scenarios)… while simultaneously maintaining the ability to hit sea-level skimming targets such as cruise missiles.
For the aforementioned reasons, we can assume that the Harpoon is unrelated to the 22km ground distance covered from surface launch. The sources are separate, the conditions are not related.
The only data we have is;
from ship-launch (0 starting speed)… travels 22km in 90 seconds with unknown target or lofting conditions. This is sufficient information to launch it with various loft or no loft configs and compare the resultant data. It does not need to hit the target, only meet the 22km distance covered in 90 seconds criteria.
Assuming a incoming target was traveling at 0.9 mach (309 m/s) for 90 seconds before the missile impacted at 22km distance from the boat, it would need to be approximately 50km at launch.
So, the test scenario is simple. 0.9 mach target at 50km distance from moment of launch. Target heading directly towards the launching vessel. If the AIM-54 is configured properly the missile should impact the target at 90s and a distance of 22km from the launch point.
I see.
When the tomcats need to intercept cruise missiles they do not have time to fly up to 30k feet. They need to get airborne get those aim54A off immediately.
This is a reason they evaluated the sea phoenix.
The harpoon uses active radar guidance, low-level, sea-skimming cruise trajectory. When it enters the terminal it uses a mode that sea-skim and performs pop-up maneuvers to evade intercept.
The aim54 and the C specifically was designed to down sea skimming anti ship missiles.
???
it’s literally the same subject of the sea phoenix and second following paragraph of the China lake test.
Again, but what conditions can you achieve in war thunder to achieve Mach 4 at low level with the aim54?
The Sea Phoenix test in the text you highlighted was conducted in 1976. It states later (1983) that it was tested against Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles. This would have been the early test firings of the AIM-54C utilizing the improvements it has to intercept low flying and small targets as outlined in the budget documentation @MythicPi has posted.
These are two separate scenarios, it even outlines the “air-launched version” in the second paragraph before quoting Friedman (Unrelated to Gunston).
None, and it didn’t in real life either. That would imply a total impulse of 111,550+ and that is before accounting for aerodynamic drag or other factors that would inhibit acceleration and thus require further impulse to achieve these speeds. It’s not remotely feasible.
As an example, the maximum possible speed in-game at 500m altitude for the Phoenix when launched from 1.20 mach is approximately 1.35 - 1.4 mach. To achieve 4 mach at low level even with lofting would be impossible even with double the current performance of the motor.
Assuming it lofted to 5km, the maximum speed is still limited to ~1.8 mach in-game for 500m launch at 1.20 mach.
You can’t possibly believe the quotes are related, sorry. Gonna have to admit you misread another document.
Yes, and that is why I am asking you when have you seen Mach 4 performance at low altitude in any aim54?
It’s simple question.
The aim54A is not going to fly and cover 22km from a stand still in 90 seconds in war thunder. It can barely fly out 30km effectively from altitude being launched from supersonic at targets flying right at it at the same speed.
The aim54C has been PROVEN to in test of downing Sea skimming cruise missiles in excess of Mach 4 at 80 nautical miles. (It’s your own source.)
Your own source is telling you the missile is grossly underperforming at lower altitudes.
It does not matter two tests happened at two different periods of time. That is so irrelevant.
The subject is regarding the aim54 and its low altitude performance.
I will ask you again, how is the aim54 severely overperforming at low altitude in wt as you claim? Being that your own source doesn’t even agree with you and specifically says in detail the missile has been proven to shoot down 11 of 11 sea skimming cruise missiles in excess of Mach 4?
Because the nozzle is smaller than the body of the missile!?
You don’t, because it can’t.
That’s not true, it meets the range and time to target criteria for some of the demanding conditions such as the maximum launch range scenario for high alt.
You are not reading this correctly.
You’re claiming that they fired 11 Phoenix at 11 separate cruise missiles when the missiles were at 80nm… yet those specific cruise missiles have a maximum launch range less than 70nm…
The math doesn’t add up because you misread the document.
So why are you using such a ridiculous source that states it can shoot down sea skimming cruise missiles in excess of Mach 4 at 80 nautical miles?
Because you wanted to cherry pick on item out of it to prove a point about the sparrow.
That’s totally fine, but it’s also states in plain English it shoots down sea skimming cruise missiles in excess of Mach 4 at 80 nautical miles. You don’t believe it. That’s cool.
But since you used part of the source. I figured you believed all of it and so I asked how is the aim54 over performing like you been stating.
lol nooo. The 80 nautical miles is the maximum range the aim54 was able to intercept a sea skimming anti-ship missile (harpoon).
That does not mean the harpoons were flying for 80 miles before they were intercepted….
The aim54 was tested and downed harpoons 11 out of 11 and clocked in speeds of excess Mach 4.
I am not claiming anything. Whoever tested the thing is. Lol Friedman reports it.
Anyway I don’t want to hog up the topic. You guys explain it to me if I’m reading it wrong
You’re grossly misreading the source, not long after misreading another source provided to you by tech mods. I’d argue it’s trolling at this point but I’m not even certain that’s true because what would be the goal?
Anyhow, feel free to test the scenario I referenced.
Reading it now. Ty btw.
I conducted the test myself.
Launch conditions
Target distance at launch: 49,600m
Airspeed at launch: 236 km/h (0.191124 mach)
Closing speed: 379 m/s (1.10496 mach)
The target speed was approximately 0.913836 mach.
That is 313.445648 m/s at sea level.
The missile from launch till impact traveled for 75 seconds.
During this 75 seconds, the target would have traveled 23,508.4311 meters. (313.445648 * 75).
The launch distance (49,600) - target distance covered (23,508.4311) = 26,091.5689m covered for the missile in 75 seconds.
Now to account for the fact that I did not launch from a stationary target, but instead a moving one.
Calculated stationary launch performance
The launch was at 236 km/h or 65.55 m/s. To adjust the performance of the missile to account for this we must take into consideration how long the missile might have taken to accelerate to this speed given no initial airspeed.
The thrust is 14,350 newtons and the weight is 443.613kg. This indicates an initial acceleration of 32.35 m/s.
Not taking into account the increased acceleration from spent mass during motor burn time, that would require an initial acceleration of approximately (66.55 / 32.35) = 2.026s.
75 + 2 = 77 seconds total.
Now, the target would also be getting closer for 2 additional seconds. 313.445748 * 2.026 = 635.041m
Therefore, the adjusted results are 25,456.53m traveled by the AIM-54 in just 77 seconds. Compared to the real world results of 22km in 90 seconds, this is a 15.7% increase in range and 14.4% reduction in time to impact.
This further suggests that the current thrust and total impulse are already correctly modeled for higher altitudes and not for sea level imo. Either way, it shows the missile is overperforming according to this datapoint.
@MythicPi @MaMoran20 @tripod2008 @DirectSupport @Ziggy1989
Let me know if any of this math is off or if I’m not conducting the analysis properly. Perhaps there are errors I did not consider in my testing or something.
For reference, I used the stock in-game F-14A and the stock missile. There was no custom missile or aircraft files used for the test. This is as-is in-game with the inefficient loft.
