I watched the footage, it appears Aim54 in you test goes in diving. Does that article mentions whether the missile IRL test dived too?
Since diving and flying straight to the target will certainly make it cover 22km downrange[1] (ground distance) faster than climbing at 30 degrees the whole time.
Also, it is too much a coincidence that cos(30) * 26km = ~22km
If this isn’t coincidence, then this implies the rocket thrust is likely specified as sea level static thrust, as every other documents for other missiles did.
Once again, shape of trajectory is affecting final conclusion, again…
Since, as stated in the doc, the Phoenix is unmodifed, so it may be climbing at a higher angle than 30 degrees, the angle it was launched at; this is also an unknown that cannot be ignored, ignoring it will subjectively favors one conclusion over others.
[1] Downrange, is simply the distance across the ground from the launch site.
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/1/7/17deaba16f51eee305e8952921663daecbe44f23.jpeg
This one says the launch occurred at 204km, Phoenix flew 134km from the launch point, which means ground distance covered, the BQM-34E must’ve flown 204-134 = 70km ground distance. Since we know BQM-34E is not maneuvering and not changing altitude nor accelerating, thus the distance traveled through air by BQM-34E is also 70km.
Mach 1.5 at 50,000ft is 514.5m/s 442.35m/s 70,000m / 514.5 m/s = 136 seconds.
70,000m / 514.5 m/s = 158 seconds
I’m surprised that this disagrees with 160 seconds flight time that I saw earlier. @MiG_23M Are you sure these two are indeed the same test? Because the number says the test conducted for 110nm launch test is wrong: it had wrong time of flight to begin with.
Given 136 158 seconds flgith time, the average ground speed of Phoenix (assuming no lofting, flying straight to target) should be ~985m/s~ 848.1m/s, Mach 2.87 at 50,000ft. I remember the 110nm tests said the Aim54 was behaving correctly where it hit the target in 160 seconds. Thus, if this 204km launch is indeed the 110nm tests that was conducted, it means that 110nm tests conducted in game was wrong, and Phoenix underperformed in average ground speed by 17.6% and time to hit by 24 seconds.
VERY Important: the analysis above assumed Aim-54 did not use trajectory shaping and flew directly towards target; since we are basing calculation on ground distance covered.
If Aim-54 performed trajectory shaping, by trigonometry, the Aim-54 must’ve flown much longer path through the air, yet it crossed the same ground distance in 136 seconds.
Therefore, this means the average speed through air must be higher than average ground speed (985m/s or Mach 2.87) in order for Aim-54 to travel the longer path and arrive at the target in 136 seconds.
So, if this is in reference to high alt and already done confirmed. Why test at all?
That is why I wanted to see if he meant testing against low flying targets.
Then he gets mad at me why I ask him to explain how he interprets what he highlighted. How he plans to do a test.
He started realizing it may be the same scenario (different aircraft) and why he crossed out the “I have a new scenario to test.” I do respect he made the correction after the fact.
As for me, I am not without err. I did in fact misread the source. It does not explicitly say that both BQM-34s were flying at 50ft. It says that the BQM-34A was 50ft and the other BQM-34E is flying Mach 1.5 (Not how high).
The nautical miles and miles of each scenario are too similar indeed. The tracking range, launch and the distance the Aim54 travelled. Then again, you make some good points. @SE_8749236
It was said that it was an unmodified Phoenix, the loft would be at 30°+, however I used the in-game Phoenix as-is. This would give it the benefit of the doubt since the loft is less efficient and velocity at impact would be less. The distance target was impacted at is 26km, it isn’t the total distance traveled by the missile considering the path… it is the distance of intercept from point of origin as stated.
All long range AAM models used in testing or service such as AIM-47, Eagle, etc were given thrust and burn time figures above 40k feet.
I put the mission in the file, I can also test various loft parameters. If you’d like me to, please let me know what you’d like to see.
Which is why I’m quoting target distance from the frozen launch aircraft for intercept range.
You’re considering mach 1.5 speed from ground level, not considering the target altitude. This is the discrepancy you are seeing.
I got too excited, it is the same test and I was wrong initially and had already updated my comment by the time you went to heckle me.
I’m gonna put an example here, for the sake of simplicity, assuming missile climbed at 45 degrees to 10,000m above launch altitude, then instantaneously turned towards point of intercept.
Distance traveled through air during climb
Since the climb angle forms isosceles triangle, so the ground distance covered by the climb period is 15,000m, the distance flew through the air is the hypotenuse.
The distance traveled through air during climb: 15,000 / sin(45) = ~14,142m
Distance traveled after climb
Since we know the two side except the hypotenus.
sqrt(15km^2 + 119km^2) = ~119.9km
In this simplified non-optimal unrealistic trajectory, Aim-54 will need to fly 119.9 + 21.213 = ~141.15km in 136 158 seconds.
This means the missile must be have an average speed through of air of 1,037m/s 893.3m/s in order to hit target in 136 158 seconds. That’s Mach 3.03, its 5.3% higher than average ground speed.~~
Mach 1.5 at the target altitude of 50,000 feet is a lower number than at sea level. The lower (corrected for altitude) number can be used to divide the distance traveled for a mean intercept time of ~150-160s as shown in my previous comment.
Yes, you are right. Mach 1.5 at 50,000ft is 294.9m/s, which gives a figure of ~158s.
However, please note all computation are based on ground distance covered.
The implication is all those computation assumed Aim54 did not loft at all and it doesn’t shed light on the shape of trajectory, which is the point of being debated.
Hopefully there are some public doc that describe how Aim54 shape its trajectory.
If possible, I would like to see a 35 degrees climb angle with target elevation of -12.5, for 110nm
For falsifiable part, my hypothesis is that this will yield a similar time on target in 110nm tests, but with higher impact velocity.
For 22km down range tests, same loft param, but launch it at a target that is further away so that the missile does not try to dive so early. The hypothesis is down range number will be smaller and closer to 22km while missile still travels ~26km through air.
And please.
I am trying to see if this is true or false: there are multiple trajectories that has almost the same numbers (time to hit, down range, etc.), but with differing impact velocity.
Which, by existing definition, multiple trajectories will be considered “accurate”, which it can’t be (actually, can it?).
Thus, if this point is true, we cannot say Aim-54 is accurate, since there is no data on the impact velocity (which helps ruling out some shapes of trajectory). We can only say Aim-54 in game matches some known numbers; while the shape of trajectory may or may not be correct.
What is the source from? The requirements were for a 440 pound rocket motor so is this the MK60?
Nozzle diameter mentioned does not match what is seen in photos of XAIM-54A, YAIM-54A, or AIM-54C.
I would like to discuss, but I will refrain from posting numbers from the document until we know it is safe to share… appears to me that it is the original DCS evaluation of the MK60 motor?
I wonder the same (about the name of the document), the schematics looks very detailed, appears to be genuine, and appears to be part of a technical doc related to the rocket motor.
That link also has picture related to the solid rocket motor of AMRAAM too (page 58), including the shape of propellant inside the solid rocket motor which helps determining the thrust curve
Well, it seems they are working off public data and came very close to the (now) known numbers of the AIM-120 prior to them being publicized or referenced. Depending on the quality of their sources, they may have accurately ascertained the thrust of the motor.
Can someone explain to me in quick words why the Phoenix in DCS is great and manuverable while it’s absolutely trash in War Thunder? Also did they nerf it or the F-14 radar in the last micro patch? My radar keeps glitching out like crazy when firing in tws.
