How did you determine the motors overall % of the body from these photos? There seems to be no indication.
AIm-54C wrong explosive mass // Gaijin.net // Issues
I was speaking about this one along with the one you mentioned, I believe there was an older one as well, but it does not populate in the quick access anymore.
They didn’t forward that one though, because the employee closed it without even reading it. That’s why I made it again later (and was forwarded 15 days ago).
The other one was about Sedjeel & Fakour’s explosive mass (not type), but my report was actually incorrect in that case. I was reading the wrong number/item from the document …
Is there a source for that?
From what I could find AIM-54A also uses both MK 60 and MK 47 motors, and I could not find an indication of any difference between the two motors.
Either make a report for every single missile in the game or drop this… honestly you are chasing rabbits man…
You are asking for accurate explosive quantities without accurate warhead modeling… Its like asking for a car with no engine
Well, they already model the fragmentation pattern:
Spoiler
"damage": {
"shatter": {
"useRealShatters": true,
"countPortion": 0.15,
"segment": [
{
"radiusScale": 1.0,
"penetrationScale": 1.5,
"damageScale": 1.5,
"angles": [
0.0,
9.0
],
"countPortion": 0.1
},
{
"angles": [
10.0,
29.0
],
"countPortion": 0.0
},
{
"radiusScale": 1.0,
"penetrationScale": 1.0,
"damageScale": 1.0,
"angles": [
30.0,
124.0
],
"countPortion": 0.35
},
{
"radiusScale": 1.0,
"penetrationScale": 1.5,
"damageScale": 1.5,
"angles": [
45.0,
70.0
],
"countPortion": 0.05
},
{
"angles": [
125.0,
169.0
],
"countPortion": 0.0
},
{
"radiusScale": 1.0,
"penetrationScale": 1.0,
"damageScale": 1.0,
"angles": [
170.0,
189.0
],
"countPortion": 0.1
},
{
"angles": [
190.0,
234.0
],
"countPortion": 0.0
},
{
"radiusScale": 1.0,
"penetrationScale": 1.0,
"damageScale": 1.0,
"angles": [
235.0,
329.0
],
"countPortion": 0.35
},
{
"radiusScale": 1.0,
"penetrationScale": 1.5,
"damageScale": 1.5,
"angles": [
290.0,
315.0
],
"countPortion": 0.05
},
{
"angles": [
330.0,
349.0
],
"countPortion": 0.0
},
{
"radiusScale": 1.0,
"penetrationScale": 1.5,
"damageScale": 1.5,
"angles": [
350.0,
359.0
],
"countPortion": 0.1
}
]
},
"shatterDamage": {
"breachConeAngle": 45.0
},
"explosive": {
"radius": 0.15,
"offset": 0.9
}
},
I don’t know if this corresponds to a continuous rod warhead or not, but perhaps that’s something for you to figure out!
“RealShatter” Aka what made every single 20/30mm HE round useless for quite a while before being removed, is used for missile fragmentation pattern… lmao…
And how far do these fragments really go? Go figure… You are the one that is asking for accurate HE filler amount, you figure out if this corresponds to a continious rod warhead or not and whatever else it affects.
Still waiting for buf reports for the HE fillers on the rest of the missiles in game…
“it must be done”
Well, I’m not aware of any, but if there is a missile that is missing its correct filler mass, it should also be corrected. So yes, “it must be done”
The AIM-54C uses a reduced smoke Mk47 mod 1 as opposed to the AIM-54’s Mk47 mod 0.
The Mk60 mod 0 is nearly identical to the Mk47 mod 0 in total impulse but has supposedly a higher thrust and slightly lower burn time. It is an equivalent and less than 200 were ever ordered. It’s primary purpose was cost and risk reduction.
1 Like
There are clear photos with clear markings showing the location that each section is attached, it can be used to deduce the length of rocket motor with pixel counting. But I haven’t seen them on foreign forums so I will refrain from posting that photo.
But you can deduce from PL-15’s 4m length.
Let’s overestimate PL-15’s rocket motor length, assume missile’s entirety is rocket. I.e. length =4m
Calculating internal volume:
r=0.1015, l=4m, volume=0.129
Aim-54 rocket motor has length of around 1m, excluding nozzle.
r=0.19, l=1m, volume=0.113
Even when grossly overestimating PL-15’s rocket motor length, it only has 0.016 m^3 more volume than AIM-54.
And we all know PL-15 cannot has 4m rocket motor, since warhead/radar/control servos/nozzles takes space, too.
Here is a lower res photo where you can see the nozzle/tail control section and radar section. They takes up around 1m.
This means PL-15’s rocket motor length cannot exceed 3m, and we haven’t included the size of warhead.
With l=3m, volume = 0.97. Less than Aim-54.
If you use the marking in the middle as where the rocket motor section ends. Then the rocket motor length is now less than 2m.
With l=2m, volume = 0.645, around half of Aim-54.
I’m gonna stop here since all of these is based on public info available outside of China.
But it clearly shows Aim-54 has way more volume in its rocket motor than the PL-15 that is feared by USAF and USN.
Side note: imagine Aim-54 is still around and received upgraded rocket motor to have higher specific impulse.
You don’t have such a photo.
I never said anything about AIM-54, or compared the two. Why is that the datapoint? There are smaller missiles with more range than the Phoenix today, so why would the PL-15 not have similar performance?
There is a 52 year gap between XAIM-54A (1963) and PL-15 (2015)…
Wildly unusual comparison.
Seems like continuous rod warheads eventually fell out of favor, due to their poor performance against aerial targets, especially at non-ideal angles:
Tactical Missile Warheads J. Carleone 1993 Volume 155 Progress in Astronautics & Aeronautics:
@MiG_23M @SE_8749236 Also, seems like due to the poor performance of the continuous rod warhead on the AIM-54A, they went with a fragmentation warhead for the C model:
Likewise, SM-1 used continuous rod warhead, but SM-2 switched to “controlled fragmentation” warhead:
At first I though “Controlled fragmentation” means aimable warhead, but seems like it’s just another fancy name for a regular fragmentation warhead with pre-cut grooves:
1 Like
Thats’ how it currently works, 20m isnt a bad thing, moving it to 15 would simply cause those 20m scenario’s to miss entirely.
Bug report:
Polymer Bonded Explosives TNT equivalence (Used in AIM-54A):
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dV8HeuLy4P4g
1 Like
Do you live in the US?
Is the loft for the C accurate. This missile feels like a complete downgrade
It’s missing a smokeless motor and can’t hit its max range (neither can). Just gaijin being gaijin…
The Fakour really killed the phoenix. Before the IRIAF, even in an uptier, climbing to spam 6 phoenix and going back to base was a viable tactic but now you don’t have time to guide them with datalink before eating a Fakour - you have to leave them in IOG which combined to the terrible maneuverability means a certain miss. It is now outclassed at short, medium and long range. At least the F-14B can be fun in a dogfight and the improved rwr is always a big + but the US F-14A has been made largely obsolete imo.
F-14D with amraam can’t come soon enough.
1 Like
Since when did they not meet the maximum range? Even without the efficient lofting they meet the maximum range launch scenario with the correct loft height elevation and everything.
Does it? I co I’lld have sworn last I checked it doesn’t. Then again, it was a long time ago I checked, so maybe it did change. I thought it had excessive drag or something like poor lofting that was preventing it from reaching its maximum speed and range.