DSplayer

The SD-10 actually had an incorrect nozzle_exit_area value that gave it a little more extra thrust and speed at higher altitudes up until the recent patch after I reported it. It should be pretty reasonable in terms of speed atm. You just gotta keep in mind that the SD-10 has a ~20mm larger diameter and ~100mm longer than the 120C-5 with probably a different internal layout. AIM-120C-7 for DCS when ED smh /s. Seems like its an older API/scheme thing along with maybe induced lift and drag? The SD-10 on its pre-INS datalink AMRAAM scheme doesn't have that issue and flies in a straight line until it regains lock and the AIM-120s with the INS datalink basically tries to follow predict where you'll be next when it loses track.

Should be updated already.

For those that are curious, this is what happens when you try a 45° pitch, zero battery, and ~250lbs of weight shaved off of the empty missile weight. Peak speed of Mach 4.97 with an extremely different trajectory however.

Actually making the missile go ballistic, by setting the battery life to zero, allows for the AIM-54 to match the curves of the actual ALSM document. Previously I had used ACM cover up and the missile still tries to guide itself in an optimal manner, especially at 0° pitch, so that it tries to maintain the original pitch it was launched at instead of a ballistic arc. So previously the 0° missile it stays at ~45000 ft for the majority of its life, pulling 1 G, until it eventually runs out of speed and hits the terrain. If launched at 0° pitch, the AIM-54 will start a 0 G dive towards the ocean. This, of course, causes it to plow through thicker and thicker air and the drag will increase until it slams into the ocean. A similar thing happens for the 30° pitch launch since it also proceeds in a 0 G trajectory until it hits the ocean. It seems to fit the bill relatively accurately I'll have to say that. Here I've included both Tacviews. ALSM First Test.acmiALSM Test 0 Battery.acmi

For those who want to compare DCS to the NASA simulations results, you have to keep in mind that the NASA simulations seem to use the AIM-54C+ (AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed) which has a heavier initial mass than the AIM-54C that we have now. The AIM-54C we have now seems to be an earlier C variant that is ~23 lbs lighter than the AIM-54C+. When launched at approx. Mach 1.2, 45000 ft, and at a 30° angle, the AIM-54C we have currently hits a peak speed of Mach 3.62 which is a bit shy of what appears to be Mach 3.7-3.9 on the ALSM graphs. The missile launched at 0° was able to actually go faster than the 30° missile by ~0.6-0.7 Mach but according to the ALSM graphs it should be going a bit slower but this could be down to the more complicated simulation that they used when compared to DCS. 30° pitch launch: 0° pitch launch:

Ok it’s just odd how other missiles that use the older FM scheme/API like the R-27s and some of the AIM-9s are able to maintain an accurate nozzle_exit_area while maintaining a thrust and total impulse values that, in the AIM-9L’s case at least, matches up with now declassified SAC/SMC documents that describe the motor’s performance at sea level but I can assume that limitation comes from the older missile API and older Phoenix modeling like you said.

In first and last shot you mean the 3 missiles that I fired in each Tacview, they were fired at 12km, 6km, and 500m altitudes respectively since this was initially a test on motor speed. If you're referring to the 3 different tacviews, the things that are changed from each tacview to the next were a different controller and nozzle_exit_area (at the time this wasn't changed yet), this was the stock missile at the time (18th of August), and this was one I conducted today using the same track. The mode that the LD-10 was fired in was PAS at a waypoint that was directly ahead and at the same altitude.

The change in altitude for the LD-10 seems to be something regarding the guidance (which I had set to PAS in these tests) while the SD-10 was maddogged. These aren't directly effected by the controller since the controller only effects the motor.

M = Mach and that uses the scale on the left. ASL = Altitude above (mean) Sea Level and that refers to the scale on the right. I put 3 different graphs to show the differences between the 2 missiles which should have generally the same kinetic performance at generally the same conditions.

Bug: LD-10 uses an incorrect controller for its motor Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes How to reproduce/description: Step 1: Fire SD-10s and LD-10s in the same parameters Step 2: Observe Result: The SD-10 has a lower peak speed but higher average speed than the LD-10. This is due to the controller for the LD-10 firing the march stage of its motor at 1 second instead of the 6.5 seconds that the SD-10 has. The boost stage for the LD-10 also fires at 0.0 seconds instead of the 0.5 seconds of the SD-10 which allows the missile to get to a higher speed faster but still has the shortcomings of the incorrectly timed march stage. LD-10 Controller: SD-10 Controller DCS Version: Open Beta 2.7.17.29493 Mods: No mods are used that change the performance of the LD-10 and SD-10. Charts: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTsRrA95O5pcV5TTAZAaJQQh1HRGkrKPbhZc_hy3VZQLpThb1AEPsbd3jwfeWHvuuj1n6Y5kx7fVGeP/pubhtml?gid=0&single=true 500m 6km 12km EDIT: I had done a some similar testing back in August where I swapped the controllers for the SD-10 and LD-10 out for each other to see what performance changes there would've been. Feel free to read:

IIRC, the oscillations seemed to only happen with the missile that I fired at 500m and, at least in the 3rd person, appeared to be severe. They appeared when the missile started to decrease in speed after its peak Mach speed and lasted only about 1 second. Also the LD-10 still features the weird motor controller which makes it have a higher peak speed but a lower average speed when compared to the SD-10. Here are some tacviews that show the oscillations to a degree from tests in August. I haven't reconducted tests on the most recent patch though. LD-10 Different Controller and NozzleExitArea.acmiLD-10.acmi EDIT: I redid a test with no modified LUAs and this what I have. It seems to still have the weird oscillations: Tacview-20220904-221258-DCS-WhitepaperTestLD10.trk.zip.acmi

That actually reminds me that this could be the reason why the AIM-54C+ was heavier than the AIM-54C and AIM-54A prior to it and could account for the ~24 lbs of extra weight it has due to the internal heaters which removed the need for coolant. It could explain at least part of the 40-50+ lbs difference seen between stated figures regarding AIM-54A and AIM-54C weights since maybe people when aggregating statistics had erroneously used 54C+ weight statistics for the normal AIM-54C. Other increases could also come from the improved Target Detection Device and the two different warheads that were used in AIM-54C production. The increases in weight for the AIM-54A in between the initial weight statistics seen in "An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System" (978 lbs total) and the USAF's 1984 Weapon File (987 lbs) could be from the Reject Image Device, Extended Active Gate, High Altitude Performance, and warhead modifications that were added to both the AIM-54As during production. Just some food for thought.

Some clarifying points I have here: The empty mass for both the AIM-54A-Mk47 and AIM-54A-Mk60 has actually increased with the latest patch (Mk47A previously had an empty weight of 273.36 kg and the Mk60A had an empty weight of 263.71 kg while both now have the same empty mass of 281 kg). The empty mass for the AIM-54C-Mk47 however has decreased with the latest patch (previously had 302.304 kg to now 291 kg). For the new terminal guidance properties of the AIM-54C, due to DCS limitations it goes active no matter what at 10 nm (even if you're in PD-STT or you changed your target size setting accordingly). This was mentioned in the latest AIM-54 thread but is, of course, buried. The motor propellant mass change for the Mk60, in my opinion, is pretty important since prior to this current patch it had a propellant mass of 207.99 kg while now it has a propellant mass of 163 kg (which is the same for the Mk47 motor). The previous mass flow rate of the Mk60 rocket was 6.933 kg/s while now it is 7.912 kg/s (this is coupled with the decreased burn time of the missile). This means that the missile gets rid of its weight faster and makes it generally lighter than the Mk47 variant (which has a mass flow rate of 6.037 kg/s) at a faster pace. This is the reason why when you compare data between the old and new Mk60As, you'll see the new Mk60A go faster for a couple seconds then drop off. This also means the Isp of course drops from ~270.15 to ~236.70. Overall good video on summarizing this patch for the general consumer.

Hey that’s from my WT Forum post. I had updated it with the values that DCS (which is listed in what you posted) currently use but I still have sources that support what the old motor performance was (and those statistics there refer to the AIM-54A and don’t break down by the motor variant). Specifically regarding a 4000 lbs (~17793 N) thrust for 30 seconds.

I wouldn't say that the Mk47C is by far the worst Phoenix variant since in the majority of the shots I saw in the Tacviews are around Mach 2 when 10nm from their respective targets from both Mk60 and Mk47 motors on As and Cs. The Mk60 does have an advantage when closer up since it burns at a higher thrust but a lower burn time compared to the Mk47 (and the motor performances are the same even if the motor is mounted on a 54A or a 54C). The only difference outside of the guidance is that the 54C is 10 kgs heavier than the 54A. In terms of guidance, the CCM for the 54C is 0.2 vs the 54A's 1.0 (for reference the AIM-7M has a CCM of 1.0 and the AIM-120C-5 has a CCM of 0.1), the 54A only guides when the target is illuminated by the AWG-9 which does make some of the flight path less smooth and less efficient, and the 54C has a HOJ value of 1 (which should allow it to HOJ). In my own straight line performance tests, the Mk47A and Mk47C both have roughly similar peak and average speeds (±0.1 Mach) with the Mk47C being the slower one but within 0.1 Mach of its Mk47A counterpart.

For those who want to visualize the difference between the nozzle_exit_areas I've calculated (0.04525 m^2 vs 1e-6 aka 0.000001 m^2), here are some graphs. The performance difference down low is expected to be pretty marginal but once up high, its absolutely stunning to see the difference. Excuse the colors on the graphs since this was pretty rough and quick and I just reused the previous graph's colors. Click here for link to charts so you can hover over the values to compare with the motor performance from prior to the September 2nd patch 500m 6km 12km Conclusion: The AIM-54, both in the Mk47 and Mk60 configurations, have an additional peak Mach speed of ~0.6 Mach at 12km with the nozzle_exit_area of 0.04525 m^2. EDIT: Here are some bar graphs for Peak and Average speed for the missiles at 12km. Peak Average Here's the differences between the Weapons.lua (stock and new nozzle) that I used in order to perform these tests: https://www.diffchecker.com/v3DOf6fU

Looks like somehow the old, unused LANTIRN pylon has decided to be used somehow when you mount a LANTIRN. EDIT: Yep that's what happened. "HB_F14_EXT_LANTIRN_PYLON" has been used again.

It's possible that the NASA Hypersonic Test Bed document/slideshow details the weight for the later model AIM-54C+ which perhaps has an even more improved motor over the Mk47 Mod 1? (Btw this document was also used in the old Whitepaper as a source)

Unfortunately the document doesn't appear to mention any parameters regarding those specific numbers (altitude, temperature, etc.) but I'd assume that these values come from a Standard Aircraft Characteristics or Standard Missile Characteristics document that NAVAIR created (similar documents exist for the AIM-7F and some AIM-9s) which are typically measured at sea level at around ~60°F to ~70°F. In terms of nozzle_exit_area, I know that the value we have for the R-33E in-game is 0.025 m^2 (which is a pretty close analogue to the AIM-54 but the nozzle is noticeably smaller than the AIM-54's) and utilizing a cutaway diagram of the AIM-54 and measuring known points with SketchUp, I can determine that the nozzle is roughly 9.45 inches in diameter or 0.04525 m^2 for a nozzle_exit_area. When I did testing back in August in relation to nozzle_exit_areas, I had noticed that an increase in Mach of approx 0.5 if I had used the R-33E's value when launched at 12km in a straight line. Rather interesting stuff.

This seems to be true if I cross reference my copy of "An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System, Stephen Thornton Long, Naval Postgraduate School, March 1977" (also used in the old whitepaper) which says that the characteristics of the Aerojet Mk 60 Mod 0 motor had a total weight of 199 kg (439 lbs). However in the same document, it says that "the solid propellant rocket motor has a total impulse of approximately 97,000 lb-sec [~431477.5 N-sec] and an average thrust of approximately 4,000 lbs [~17792.886 Newtons] with a burn time of more than 25 seconds, depending on the temperature" when referring to what seems like both the Mk47 Mod 0 and Mk60 Mod 0 motors. If you were to compare that with our current Mk47 and Mk60 motor performance, the motors are lacking in approximately 15000 lb-sec [~66723.3 N-sec] of total impulse.

I'm stating that the AIM-120C-5s, with absolutely perfect guidance with no twitching and abnormal seeker performance, would have performed better. And that coupled with the already higher entry speed of the AIM-120C-5 during that scenario, the AMRAAM would've done better than the AIM-54. Especially since you posed the question "could any other missile in DCS fired under the parameters IronMike Presented do any better?" and the AIM-120C-5 did better in a similar scenario/parameters.

It also good to note that the AIM-120C-5s do have a different guidance API/scheme and because of that, the missile does lose speed a lot quicker once it is active due to some particularities in its guidance that aren't there with the older guidance API that the AIM-54 is using. But looking at the pure kinetics of it, like what Noctrach said, the AIM-120C-5s go active against the enemy MiGs at the approx the same speed of Mach 2 and they hit the MiGs at a higher speed too (approx +0.1 Mach).

I'm looking back at the Hazard Classification Of United States Military Explosives and Munitions, U.S. Army, June 2009 (one of the sources used in the old whitepaper) and it directly contradicts the propellant mass for the MXU-637/B propellent section that is featured on the AIM-54A. How do the new sources override this information? Was the US Army document incorrect? I would really like a new document similar to the old whitepaper which outlines the sources for the motor performance (if possible).

Yes.