AIM-54 and R-33 performance

[Airmage]

Hello, there is a question i really need to ask after thinking in this way. Aren't the AIM54 and the R-33 missiles parameters a bit over optimistic? Official data suggests they are both ~Mach 3 missiles , where in the game AIM-54 goes well above 6000 kmh. I always liked to dodge them but now, under 40km is not possible with conventional manouvering. The picture attached shows one near to max speed.

[Elwood]

Are you referring to DCS specs?

Because I remember that the AIM-54 was a over mach5 missile.

[Northstar98]

Are you referring to DCS specs?

Because I remember that the AIM-54 was a over mach5 missile.

 

Supposed to be, yeah Mach 5 ~ 6,200 kph

[jester_]

Hello, there is a question i really need to ask after thinking in this way. Aren't the AIM54 and the R-33 missiles parameters a bit over optimistic? Official data suggests they are both ~Mach 3 missiles , where in the game AIM-54 goes well above 6000 kmh. I always liked to dodge them but now, under 40km is not possible with conventional manouvering. The picture attached shows one near to max speed.

 

The real question is why isn't that missile traveling at 80,000 feet?

[Svend_Dellepude]

AFAIK they don't have an AFM yet, or rather, they didn't have some time ago. Or maybe they aren't tuned properly.

[King_Hrothgar]

AFM has nothing to do with them not popping up to 60k+ ft for the cruise portion, that's a guidance issue. It's always been like that and is unlikely to change prior to LNS's F-14 release. Even then, it may only apply to player launched missiles. We'll have to see.

[Svend_Dellepude]

My reply was to the OP.

[Airmage]

I don't believe it is a Mach 5 missile at all. If it were so, it would be still in service. What is actually stated by combat pilots is that once you've seen it is very easy to dodge it. And a bulky missile with those aerodynamics can't even reach Mach 4. It has a 27 sec burn engine wich can push it to about Mach 3.5, making it an ineffective missile against an aware manouverable target. Besides, i think it was meant to shoot russian bombers. In the missile_data file you can find acceleration time 6 seconds and marsh time 40 seconds(!) wich i find exagerated. R-33 has the same 6 seconds with 20 seconds marsh time. Personally i belive R-33 has a longer burn time, some 29-31 seconds(probably an engine borrowed from a BUK missile), but still under Mach 4 max speed, and not after 6 seconds for sure. My general idea is that they are far too effective compared to what they really did in real life.

 

Cheers

[IASGATG]

Depends what you mean by a Mach 5 missile. NASA has documentation of flyout data of the missile that shows it punching past M5.25, but this is a very idealistic shot. Even in a high altitude shot towards to the ground it still pushes past M3.5.

 

Most of the performance in the missile comes from guidance that keeps the missile as high as possible for the intercept.

 

However I will agree that it isn't a maneuverable missile, being capped at about 18G and designed to shoot down bombers. This being said, 18G is still enough to hit 6G defensive targets with quite good success.

 

I'll leave the point at that.

[Airmage]

I'd rather believe the max speed is pushed up for propaganda or intimidation reasons. Overall it was stated as a non-effective missile. In previous versions of Flaming Cliffs that was imitated decently, but now i feel like the missile is too optimistic, that's all.

[IASGATG]

Even though NASA stated it like 10 years after it left service as a means to launch small objects into space on a low budget? Alternatively you're free to confine to enjoy your bias.

[probad]

i too think nasa is a more credible source than op's impressions.

[SFJackBauer]

What is actually stated by combat pilots is that once you've seen it is very easy to dodge it

 

Must have a jolly good pair of eyes to see the missile coming at even Mach 3...

[probad]

an object's apparent speed across the sky has an inverse relationship with its distance from the viewer

[SFJackBauer]

an object's apparent speed across the sky has an inverse relationship with its distance from the viewer

 

Unless said object is tracking you with proportional guidance...

[BlackLion213]

I'd rather believe the max speed is pushed up for propaganda or intimidation reasons. Overall it was stated as a non-effective missile.

 

Honest question - who said that?

 

I certainly haven't read anything stating that. The Phoenix was phased out, but for other good reasons: it's launch platform was being retired and there was a smaller/newer alternative.

 

The Phoenix was a big missile - it weighed just over 1000 lbs (AIM-54C). Meaning that a fighter (even the F-14) could not carry 6 of them the way the F-15C carries the AMRAAM. There are publicity photos of F-14s carrying 6 (and it was the "doomsday" load for defending the fleet), but Tomcats heading into a combat zone (for the USN) never really carried more than 2. The typical load out was 2 AIM-54s, 3 AIM-7s, and 2 AIM-9s - sometimes the number of AIM-7s and AIM-9s was reversed. Carrying more than 2 AIM-54s would noticeably impact performance.

 

So the AMRAAM offered the same advantages as the AIM-54 (ARH/fire-forget), but was much smaller. The trade-off was the AIM-54 offered more range (which was often not useful tactically due to ROE) and had a much bigger warhead. In testing, it could destroy targets with proximity hits that did not work for the Sparrow.

 

It was also the first missile specifically designed for destroying a maneuvering target and it was the first air-to-air missile to destroy a drone pulling 6 gs.

 

However, the advantage of hanging 6 AMRAAMS on a fighter vs 2 Phoenixes was really the deciding issue. You couldn't build a small missile with the AIM-54's features when it was new, but 17 years later it was possible - hence the AMRAAM.

 

Also, which combat pilots said it was easy to outmaneuver? The only pilots on the receiving end of an AIM-54 were Iraqi - and essentially all of those shots (supposedly) were from the Iran-Iraq war.

 

Still:

 

 

Notice the wingtip vapor - that F-4 is pulling at least a few Gs.

 

Also, here is a PDF from NASA who were planning to use the AIM-54 as a hypersonic test vehicle:

 

"https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/126521-OTHER-001-001.pdf"

 

(note - the link is not working for some reason - copy the quoted URL and it should work :))

 

Page 17 shows their projected performance with a test payload, reaching >Mach 5.0 for more than 8 seconds and over Mach 4.5 for more than 50 seconds.

 

Per this NASA report, it was also capable of climbing to more than 300,000'.

 

-Nick

[Sierra99]

I don't believe it is a Mach 5 missile at all. If it were so, it would be still in service. What is actually stated by combat pilots is that once you've seen it is very easy to dodge it.

 

Whether you believe it is a Mach 5 missile or not is irrelevant. Multiple sources on the web indicate the AIM-54 was in fact capable of Mach 5+...rendering all of your reasoning and explanations moot.

 

The fact it is no longer in service has nothing to do with its capabilities or speed but rather the fact it was tied to a specific Radar / Aircrsft combination that was retired.

 

How many combat pilots can honestly say they encountered an AIM-54 that was aimed "at them"? Considering the Phoenix was fired 3 times in combat, the number of "combat Pilots stating once you've seen it it was very easy to dodge" would be an extremely small sampling of aviators.

 

If you take a college statistics class you'll understand that argument is not supported by the facts and data available.