Can the AIM-54 take down fighter aircraft

[NaCH]

Are you really guys try to state that the AIM-54 is able to kill a maneuverable constant 4g fighter? (let's take out ECM and chaff as variable.)

I would like to know what physics laws applies to validate this and how many max G a seventies missile like 54 can pull...

 

This is the one that I know:

"The missile must pull the amount of g’s the aircraft can pull multiplied by the speed of the missile divided by the speed of the aircraft (in mach).

(Speed of missile in mach / speed of aircraft in mach)^2 * G’s the aircraft is pulling = G’s the missile must pull"

 

Aircraft: M 0,5, 9 G

Missile: M 4

 

(M 4 / M 0,5)^2 = 8^2 = 64

64 * 9 = 576 G

 

Not to mention that there is not a single hit done for AIM-54 against a maneuverable plane.

 

Please let's not count Iran/Iraq as we know the information is not reliable...

 

 

 

Just and example of modern missiles:

IRIS-T can pull 60 g at Mach 3, or 1.984 knots

AIM-120 can pull 40 g at Mach 4 (2.646 kts)

Edited June 7, 2016 by NaCH

[GGTharos]

Sure, we could assume it can pull as many g's as other 70's missiles, like the sparrow - say around 25.

 

As for it hitting with Mach 4 speed, that's rather optimistic. Also, asuming an M0.5 aircraft will be putting 9g is optimistic. Maybe you can spike that, but it's not going to be able to hold that - besides, that's what fuzes are for ... all you need to do is pass nearby.

 

The rule of thumb is that the missile will pull 3g per target g, and that's the typical PN guidance constant related to target acceleration.

Edited June 8, 2016 by GGTharos

[turkeydriver]

Its not an IRIS-T or AMRAAM. It has been tested against maneuverable targets and successful- but AFAIK those are all very close BVR or pure WVR shots, when the motor is still burning. Please keep in mind that the warhead is 100lbs of HE and doesn't need a DH to kill you. For that reason alone it just needs to get close enough to do damage. When an airplane suffers airframe damage under G(maneuvering) bad things happen. If you survive wounded- the 2nd missile will destroy you.

[Chrinik]

Yes, let´s ignore the most extensive Air to Air operation of the Pheonix because it´s not done by Murica and hence unreliable information...

 

If I pluck in the wrong numbers, any math equasion is gonna come out with a stupid result.

Pulling constant high Gs at 0.5M and the missile still going 4M...esentially the plane is Godsplane and the Missile was fired out of parameters, whoopdie doo it missed?

That´s a revelation how?

The only real way DCS MP is going to defeat the missile is going to be terrainmasking and running straight away. Anticipating that the missile is tracking and beaming early to run it out of steam.

 

The same way the Amraam is currently dealt with.

[lunaticfringe]

By your own math, the AIM-9M, being a Mach 2.7 missile, is incapable of hitting a target pulling 9G at .5 Mach, and that's ludicrous.

 

You'd better check back in with your textbook.

 

Are you really guys try to state that the AIM-54 is able to kill a maneuverable constant 4g fighter? (let's take out ECM and chaff as variable.)

I would like to know what physics laws applies to validate this and how many max G a seventies missile like 54 can pull...

 

This is the one that I know:

"The missile must pull the amount of g’s the aircraft can pull multiplied by the speed of the missile divided by the speed of the aircraft (in mach).

(Speed of missile in mach / speed of aircraft in mach)^2 * G’s the aircraft is pulling = G’s the missile must pull"

 

Aircraft: M 0,5, 9 G

Missile: M 4

 

(M 4 / M 0,5)^2 = 8^2 = 64

64 * 9 = 576 G

 

Not to mention that there is not a single hit done for AIM-54 against a maneuverable plane.

 

Please let's not count Iran/Iraq as we know the information is not reliable...

 

 

 

Just and example of modern missiles:

IRIS-T can pull 60 g at Mach 3, or 1.984 knots

AIM-120 can pull 40 g at Mach 4 (2.646 kts)

[GGTharos]

I think he's trying to relate turn radius to g or something, which is not correct - it's what causes Rmins but not an issue in good parameters IMHO.

[NaCH]

By your own math, the AIM-9M, being a Mach 2.7 missile, is incapable of hitting a target pulling 9G at .5 Mach, and that's ludicrous.

 

You'd better check back in with your textbook.

 

I think you forgot the basic of physics.. AIM-9 does not have the same mass as AIM-54 nor aim120....

and don't need a text book just basic aeronautic # and not to mention statistics, not a single kill against a maneuverable plane from the USAF.

FYI the IR missiles are the ones to got the most kill in all eras including the current one.

Edited June 8, 2016 by NaCH

[NaCH]

I think he's trying to relate turn radius to g or something, which is not correct - it's what causes Rmins but not an issue in good parameters IMHO.

 

correct.. a modern fighter actually can achive better turn rate than aim120.. where the 120 will win is on the speed and this the reaction time of the pilot to be able to achieve the turn rate.

 

 

Editing.. poor wording.

[NaCH]

Its not an IRIS-T or AMRAAM. It has been tested against maneuverable targets and successful- but AFAIK those are all very close BVR or pure WVR shots, when the motor is still burning. Please keep in mind that the warhead is 100lbs of HE and doesn't need a DH to kill you. For that reason alone it just needs to get close enough to do damage. When an airplane suffers airframe damage under G(maneuvering) bad things happen. If you survive wounded- the 2nd missile will destroy you.

 

I understand about the warhead, but do the mass it takes more time to accelerate into I guess optimum speed to be able to perform at max turn rate and even this should be really bad compared to any other missle like AIM-7 or AIM-9L or Mike and that time any plane with a pilot with SA should be able to turn faster then the 54 can and avoid it.

 

From what I see all the test were done against drones that were not pulling more than 2g and that is not the same like a plane GEN 3 Jinking hard-

[lunaticfringe]

I think you forgot the basic of physics.. AIM-9 does not have the same mass as AIM-54 nor aim120....

 

No, I think you forgot the nature of your equation and available G on the weapon.

 

Do your little equation- it won't catch.

 

That is to say, you're claiming an equation invalidates the capabilities of the AIM-120 and AIM-54, but we must go outside your proofing measure to see what the AIM-9 can do?

 

You know what that means- your mathematical proof is invalid.

 

and don't need a text book just basic aeronautic # and not to mention statistics, not a single kill against a maneuverable plane from the USAF.

 

Given the United States Air Force never utilized the AIM-54 Phoenix in any guise, that's not exactly a point you want to be making.

 

FYI the IR missiles are the ones to got the most kill in all eras including the current one.

 

You haven't read up on current history, have you?

 

Desert Storm.

Iraqi NFZ.

Bosnia.

Kosovo.

[turkeydriver]

I understand about the warhead, but do the mass it takes more time to accelerate into I guess optimum speed to be able to perform at max turn rate and even this should be really bad compared to any other missle like AIM-7 or AIM-9L or Mike and that time any plane with a pilot with SA should be able to turn faster then the 54 can and avoid it.

 

From what I see all the test were done against drones that were not pulling more than 2g and that is not the same like a plane GEN 3 Jinking hard-

 

You've read wrong. Targets pulling 6g were tested against. NOT saying the missile is an AMRAAM or a Sidewinder, but the early missile could kill a 6g target WVR (rocket motor burning) and the AIM-54C improved Target Detection Device allows for a broader engagement spectrum, however that is defined.

[lunaticfringe]

^This.^

 

AIM-4: 1956.

K-5: 1957.

 

Radar guided air to air weapons have been operational for sixty years- they've dominated half of that timeframe.

[GGTharos]

The 120 (or any missile) doesn't care how tight you're turning. It's not entering a turning fight with you.

 

All it cares about is displacement of your aircraft, and your aircraft ain't doing much of that. It has absolutely no need to match your turn, it just needs to point where you're going and the simplest guidance (the guidance used in this sim in fact) has you using only some 3x g of the target to do so.

 

correct.. a modern fighter actually can achive better turn rate than aim120.. where the 120 will win is on the speed and this the reaction time of the pilot to be able to achieve the turn rate.

 

 

Editing.. poor wording.

[NaCH]

No, I think you forgot the nature of your equation and available G on the weapon.

 

Do your little equation- it won't catch.

 

That is to say, you're claiming an equation invalidates the capabilities of the AIM-120 and AIM-54, but we must go outside your proofing measure to see what the AIM-9 can do?

 

You know what that means- your mathematical proof is invalid.

 

 

 

Given the United States Air Force never utilized the AIM-54 Phoenix in any guise, that's not exactly a point you want to be making.

 

 

 

You haven't read up on current history, have you?

 

Desert Storm.

Iraqi NFZ.

Bosnia.

Kosovo.

 

AIM54 has been shot against enemy planes by Navy 4 times all missed.. 2 was not a missile problem and 2 miss against 2 mig25.. also to the same migs 3 sparrows and 1 120 were shot by an f15 and all miss.

 

Is still to be proveen in the modern era that similar SA / technology on both sides how well BVR will perform.. so far most if not all of the kills were done against planes that have not idea they had a missile coming

 

Maybe this is a good start to read, I'm preatty sure most of you already read these but has valid data:

 

[ame]http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/06.pdf[/ame]

 

And this is also a good read with valid data.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78u404JZOsRVE1ZSGFCbkZVYk0/view?usp=sharing

 

And then we can discuss flight dynamics and why I think if you have the SA you with the current Gen 4+ you can evade a BVR / radar missile.

 

I'm not including any of the new uber planes like f22, f35 because to me there is not info on how they will perfom with the new array of tech they have.

[NaCH]

The 120 (or any missile) doesn't care how tight you're turning. It's not entering a turning fight with you.

 

All it cares about is displacement of your aircraft, and your aircraft ain't doing much of that. It has absolutely no need to match your turn, it just needs to point where you're going and the simplest guidance (the guidance used in this sim in fact) has you using only some 3x g of the target to do so.

 

Agree I'm not challenging this, what I'm saying is if you can over come the turn he is doing to lead you you will be able to escape or even make it run out of energy.

And again this is without adding ECM / CHAFF

[BlackLion213]

Are you really guys try to state that the AIM-54 is able to kill a maneuverable constant 4g fighter? (let's take out ECM and chaff as variable.)

I would like to know what physics laws applies to validate this and how many max G a seventies missile like 54 can pull...

 

Well, it's worth mentioning that an AIM-54A did hit a QF-86 drone that was pulling a 6G turn on February 2nd, 1973 at Pt Mugu.

 

Also, this picture shows a QF-4B drone that is pulling several Gs (as indicated by the wingtip vortices).

BTW, I've posted this picture several times before, so I apologize for the repetition.

 

 

With these 2 known kills...yes I believe it could hit a fighter maneuvering at 4Gs (or more). Is there a reason to think otherwise?

 

-Nick

[NaCH]

You've read wrong. Targets pulling 6g were tested against. NOT saying the missile is an AMRAAM or a Sidewinder, but the early missile could kill a 6g target WVR (rocket motor burning) and the AIM-54C improved Target Detection Device allows for a broader engagement spectrum, however that is defined.

 

ok I did not saw any evidence of this so far, actually most of the evidence shows a non maneuverable target but maybe you have info that I don´t have.

 

Actually the missile was designed to kill bomber / Cruise missiles and non maneuverable fighters against the carrier group, usually if not all these at the 60's and 70's were not 5g capable bombers or cruise missiles.

[NaCH]

Well, it's worth mentioning that an AIM-54A did hit a QF-86 drone that was pulling a 6G turn on February 2nd, 1973 at Pt Mugu.

 

Also, this picture shows a QF-4B drone that is pulling several Gs (as indicated by the wingtip vortices).

BTW, I've posted this picture several times before, so I apologize for the repetition.

 

 

With these 2 known kills...yes I believe it could hit a fighter maneuvering at 4Gs (or more). Is there a reason to think otherwise?

 

-Nick

 

I saw the photo, do you have data on this test, looking a photo is not valid to say that is pulling G. Please saying that wing iop vortex are the evidence to me is not a real evidence.. I can show you a plane stalling pulling vortex, or even a b737.

[BlackLion213]

I saw the photo, do you have data on this test, looking a photo is not valid to say that is pulling G. Please saying that wing iop vortex are the evidence to me is not a real evidence.. I can show you a plane stalling pulling vortex, or even a b737.

 

OK, what about the February 2nd, 1973 test where it hit a drone pulling 6Gs?

 

-Nick

 

PS - Do you have the picture of that 737? ;) Does it have an 80 deg AOB...and stalling? :)

[NaCH]

I saw the wikipedia photo, do you have data on this test, looking a photo is not valid to say that is pulling G. Please saying that wing iop vortex are the evidence to me is not a real evidence.. I can show you a plane stalling pulling vortex, or even a b737.

 

Let add this as evidence on how drones are used, maybe on the QF16 is going to be different

 

[ame]

[/ame]

[NaCH]

OK, what about the February 2nd, 1973 test where it hit a drone pulling 6Gs?

 

-Nick

 

PS - Do you have the picture of that 737? ;) Does it have an 80 deg AOB...and stalling? :)

no, a simple flaps 15 or 30 on a humid day and you have vortex like crazy...

 

I have no data on that drone pulling 6G if you have, can you share?

[BlackLion213]

Actually the missile was designed to kill bomber / Cruise missiles and non maneuverable fighters against the carrier group

 

[ame]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14313_ch3.pdf[/ame]

 

Please go to page 3-14, the AIM-54C has provisions for dogfighting and is intended for more than just long-range shots against bombers.

 

My 2 cents,

 

-Nick

 

PS -

no, a simple flaps 15 or 30 on a humid day and you have vortex like crazy...

 

I have no data on that drone pulling 6G if you have, can you share?

 

Just asking if you have proof...you know...since you really want hard proof of things. Do you have a picture? :)

Edited June 8, 2016 by BlackLion213

[NaCH]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14313_ch3.pdf

 

Please go to page 3-14, the AIM-54C has provisions for dogfighting and is intended for more than just long-range shots against bombers.

 

My 2 cents,

 

-Nick

 

PS -

 

Just asking if you have proof...you know...since you really want hard proof of things. Do you have a picture? :)

 

The C was the improved model not when it was issued, to cope with the modern ECM and to have the maddog / pitbull mode.. even GGtharos explained this.

 

BTW look at the video I put with the drones.. and how much G those pull .

 

PM sent.. with the 737 vortex.

[GGTharos]

If the missile is shot in specific parameters, you aren't overcoming anything. This has been the case since the 60's. There's no amount of turning you can do to defeat a missile that isn't already low on energy, as long as that missile can handle 3x your g-loading.

 

Agree I'm not challenging this, what I'm saying is if you can over come the turn he is doing to lead you you will be able to escape or even make it run out of energy.

And again this is without adding ECM / CHAFF

[NaCH]

If the missile is shot in specific parameters, you aren't overcoming anything. This has been the case since the 60's. There's no amount of turning you can do to defeat a missile that isn't already low on energy, as long as that missile can handle 3x your g-loading.

 

I'm not disagree with this, but I will send you PM with that I think so we keep this on aim-54 killing fighters.