More AIM-54C Improvements?

[DSplayer]

Recently HB was able to follow some leads and finally was able to confirm the addition of the AIM-54C's ability to go active on its own. I'm now wondering if HB was able to find some more things that could improve the AIM-54C's performance (better CCM, improved motor performance, better range, etc.) or even the later AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed models.

Edited October 9, 2021 by DSplayer

[Katj]

Recently HB was able to follow some leads and finally was able to confirm the addition of the AIM-54C's ability to go active on its own. I'm now wondering if HB was able to find some more things that could improve the AIM-54C's performance (better CCM, improved motor performance, better range, etc.) or even the later AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed models.

Where can I read about C going active on it's own?

[Whiskey11]

5 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Recently HB was able to follow some leads and finally was able to confirm the addition of the AIM-54C's ability to go active on its own. I'm now wondering if HB was able to find some more things that could improve the AIM-54C's performance (better CCM, improved motor performance, better range, etc.) or even the later AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed models.

 

 

Given much of the recent changes to the AWG9 are buried in a document they weren't able to get their hands on, maybe.

 

I'm talking about the NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1A... things like dual row TID, AWG9 velocity gates, and probably 54C info... 

 

It'd be nice to get the 54C+ but I'm not holding my breath. I'm just happy the 54C is going to get LAL tactics finally opened up to it. 

 

2 minutes ago, Katj said:

5 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Recently HB was able to follow some leads and finally was able to confirm the addition of the AIM-54C's ability to go active on its own. I'm now wondering if HB was able to find some more things that could improve the AIM-54C's performance (better CCM, improved motor performance, better range, etc.) or even the later AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed models.

Where can I read about C going active on it's own?

 

This thread devolved into that discussion with HB confirming they found a reliable source stating it could go active on its own. 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2021 by Whiskey11

[Katj]

 
This thread devolved into that discussion with HB confirming they found a reliable source stating it could go active on its own. 
 
 

Thanks! That does indeed look interesting, but HB used different, less certain, wording. So I guess we'll see.

[eatthis]

so does this mean itl behave like an amraam? 
so we  COULD  launch it and bugger off, if the bandit is still roughly where predicted then the c will pick it up and home?

 

[Katj]

so does this mean itl behave like an amraam? 
so we  COULD  launch it and bugger off, if the bandit is still roughly where predicted then the c will pick it up and home?
 

Yes and no. I think the situation is as follows:

1. There are some publicly available documents that hint at the AIM-54C going active when it's getting near the predicted intercept point. Essentially like an AMRAAM.

2. Said documents may not be specific enough for Heatblur to implement this in DCS.

[Blaze1]

On 10/9/2021 at 3:06 PM, Whiskey11 said:

This thread devolved into that discussion with HB confirming they found a reliable source stating it could go active on its own. 

 

 

 

That's not the document HB is using for confirmation.

[Whiskey11]

8 hours ago, Blaze1 said:

That's not the document HB is using for confirmation.

 

Ohh do tell... it's not any of the ones publically available that has been discussed ad nauseum because this has been hashed out probably a dozen times with the same four sources. The result has been the same each time: "These aren't credible sources to base this info on."  

 

I personally think THEY HAVE A redacted version of the 1A which would explain a number of their recent changes to the Tomcat. Info which was buried in the 1A and told no public source existed for. 

[Prez]

On 10/9/2021 at 4:43 AM, DSplayer said:

Recently HB was able to follow some leads and finally was able to confirm the addition of the AIM-54C's ability to go active on its own. I'm now wondering if HB was able to find some more things that could improve the AIM-54C's performance (better CCM, improved motor performance, better range, etc.) or even the later AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed models.

 

The AIM-54C already has a slightly better motor than the A with the mk47. It’s about 5% stronger. Plus, the better range and whatnot would probably have to come from a better loft profile. The current profile certainly seems half done with how aggressive the missile course corrects and how little lead the missile pulls. So, HB will have to fully model, not only the missile as a whole, but the digital seeker head improvements over the A before we see any super great improvements outside of it going active on its own.

[DSplayer]

4 hours ago, Prez said:

The AIM-54C already has a slightly better motor than the A with the mk47. It’s about 5% stronger. 

Looking at the values in Weapons.lua for the AIM-54s' motor data, it appears that the AIM-54C's motor is actually weaker than the AIM-54A-MK47's which makes it the weakest AIM-54 in terms of motor performance. The only advantage it has currently is the better CCM resistance (0.25 instead of 0.3), smokeless motor, and higher Nr_max which allows it to turn more in a turn (not that useful with the 54s since they drain so much energy).

 

AIM-54A-MK47

Spoiler

 

AIM-54C-MK47

Spoiler

 

Here's a link to a difference checker with the values that I copied and pasted from the lua for both missiles: https://www.diffchecker.com/xYjSVkL9

 

4 hours ago, Prez said:

Plus, the better range and whatnot would probably have to come from a better loft profile. The current profile certainly seems half done with how aggressive the missile course corrects and how little lead the missile pulls. So, HB will have to fully model, not only the missile as a whole, but the digital seeker head improvements over the A before we see any super great improvements outside of it going active on its own.

These improvements will probably come when the new API comes within the next 5 years.

Edited October 12, 2021 by DSplayer

[Noctrach]

2 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Looking at the values in Weapons.lua for the AIM-54s' motor data, it appears that the AIM-54C's motor is actually weaker than the AIM-54A-MK47's which makes it the weakest AIM-54 in terms of motor performance. The only advantage it has currently is the better CCM resistance (0.25 instead of 0.3), smokeless motor, and higher Nr_max which allows it to turn more in a turn (not that useful with the 54s since they drain so much energy).

 

AIM-54A-MK47

  Reveal hidden contents

 

AIM-54C-MK47

  Hide contents

 

Here's a link to a difference checker with the values that I copied and pasted from the lua for both missiles: https://www.diffchecker.com/xYjSVkL9

 

These improvements will probably come when the new API comes within the next 5 years.

 

 

What's weird is that the Mk47 Mod 1 thrust and weight in the Lua is 1:1 with the whitepaper, but the Mk47 Mod 0 weighs slightly less and has about 1000 N excess thrust.

From the Lua

Mk47 Mod 0: M = 444.0, N = 15982.0

Mk47 Mod 1: M = 465.6, N = 15732.1

 

From the whitepaper:

[DSplayer]

2 hours ago, Noctrach said:

 

What's weird is that the Mk47 Mod 1 thrust and weight in the Lua is 1:1 with the whitepaper, but the Mk47 Mod 0 weighs slightly less and has about 1000 N excess thrust.

From the Lua

Mk47 Mod 0: M = 444.0, N = 15982.0

Mk47 Mod 1: M = 465.6, N = 15732.1

 

From the whitepaper:

Maybe the whitepaper is out of date for the info they found? That's the only explanation I could think of besides a mistake. Overall its pretty interesting how the AIM-54C is lacking in performance in comparison to it's older counterpart.

[Blaze1]

On 10/11/2021 at 9:35 PM, Whiskey11 said:

 

Ohh do tell... it's not any of the ones publically available that has been discussed ad nauseum because this has been hashed out probably a dozen times with the same four sources. The result has been the same each time: "These aren't credible sources to base this info on."  

 

I personally think THEY HAVE A redacted version of the 1A which would explain a number of their recent changes to the Tomcat. Info which was buried in the 1A and told no public source existed for. 

Here is a link to that article which was published in Naval Aviation News January 1982.

HB have known about that article for a long time, but it still leaves unanswered questions about the -54C's guidance methods.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Blaze1
Typo

[Whiskey11]

18 hours ago, Blaze1 said:

Here is a link to that article which was published in Naval Aviation News January 1982.

HB have know about that article for a long time, but it still leaves unanswered questions about the -54C's guidance methods.

 

That's the document HB has said does not contain enough verifiable information to base an AIM54C change upon.  They were looking for something from a much more reliable and authoritative source.  They discuss that article in the link above to my bug thread.  It's also in ANOTHER discussion about the AIM54C on these forums.

[Blaze1]

1 hour ago, Whiskey11 said:

That's the document HB has said does not contain enough verifiable information to base an AIM54C change upon.  They were looking for something from a much more reliable and authoritative source.  They discuss that article in the link above to my bug thread.  It's also in ANOTHER discussion about the AIM54C on these forums.

Yep, that's what I've been saying.

[Schmidtfire]

I think it is important to look at this from a wider perspective.

There should be no reason to pick AIM-54A over AIM-54C except for historical reasons. However, in current version of DCS, the AIM-54A is a very viable option and
in a lot of cases the MK60 variant is superior.

From Department of Defence appropriations from 1985:
"This new missile, designated AIM-54C, incorporates state-of-the-art technology, increased missile performance, reliability and readiness.
Production commenced in fiscal year 1980." 

AIM-54A is analog and AIM-54C is digital with upgraded electronics. It can engage anti-ship missiles at low altitudes.  AIM-54C also uses an improved warhead over the older 54A version.

There used to be a documentary film available that was called AIM-54C: Rebirth of a Missile. Suggesting significant improvements. 

Now, it seems very strange that an upgrade like AIM-54C would sacrifice kinematics. On the contrary I have read on several webpages (but not confirmed info) that indicates better kinematics (possibly due to better guidance and flight profile).

This might be one of the cases when there has to be some guesswork done. If HB are confident that their AIM-54A is on point, they might aswell use that as a segway to all-round increase the performance of the AIM-54C, with better kinematics, tracking and endgame maneuverability compared to the 54A variant.    

 



    

Edited October 13, 2021 by Schmidtfire

[Katj]

Is there any new info on this topic?

[nighthawk2174]

As far as i'm aware were just still waiting for the 54 to make it onto the new missile API.

[Katj]

As far as i'm aware were just still waiting for the 54 to make it onto the new missile API.

Aren't we waiting for HB to decide whether the C should have AMRAAM-like guidance?

[nighthawk2174]

5 hours ago, Katj said:

On 12/19/2021 at 10:08 AM, nighthawk2174 said:

As far as i'm aware were just still waiting for the 54 to make it onto the new missile API.

Aren't we waiting for HB to decide whether the C should have AMRAAM-like guidance?

They've already said it will be changing to have command inertial like the amraam.

[Katj]

They've already said it will be changing to have command inertial like the amraam.

I don't think they did. All I've seen is that they said they found some leads that may point in that direction. Not that they actually will do it.

[nighthawk2174]

1 hour ago, Katj said:

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

They've already said it will be changing to have command inertial like the amraam.

I don't think they did. All I've seen is that they said they found some leads that may point in that direction. Not that they actually will do it.

I know the post your referring too but, a few pages latter did clarify that it will in fact get a command inertial system where the missile is able to go active on its own iirc it was a pretty unambiguous statement to this.

[DSplayer]

11 hours ago, Katj said:

12 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

They've already said it will be changing to have command inertial like the amraam.

I don't think they did. All I've seen is that they said they found some leads that may point in that direction. Not that they actually will do it.

You can scroll up all the way to the beginning of this topic and you'll see this:

It's a matter of when and how rather than yes or no.

I hope HB will be able to find some more info on the performance of the AIM-54C since I've heard things ranging from the AIM-54C having the ability to be manually commanded to go active by the RIO to better kinetic performance thanks to the newer motor. Forcing the missile to go active will certainly be something super useful when dealing with a situation where you have to break support.

For anyone who wants to sift through the below topic, you can probably see the previous AIM-54C Improvement discussion

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by DSplayer

[westr]

Listening to the latest episode of the air combat sim podcast. They have a former F14 RIO and at one point he talks about if you had one jet with one working missile i.e the Phoenix it would be a bonus and the missile was a bit of a nightmare. Was the missile that bad? Or was it a case of towards the end of the missiles life cycle they become more and more temperamental. If this is the case is the Phoenix over performing in dcs? 
reading the only two times the Phoenix has been fired in combat by the us it has failed. Although in Iranian service it has been claimed to be far more successful. Perhaps dud missiles need to be simulated maybe  

[Prez]

7 minutes ago, westr said:

Listening to the latest episode of the air combat sim podcast. They have a former F14 RIO and at one point he talks about if you had one jet with one working missile i.e the Phoenix it would be a bonus and the missile was a bit of a nightmare. Was the missile that bad? Or was it a case of towards the end of the missiles life cycle they become more and more temperamental. If this is the case is the Phoenix over performing in dcs? 
reading the only two times the Phoenix has been fired in combat by the us it has failed. Although in Iranian service it has been claimed to be far more successful. Perhaps dud missiles need to be simulated maybe  

The missile wasn't that bad, although it can be argued that the US inventory of Phoenixes were very old as it was expensive to produce. A lot of 54As were upgraded to Cs and most of the Cs were produced in the 80s. The failures most likely came from the upgrade packages for the missile rather than the brand new ones. I believe the USN actually fired 3 in combat. Two of them had motor failures and the third was on a target that turned and ran. Not a very good sample size when in tests it performed very well, but obviously there are discrepancies between tests and real world scenarios. Simulated missile failures would be interesting. It'd make the Sparrow even more annoying to use if the Gulf War was anything to go by lol.