DCS: F-14 Development Update - AIM-54 Phoenix Improvements & Overhaul - Guided Discussion

[tavarish palkovnik]

Data about total impulse from blurred table above:

AIM-7F…36073 lbs

AIM-7M…31000 lbs

AIM-9L…13912 lbs

AIM-9M…13912 lbs

AIM-54A…97120 lbs

AIM-54C…97120 lbs

97120 lbs/ 375lb =Isp 259s … insane for real output of this motor at sea level (although in many occasions called that way!) . But there had to be a trick and there it is indeed…all these numbers are converted figures to universal case chamber pressure 1000 psi (69 bar), full expansion to 14,7 psi (1 bar) and nozzle half angle 15deg.

In past I haven’t put my nose too much in motors of USA origin and must say this is quite surprising to me, this method of classification. Honestly I don’t understand why they did (do) it that way when these numbers for most of motors don’t give real picture. All right, figures look nice but that’s all, perhaps old methods used by engineers marketing managers recognized as good stuff

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by tavarish palkovnik

[tavarish palkovnik]

In addition  maximal velocity, for example AIM-54C, they said is 5573 ft/s or 1699 m/s.

Speed of sound at sea level is 340,28 m/s…1699/340,28=4,99 M (5M)

AIM-54A … 5990 ft/s ; 1826 m/s ; 5,36 M … but what else is also in equation for real case 

Marketing is miracle but also one big horse’s drop… or bull’s

[DSplayer]

On 9/3/2023 at 2:27 PM, Karon said:

Possibly. I am not particularly interested in the AIM-120 and modern stuff, so I rarely check them.
It's a quick test though.

IIRC the AMRAAM doesn't have the same issues since it doesn't appear to be all-knowing like the old API/schema. 

[Katsu]

On 8/23/2023 at 8:02 AM, FWind said:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090012144

Just to clarify, Today's phoenix performance is based on these test values, correct? 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Katsu

[LanceCriminal86]

17 hours ago, Katsu said:

Just to clarify, Today's phoenix performance is based on these test values, correct? 

 

Those are not test values, NASA never fired a Phoenix in the hypersonic tests. They were projections and were based around a modified Phoenix missile, being launched at Mach 2 at 48,000 feet. The information was reviewed but the core performance values were taken from other sources and the performance in-sim was compared against some documented test shots with an extremely close match. Unfortunately missile guidance has been problematic and encountered a number of hangups that have hampered the missile's performance.

[falcon_120]

IIRC the AMRAAM doesn't have the same issues since it doesn't appear to be all-knowing like the old API/schema. 

since one or two patches I'm seeing a lot how not supporting the amraam till pitbull results in missiles not magically picking target with a 40g turn and actually missing the "basket".

It feels so much more realistic, might be placebo though, nothing scientific in my testing methodology (1 or 2 setups everynow and then)

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[BubiHUN]

On 8/12/2023 at 2:07 AM, Karon said:

I'm gonna leave this here and run away before IM comes with the banhammer

I thought I had seen everything. I was wrong.
Well, at least you know what can happen when you don't drop those pesky extrapolated tracks…

null

 

this just happens to me. Looks like the AIM54C is the new Sparrow. Well at least its on drugs.

[Karon]

3 hours ago, BubiHUN said:

this just happens to me. Looks like the AIM54C is the new Sparrow. Well at least its on drugs.

Tacview?
Also, if this happens, 9 out of 10 is on you: avoiding these situations (ref the extrapolated track) is quite easy. The DDD is all you need.

[DJBiscuit1818]

On 9/19/2023 at 3:15 AM, Karon said:

Tacview?
Also, if this happens, 9 out of 10 is on you: avoiding these situations (ref the extrapolated track) is quite easy. The DDD is all you need.

So what is the best way to prevent this issue? Is there a way to snip extrapolated tracks, or is there some other technique I should be following?

[Karon]

7 minutes ago, DJBiscuit1818 said:

So what is the best way to prevent this issue? Is there a way to snip extrapolated tracks, or is there some other technique I should be following?

The DDD tells you everything you need to prevent this problem: you see MLC, ZDF, potential deconfliction issues for the WCS, et cetera. So, assuming there are no issues with new fancy bugs / connection problems, you need to pick "better shots" by changing tactics, manipulating geometry, and reacting MLC/ZDF. Remember that the DDD tells you right away if a target is changing aspect, long before TWS shows the extrapolated track.

Shout if you need more details

[tavarish palkovnik]

Since I can't add any attachment here, this is link to forum where I usually write and in last post is latest vision how Mk60 could looks like, if someone finds it interesting

Vanjskobalistički proračun (program) leta rakete (mycity-military.com)

[FWind]

2023/9/26 PM6点09分，tavarish palkovnik说：

Since I can't add any attachment here, this is link to forum where I usually write and in last post is latest vision how Mk60 could looks like, if someone finds it interesting

Vanjskobalistički proračun (program) leta rakete (mycity-military.com)

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730007077

[tavarish palkovnik]

Both those documents giving reference connection to Mk47 are good and helpful, however and after all, they only confirm that grain is with some kind of slots and that slots are with some kind of insulation. Of course, with general lack of any concrete data about geometry, even this is monumental. 
But still, slotted grain configuration as general term is hugely wide. Can be slotted tube, kind of finocyl, can be slotted cylinder in full length, kind of keyhole form, with one or more slots etc etc. 

Momentarily data for Mk60 are the most concrete and detailed in description, 5000-1000 lbf, 20-30 sec, max. pressure 1000 psi, plus with known nozzle geometry what is very important. And no matter to all what can be read on internet, I believe Mk47 and Mk60 are very similar, in output numbers perhaps almost same because both had same task to fulfill, same requirements. Internally I don’t know, except that there is no much alternatives to get these numbers so perhaps even internally they are similar.

First guided flight in demonstration test of Phoenix missile was long time ago, it was May of 1966, so motors, in concept form, should be and looking for in that time of 60’s. It was time of lot of extravagant designs and I wouldn’t be surprised, when and if we finally get answer, to see something very strange for today’s norms. 
This last variant I gave is such, not common for today, but Aerojet designed similar in 60’s, it was in use, and with accommodated number of slots it is easy to get numbers given to Mk60. It has slots, it has insulated slots and it gives output numbers easily. 

[FWind]

17分钟前，tavarish palkovnik说：

Both those documents giving reference connection to Mk47 are good and helpful, however and after all, they only confirm that grain is with some kind of slots and that slots are with some kind of insulation. Of course, with general lack of any concrete data about geometry, even this is monumental. 
But still, slotted grain configuration as general term is hugely wide. Can be slotted tube, kind of finocyl, can be slotted cylinder in full length, kind of keyhole form, with one or more slots etc etc. 

Momentarily data for Mk60 are the most concrete and detailed in description, 5000-1000 lbf, 20-30 sec, max. pressure 1000 psi, plus with known nozzle geometry what is very important. And no matter to all what can be read on internet, I believe Mk47 and Mk60 are very similar, in output numbers perhaps almost same because both had same task to fulfill, same requirements. Internally I don’t know, except that there is no much alternatives to get these numbers so perhaps even internally they are similar.

First guided flight in demonstration test of Phoenix missile was long time ago, it was May of 1966, so motors, in concept form, should be and looking for in that time of 60’s. It was time of lot of extravagant designs and I wouldn’t be surprised, when and if we finally get answer, to see something very strange for today’s norms. 
This last variant I gave is such, not common for today, but Aerojet designed similar in 60’s, it was in use, and with accommodated number of slots it is easy to get numbers given to Mk60. It has slots, it has insulated slots and it gives output numbers easily. 

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1976-601

[tavarish palkovnik]

@FWind you are THE KING of universe 

If you would be near I would hug you so hard to extract life of you 

I can’t see full document, it is locked for download, can you email me full text, it would be highly appreciated?

This is great, this is monumental!!!! Thanks mate a lot 

 

[FWind]

33分钟前，tavarish palkovnik说：

@FWind you are THE KING of universe 

If you would be near I would hug you so hard to extract life of you 

I can’t see full document, it is locked for download, can you email me full text, it would be highly appreciated?

This is great, this is monumental!!!! Thanks mate a lot 

 

[tavarish palkovnik]

@FWind you are not much about words  but man you can hit  great

“Restrictor divider located in the cylindrical portion of the grain that separates the grain into two segments” this is new direction and now with fixed number of slots to just 2 it will be easier

We will continue for sure 

 

[tavarish palkovnik]

Configuration with these two slots and this burning rate gives nearly linear drop from 5000 to 1000 lbf in 25seconds at see level. Exactly what is given to Mk60.

Author of this text, W.T.Brooks, was from Rocketdyne, motor A is Sidewinder's Mk36, motor of Rocketdyne, and there is no reason not to believe that motor B is description of Mk47. What I want to say, Mk47 and Mk60 were (should be) with same characteristics. I don't know when and how and who started all this on Internet with different data for Mk47 and Mk60, for me these were with same output.

0km: 5000-1000 lbf

5km: 5565-1480 lbf

10km: 5840-1755 lbf

15km: 5985-1900 lbf

20km: 6050-1965 lbf

[tavarish palkovnik]

Few more words (thoughts) about numbers behind Phoenix. Let’s take these 5000 to 1000 lbf and 25 seconds as situation on the ground, at sea level. That makes total impulse 75000 lbs and average thrust 3000 lbf.

Few documents say 97000 lbs and 4000 lbf so let’s try to understand these numbers. It is easier to me in metrics so I want to find connection between 333600 Ns (75000 lbs) and 431456 Ns (97000 lbs) and/or 13340 N (3000 lbf) and 17792 N (4000 lbf).

This motor operates with average chamber pressure of pk=48 bar (documented) and my calculations are in line with that. Propellant is with heat ratio k=1,2 and nozzle expansion ratio is A=18,5. These three values give what should be pressure at nozzle exit -> E=pk/pe=4,3591*A^1,2666=175,55 -> 48/pe=175,55 -> pe=0,273 bar (0,0273 MPa)

Pressure at sea level is 1 bar (0,1 MPa) so full expansion can’t be achieved, motor is choked by ambient (atmospheric) pressure.

Exit diameter of nozzle is 238mm so area of choking is 44466mm2. Pressure differential is 0,0237-0,1=-0,0727 Mpa what makes force differential of -3323N. This is what motor “lost” down there because of choking. Now let’s add it to what motor actually gives, 13340+3323=16663N (3746 lbf)

Now it is closer to 4000 lbf. The rest is differential between 48bar and 69bar (1000 psi) what is US standard for chamber pressure when presenting internal ballistic. So it is all about ratio 69:1, ratio between chamber pressure and atmospheric pressure. Russian standard is 40:1

As much as I understand American principles, they give motor’s characteristics converted to standard sea level conditions 69:1. If I’m not wrong they just take thrust coefficient Ct for optimal expansion at 69:1 for specific heat ratio, reduces it for losses and multiply it with real chamber pressure and throat area.

F=ß1*ß2*Ct*pk*Ak

Ct=1,6 for k=1,2 and 69:1, pk=4,8 MPa, Ak=2407mm2 and losses are 0,98 (diverging part of nozzle) and one more 0,98 for other losses (heat, friction etc etc)

F=0,98*0,98*1,6*4,8*2407=17754N (3991 lbf)

Why they do it that way I don’t know, it doesn’t have sense to me but all right. 
Conclusion, should be careful with numbers, behind can be everything. Btw, perhaps AIM-7F could be taken in consideration as well, I think it’s numbers on internet are also on same principle. It is not same as Phoenix because nozzle exit is not such big but motors Mk58 and Mk65 indeed operate quite of time much under 69 bar

[tavarish palkovnik]

Motor No.C from document that @FWind shared with us is described in patent No.US4015427A, author W.T.Brooks

One more step not to have doubts that cross section of motor No.B is Mk47 (and/or not Mk60)

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by tavarish palkovnik

[tavarish palkovnik]

 

...

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by tavarish palkovnik

[tavarish palkovnik]

Aha...I thought deleting attachments will mean that all will be gone, all published will not be visible anymore...it is about deleting which is not deleting  

That’s better, it wouldn't be good to delete all and not have chronology.

In any case, I think I'm on very end of finding answers about motors of Phoenix, actually I'm very sure. I've had some dilemmas about slots in this finishing, how long they are and how transition looks like, although it was in front of nose, instead of looking picture more patiently and precisely I was struggling with textual description.

This is for me final, roughly this is Phoenix's motor

 

Output can’t be much different to this

 

 

Pressure pick is due to erosion in start, and like Mk60 document says max is 1000 psi (69 bar), and it's true. Thrust also is so close to what document gives, from 5000 lbf to 1000 lbf. Geometry and burning rate data give 25 seconds, everything is in line to what is given to Mk60. This is of course for sea level, but not in converted style but actual, true figures, values which motor actually gives.

Because I don't have doubts that FWind’s sketch of cross section is Mk47 and because output is same as given to Mk60, these two motors are same, they give same and that's why they are or better to say, they can be exchangeable. Otherwise it would be difficult to have same guided weapon with two different dynamics

Mk47 Mod.0=Mk60 Mod.0

[Katsu]

 

 

 

In a test of 40 launches, the missile hit tree times, I'd like to know from what source this missile had a 7.5% chance of hitting a target, because the actual chance of hitting a target is almost zero.

Is the AIM-54A configured to hunt chaff instead of planes now?  

And if you don't believe me, feel free to do the same test. The mission I used as a parameter was Heatblur's own instant action in the Marianas against J-11.

Remembering that at no point am I asking for a "No weakness superweapon". I understand that there is a chance that the missile will be lost due to chaffs and maneuvers, but I honestly don't believe it's so blatant as to make the missile unusable for a target that pitches down 10 degrees and releases some chaffs and continues flying in a straight line without even making any defensive maneuvers or notches. 

The missile already has a deplorable state of energy where we have to launch it almost from the mesosphere to have any chance of hitting it, now when the missile gets close to the target, it only needs flies in a straight line, releases some few chaffs and defeats the missile even aircrafts with a huge RCS like the ones I tested., I really have serious doubts as to whether the United States would entrust the defense of its aircraft carriers to a missile that behaved in this way. 

I understand that there is a whole development process and everything, I also work in this area, but we have been patiently waiting for 5 years for a huge inconstancy of data, sometimes it would be cooler to say: "we don't know how it works and we are trying by trial and error to find something that we think it should be". 

I'm not talking about the state of energy and the wrong lofts that the missile makes, I'm talking about the missile's own guidance and resistance to a simple small curve and a few chaffs. 

It is very difficult to accept, even with the age of the missile and all the factors, that this missile is as bad as the one proposed by Heatblur.

Speaking of documents, I'm sure you have access to the same documents I have on the internet and they talk about the AIM-54A's ability to withstand countermeasures, but the missile has NONE in the game. 

I don't really expect you guys to solve this problem, I just came here to show my dissatisfaction as a customer, and I'm not just talking about myself, I'm talking about several friends who stopped flying the F-14, not because the missile lost its energy status,  but because the main weapon of the plane became the worst missile in the game in everything, less reliable than some Fox-1s in their early versions. apart from all the other small bugs the plane currently has

I'm sure there will be people saying that it "working as intended" and etc. Okay, everyone has their own beliefs, but based on the literature that exists online about the capabilities of the weapon, is that this missile wasn't as bad as it's modeled in the game, or else everyone is lying . 

This will be my last post here, I'm really leaving the plane, since I've already had to abandon its use in pvp and now I can't even play pve against bots. 

Perhaps instead of modeling "metal parts holding buttons or cords" you should focus on the core of the product.

Like this 3d model "hole" next to the engines which has been on the plane since it was launched:
 

 

Anyway, despite my frustration, I hope this has been constructive feedback and I wish you guys a good luck.

null

Test 5 - 0 Kills.acmi Test 6 - 1 Kills.acmi Test 7 - 0 Kills.acmi Test 8 - 1 Kills.acmi Test 9 - 0 Kills.acmi Test 10 - 0 kill.acmi Test 1 - 0 kills.acmi Test 2 - 0 Kills.acmi Test 3 - 0 Kills.acmi Test 4 - 1 Kills.acmi

[BubiHUN]

On 11/2/2023 at 5:07 PM, Katsu said:

 

 

 

In a test of 40 launches, the missile hit tree times, I'd like to know from what source this missile had a 7.5% chance of hitting a target, because the actual chance of hitting a target is almost zero.

Is the AIM-54A configured to hunt chaff instead of planes now?  

And if you don't believe me, feel free to do the same test. The mission I used as a parameter was Heatblur's own instant action in the Marianas against J-11.

Remembering that at no point am I asking for a "No weakness superweapon". I understand that there is a chance that the missile will be lost due to chaffs and maneuvers, but I honestly don't believe it's so blatant as to make the missile unusable for a target that pitches down 10 degrees and releases some chaffs and continues flying in a straight line without even making any defensive maneuvers or notches. 

The missile already has a deplorable state of energy where we have to launch it almost from the mesosphere to have any chance of hitting it, now when the missile gets close to the target, it only needs flies in a straight line, releases some few chaffs and defeats the missile even aircrafts with a huge RCS like the ones I tested., I really have serious doubts as to whether the United States would entrust the defense of its aircraft carriers to a missile that behaved in this way. 

I understand that there is a whole development process and everything, I also work in this area, but we have been patiently waiting for 5 years for a huge inconstancy of data, sometimes it would be cooler to say: "we don't know how it works and we are trying by trial and error to find something that we think it should be". 

I'm not talking about the state of energy and the wrong lofts that the missile makes, I'm talking about the missile's own guidance and resistance to a simple small curve and a few chaffs. 

It is very difficult to accept, even with the age of the missile and all the factors, that this missile is as bad as the one proposed by Heatblur.

Speaking of documents, I'm sure you have access to the same documents I have on the internet and they talk about the AIM-54A's ability to withstand countermeasures, but the missile has NONE in the game. 

I don't really expect you guys to solve this problem, I just came here to show my dissatisfaction as a customer, and I'm not just talking about myself, I'm talking about several friends who stopped flying the F-14, not because the missile lost its energy status,  but because the main weapon of the plane became the worst missile in the game in everything, less reliable than some Fox-1s in their early versions. apart from all the other small bugs the plane currently has

I'm sure there will be people saying that it "working as intended" and etc. Okay, everyone has their own beliefs, but based on the literature that exists online about the capabilities of the weapon, is that this missile wasn't as bad as it's modeled in the game, or else everyone is lying . 

This will be my last post here, I'm really leaving the plane, since I've already had to abandon its use in pvp and now I can't even play pve against bots. 

Perhaps instead of modeling "metal parts holding buttons or cords" you should focus on the core of the product.

Like this 3d model "hole" next to the engines which has been on the plane since it was launched:
 

Anyway, despite my frustration, I hope this has been constructive feedback and I wish you guys a good luck.

null

Test 5 - 0 Kills.acmi 1.09 MB · 0 downloads Test 6 - 1 Kills.acmi 1.09 MB · 0 downloads Test 7 - 0 Kills.acmi 1.45 MB · 0 downloads Test 8 - 1 Kills.acmi 1.15 MB · 0 downloads Test 9 - 0 Kills.acmi 1.43 MB · 0 downloads Test 10 - 0 kill.acmi 1.39 MB · 0 downloads Test 1 - 0 kills.acmi 1.65 MB · 0 downloads Test 2 - 0 Kills.acmi 1.24 MB · 0 downloads Test 3 - 0 Kills.acmi 1.44 MB · 0 downloads Test 4 - 1 Kills.acmi 1.24 MB · 0 downloads

Nah dude...useless. Last few times they AdJuStEd the missile it just became worse. Do you really want it to be EVEN worse?

Edited November 3, 2023 by BubiHUN

[Predator-78]

Hi guys, I'm trying to study the TomCat module and available missiles. The Phoenix in particular is quite complex, I understand that it is a missile created to hit high-altitude bombers, but is it effective against small fighters? I also didn't understand after the launch where to look to see that the missile went into Pitbull.

Inviato dal mio SM-G998B utilizzando Tapatalk