Mach 5 AIM-54C

[Skyron]

11 minutes ago, draconus said:

You say Phoenix is too good for CW servers? That means it works, right? Blame USN for developing Long Range Missiles for their fleet defenders.

Your missile works vs AI but not vs players? You can't blame them for learning how to defend either kinematically or by well placed notching. Are you sure your shooting parameters are fine and take advantage of the missile specifics? Does AMRAAM have 100% pk for you?

Instead of general "it's bad", please, send us some track or acmi, we'll check and tell you why your missile didn't connect. Then we'll have far more constructive discussions.

 

I didnt say the missile is not working. it is just kinematical very slow. (even in low altitudes the missile cant pass 1.5Mach. (oh i know its not designed for these altitudes)

I also didnt say that players cant be hit from an AIM54 because they defend well (Skill) , but because the missile cant kill if it has 1.5Mach in terminal phase (8-9miles).

The missile is very bad, and cant kill. - i will sent you Tacview @ afternoon to check and tell (With shots from 40k & shots from 20k).

[draconus]

21 minutes ago, Skyron said:

I didnt say the missile is not working. it is just kinematical very slow. (even in low altitudes the missile cant pass 1.5Mach. (oh i know its not designed for these altitudes)

I also didnt say that players cant be hit from an AIM54 because they defend well (Skill) , but because the missile cant kill if it has 1.5Mach in terminal phase (8-9miles).

Yes, no doubt here, AIM-54 is big and draggy, so it is slow down low, as it should be. Even its engine is built for high altitude thrust and is severely disadvantaged in low altitude (I'm sure  @tavarish palkovnik would happily tell you why). Other, lighter and thinner missiles are much better suited for these cases however Phoenix will probably still win in the pure chase range.

[tavarish palkovnik]

I have been mentioned 

Indeed AIM-54 sucks very much down there, but up there it has potential and I have no doubts it makes 5 M

 

 

Beside what motor gives and how it gives (and that is most important, crucial) initial speed is also important. This is graph of launching envelope for AIM-54, I added with red marks numbers which I believe are behind lines. It is from here (administration gave me remarks that screen shots are not allowed without source so here it is  )

 

AIM-54 zone puska.pdf

 

There are also other interesting things here, some samples of testing lunchings beside two usually circulating on internet. Anyway, I think figure No.6 is shot inside of the graph (1,18 M at 18700 ft) which helps to get numbers for envelope.

So how to make 5 M....

 

 

 

This is simplified thrust profile for sea level and for altitude up there at 55000 ft (17000 m), and shot (horizontal flight) with initial 2 M (boundary condition) indeed gives 5 M 

 

 

 

 

This is very end boundary condition, it makes 5M but only in boundary conditions. How much it sucks down there is obviously ->

 

 

Fun fact, at 1000m horizontal flight, end active velocity will be less then maximal

[RustBelt]

On 11/10/2023 at 5:27 AM, Skyron said:

 

I didnt say the missile is not working. it is just kinematical very slow. (even in low altitudes the missile cant pass 1.5Mach. (oh i know its not designed for these altitudes

Heres a little experiment for you and others who question the phoenix speed down low. We’ll assume you’re a roughly average sized human. 
 

Extend your arm fully horizontal out to your side. That length is the diameter of the Phoenix. Now get in the passenger seat of a car, and have the driver get up to say 60mph (100 KPH)

now put your whole arm out the window perpendicular to the direction of travel parallel with the ground. 
 

That force that’s probably doing something terrible to your shoulder right now, that’s about 1/24th the amount of force a phoenix experiences at low altitudes at 60 MPH. Now consider the actual release speed if the Phoenix from the Tomcat is about 4 times the speed you were going. And drag increases at the cube of speed. 

 

Now explain to me how the Phoenix “ONLY” going one and a half times the speed of sound for a sustained distance is “slow” at low altitudes. 

[Spurts]

Phoenix up high, Sparrow down low

[dekiplav]

For me, it's just weird that the AIM-120 kinetically outperforms the Phoenix in every aspect, yet it is classified as a medium range missile. If you try launching the Aim-120 from 45000 feet, at a speed of M1.1, and at a target 60 nautical miles away, Aim-120 will have more energy than the Aim-54 in the final stage.

[tavarish palkovnik]

On 11/23/2023 at 1:16 AM, RustBelt said:

And drag increases at the cube of speed.

Actually it is at square of speed

Imaginary case AIM-54 vs R-33 at 1000m, level flight

 

 

 

 

And square of speed is here in so called dynamic pressure

 

 

Neither of these two missiles is champion down there, but Phoenix because of its motor really sucks there

 

  

[The_Tau]

On 11/24/2023 at 9:52 PM, dekiplav said:

For me, it's just weird that the AIM-120 kinetically outperforms the Phoenix in every aspect, yet it is classified as a medium range missile. If you try launching the Aim-120 from 45000 feet, at a speed of M1.1, and at a target 60 nautical miles away, Aim-120 will have more energy than the Aim-54 in the final stage.

and from which year is AIM120? and AIM120C5 specifically? And from which year is AIM54? And what was the only other Western comparable missile for nearly 20 years before AIM120 arrived?

So no, I dont think its weird at all. Just progress of technology. If Cold War lasted longer then F14 would have had AIM-152. But it is what it is. Just have realistic expectations

AIM54 still have longer range due to longer battery life and actual radar that can use that range (if you compare it to F16 puny radar)

Edited November 27, 2023 by The_Tau

[tavarish palkovnik]

Semyorka and Soyuz are conceptually same, technics of 50’s, and fun fact, today’s astronauts Russians, Americans and others still lifting their “assets” in space using technology from 50’s  because it is reliable, safe and without marketing exaggerations

[RustBelt]

20 hours ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

Actually it is at square of speed

 

Oops! your right 

15 hours ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

Semyorka and Soyuz are conceptually same, technics of 50’s, and fun fact, today’s astronauts Russians, Americans and others still lifting their “assets” in space using technology from 50’s  because it is reliable, safe and without marketing exaggerations

Yea, but stainless steel one way death taxi to mars though!

[tavarish palkovnik]

4 hours ago, RustBelt said:

stainless steel one way death taxi to mars

 

 

Grandpa Tsiolkovsky laughs from his grave, 90 years after he passed away, when he sees how some still try to dispute his theorem