AIM-54C Mk47 vs Mk60

[PhantomHans]

Let me first say, YES, I DID actually do a google search before posting the question here...

My question is this:

What is the "Best" AIM-54 for engaging bombers, and the "Best" AIM-54 for engaging fighters, if they're different?

I googled this and got lots of different results but some were quite old.  The answers ranged from debates over which was better, to claiming they're equal, to claiming all AIM-54s are nerfed and useless.

 

From what I understand, the AIM-54A has lower CM and ECM resistance, and will not ever go active unless it receives a signal from the launching F-14 to do so.  Meaning that if you lost track on the target before the missile went active, or launched it from STT as an old school SARH missile and lost your STT lock before detonation, it's going dumb and it's a lost missile.

From what I understand, the AIM-54C has a chance to go active if you've lost track on the target and can't send the signal, or a chance to continue the attack on it's own radar if you supported it in STT until it went active.

The Mk60 motors are apparently identical in both missiles, if I understand correctly they are a "medium" smoke motor.
The Mk47 comes in Mod.0 on the A, and Mod.1 on the C, apparently with very similar performance but being very smoky on the A and almost entirely smokeless on the C.

 

What surprises me about this is that there wasn't a clear progression, or that both motors were kept around for reasons that I don't understand?

[Naquaii]

Basically you should always select AIM-54C over AIM-54A as that's just a straight upgrade. As for the motors there are differences but IRL they were regarded as having the same performance or at least close enough that the difference wasn't relevant. The difference is basically that one of them burns longer but weaker and the other burns shorter but stronger. But small difference.

I'll leavy the discussion as to which motor is better in what situations to the people that put a lot of though into that.

[PhantomHans]

Would that mean that it would have been likely or common to have a mixture of the two types of motors in a given loadout?

 

For example your jet was loaded with four 54C and you got three Mk.47s and a Mk.60?

 

And is there any idea of the ratio in which they were produced?  50/50 or 60/40 etc?

[Naquaii]

1 hour ago, PhantomHans said:

Would that mean that it would have been likely or common to have a mixture of the two types of motors in a given loadout?

 

For example your jet was loaded with four 54C and you got three Mk.47s and a Mk.60?

 

And is there any idea of the ratio in which they were produced?  50/50 or 60/40 etc?

Not impossible but also not likely. I'm guessing missiles at a given location would be the same. Afaik the Mk60 was produced much less as it was from an alternate producer that they stoped using eventually.

[The_Tau]

From what i heard the main reason for two different motors its just two different companies were contracted to make them. Also there were far fewer Mk60s than Mk47s and by AIM54C came online in 1986 only few left overs mk60s engines were left, so squadrons were just much more likely to use mk47s. 

Personally the only real difference imo is at low alts with much higher drag on 54 fat body. So for low level missions i would take mk60s. Of course for PvP smokeless motor is quite big advantage. 

[RustBelt]

On 5/18/2024 at 10:29 AM, PhantomHans said:

Would that mean that it would have been likely or common to have a mixture of the two types of motors in a given loadout?

 

For example your jet was loaded with four 54C and you got three Mk.47s and a Mk.60?

 

And is there any idea of the ratio in which they were produced?  50/50 or 60/40 etc?

They ran different motors with the same head. Look up Zebra Phoenix. Old white motors with new grey AIM-54C heads. The actual missile was built on board from parts as needed. And unlike the Airforce and Army, waste not want not. Just tell the C what butt it has on and it manages.

[draconus]

On 5/18/2024 at 3:15 AM, PhantomHans said:

From what I understand, the AIM-54A has lower CM and ECM resistance, and will not ever go active unless it receives a signal from the launching F-14 to do so.

It can be also launched as active (maddog).

Phoenix comparison:

[Bluto74]

22 hours ago, RustBelt said:

They ran different motors with the same head. Look up Zebra Phoenix. Old white motors with new grey AIM-54C heads. The actual missile was built on board from parts as needed. And unlike the Airforce and Army, waste not want not. Just tell the C what butt it has on and it manages.

4 years as an AO on a carrier.  Missiles were never built on board.  Aside from putting fins on.  Now they may have been pieced together from other missiles at depot, but I can think of nothing scarier than the thought of AO's assembling missiles.  Lol.  As to the original post, never touched anything other than 54C-47's in those 4 years which means we did not have anything else there.  And pilots hated when carrying only one on the outboard.  Lol

[PhantomHans]

1 minute ago, Bluto74 said:

4 years as an AO on a carrier.  Missiles were never built on board.  Aside from putting fins on.  Now they may have been pieced together from other missiles at depot, but I can think of nothing scarier than the thought of AO's assembling missiles.  Lol.  As to the original post, never touched anything other than 54C-47's in those 4 years which means we did not have anything else there.  And pilots hated when carrying only one on the outboard.  Lol

Which leads me to some questions...

 

What time frame, and why only one outboard?

I imagine that upset the trim quite a bit.

[Rhrich]

22 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

Which leads me to some questions...

 

What time frame, and why only one outboard?

I imagine that upset the trim quite a bit.

Because they didn't need it. 

Tomcats, at least in US service, have never been used in combat in the air superiority role it was designed for. 

If the Iraqis or Serbs would send up a fighter (unlikely, happened on very few occasions) a 54 would be very useful. Guess that's why they carried it. 

The belly was used for bombs and the other outboard station probably had the lantirn.

[Bluto74]

38 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

Which leads me to some questions...

 

What time frame, and why only one outboard?

I imagine that upset the trim quite a bit.

Early to mid 90s. Just after desert storm. Granted we had D Tomcats. Truth is Sparrows were the main load for our air wing. During Southern Watch if the 14s had 54s it was 2 at most. Normal load out was 1-1-1. Or 1-1-2. Normally the 54 was in the tunnel but if we didn’t have time to clear the tunnel of the 7, on the glove the 54 would go. And normally the ordie shack could expect a visit from the pilot to voice their displeasure. To which the gunner would handle that debate. But of course we would avoid it if we could. Other wise it was do some of that pilot stuff sir.  lol

Edited May 21, 2024 by Bluto74

[Bluto74]

16 minutes ago, Rhrich said:

The belly was used for bombs and the other outboard station probably had the lantirn.

I was lucky enough to get to live among the tomcat when there was not a pound for air to ground. Pre lantin days. 

[RustBelt]

1 hour ago, Bluto74 said:

4 years as an AO on a carrier.  Missiles were never built on board.  Aside from putting fins on.  Now they may have been pieced together from other missiles at depot, but I can think of nothing scarier than the thought of AO's assembling missiles.  Lol.  As to the original post, never touched anything other than 54C-47's in those 4 years which means we did not have anything else there.  And pilots hated when carrying only one on the outboard.  Lol

Really? I thought they did motor swaps on the phoenix in the boat. I know I’ve seen zebra Phoenixes in photos, was that mostly done onshore? 

[Bluto74]

14 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

Really? I thought they did motor swaps on the phoenix in the boat. I know I’ve seen zebra Phoenixes in photos, was that mostly done onshore? 

Yeah that would be done atone of the depots ashore. All missiles arrive as AUR’s. All Up Rounds. That means no assembly required to AOs. lol. Sealed in containers that would be opened, the misfiles hoisted to a skid, and then taken from the mags to the roof. We couldn’t work on the missile body if we wanted to. In the days of the Cold War I guess it might have been possible for there to be a company rep from Hugh’s to be aboard, but I never saw anything like that. If we had scratches or dents in any part of a missile it had to be marked as unusable and off loaded to the supply ship to be brought back to depot. Now bombs were built regularly but stuff like HARM, Mavericks, and Walleye were all AURs. 

[captain_dalan]

On 5/18/2024 at 3:15 AM, PhantomHans said:

...

The Mk60 motors are apparently identical in both missiles, if I understand correctly they are a "medium" smoke motor.
The Mk47 comes in Mod.0 on the A, and Mod.1 on the C, apparently with very similar performance but being very smoky on the A and almost entirely smokeless on the C.

 

What surprises me about this is that there wasn't a clear progression, or that both motors were kept around for reasons that I don't understand?

As @Naquaii said, the difference in DCS is burn time, with the 60s producing more thrust for less time, and the 47s producing less thrust for more time. At fairly normal/expected intercept altitudes of 25-35000ft, this results in:

1. For hot and non maneuvering targets, with both missiles launched under same conditions, the Mk60 will become active and arrive at the impact point with slightly more energy then the Mk47;
2. For maneuvering targets, due to induced drag by the missile forced to change directions, the opposite is true. The Mk60 having stopped the burn earlier, even with higher top speed in the lofting phase, will deplete its energy faster, and generally underperforms, when compared to the Mk47, as much as available energy at terminal or impact point is in question. The more the missile is forced to maneuver, the greater the difference.
3. The same can be said for firing the missile at angle greater then 0 from hot aspect. The greater the off-bore angle, the more the Mk60 will suffer.

Finally, this is all DCS, i have no idea how IRL missiles perform.

Hope this helps!
Cheers!!!

[tavarish palkovnik]

There is no single one relevant document and/or literature saying that Mk47 Mod.0 and Mk60 Mod.0 (even Mk47 Mod.1) have different output characteristics. Only DCS and WT say that.

Missiles having same flight control section with all those stuffs inside, gyroscopes, accelerometers, barometers etc etc need to have same source of energy, otherwise dynamic and flight control would be impossible.

Just like AIM-7E with two exchangeable motors, Mk38 and Mk52, one is with internal-external burning tube form of grain, other one with 5 point star. But both were giving same. Also AIM-7F with Mk-58 and Mk-65, first one is internal burning tubes with radial slots, while other one is with finocyl and slots in dogbone form but at the end both have same characteristics. That same is and must be case with AIM-54 as well.

I made very detail mathematic, taking grain geometry of Mk47 and nozzle geometry of Mk60 and output came as for Mk60 should be. Only what is missing is to find and see how grain in Mk60 looks like. Perhaps slotted tube (two slots) like in Mk47 perhaps something else but it must give same result.         

[draconus]

11 minutes ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

There is no single one relevant document and/or literature saying that Mk47 Mod.0 and Mk60 Mod.0 (even Mk47 Mod.1) have different output characteristics.

You just don't have one. Don't assume it doesn't exist. ED/HB doesn't make FMs out of thin air.

[tavarish palkovnik]

@draconus  Look mate, I saw so many absurds here so that lot of things is coming on my mind, even this what you wrote last. After motor of R-27ER this one is of biggest interest of mine, and I put lot of work and time in finding answers. 

Perhaps they had some documents but it is question if they read it correctly. If you followed all what we wrote about it in sequences of finding answers how it works, you could see how sometimes numbers and all what is behind it can be tricky. One eventual case, what if they managed to find or get from somewhere pressure or thrust vs time curves for AIM-54 and one was for high and other for low temperature range, and somehow they took it as two different motors. Everything is possible, however slotted tube grain inside of Mk47 when processed gives exactly what is given to Mk60.

I would really like to have comments of these chiefs which worked this out, comments regarding my results, that would be nice to hear and very much appreciated. Also even more I would appreciate if could get some words how Mk47 and Mk60 became different to them.  

 

[WarthogOsl]

14 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

2. For maneuvering targets, due to induced drag by the missile forced to change directions, the opposite is true. The Mk60 having stopped the burn earlier, even with higher top speed in the lofting phase, will deplete its energy faster, and generally underperforms, when compared to the Mk47, as much as available energy at terminal or impact point is in 

So, do you mean if the target is maneuvering during the missile's boost phase?  Because it seems like, at least for typical AI targets in DCS, they won't start defending until the missile goes active, in which case you'd want to use the missile that has the most energy in the terminal phase (the Mk60).

[The_Tau]

20 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

So, do you mean if the target is maneuvering during the missile's boost phase?  Because it seems like, at least for typical AI targets in DCS, they won't start defending until the missile goes active, in which case you'd want to use the missile that has the most energy in the terminal phase (the Mk60).

its worse, AI will not defend by default, until they magically detect the missile within 10nm bubble around them. Doesnt matter if its 54 or 120 or Aim7. It also doesnt matter if its f16, mig29 or mig 21.

[WarthogOsl]

8 hours ago, The_Tau said:

its worse, AI will not defend by default, until they magically detect the missile within 10nm bubble around them. Doesnt matter if its 54 or 120 or Aim7. It also doesnt matter if its f16, mig29 or mig 21.

I guess I'm just not sure I understand your bullet points that the Mk60 will arrive at the target with higher energy, yet is somehow worse when the target starts maneuvering (against AI, anyway).

[captain_dalan]

On 5/23/2024 at 10:27 PM, WarthogOsl said:

So, do you mean if the target is maneuvering during the missile's boost phase?  Because it seems like, at least for typical AI targets in DCS, they won't start defending until the missile goes active, in which case you'd want to use the missile that has the most energy in the terminal phase (the Mk60).

Not entirely correct. If you mean "airquake" defending, by going cold as soon as possible, then no. But every AI with BVR capability worthy of mention will go into both a lateral and vertical offset as soon as it launches on you, TWS or STT. It will try to keep you in its radar gimbal limits, while losing altitude at the same time. If the time the AI starts offsetting coincides with the time the missile is still burning (or would be burning if it uses the longer burn motor), then this will effect the missile's terminal energy in favor of the one with longer burning motor. This is very likely to happen with bandits that carry AIM-120C or SD-10 missiles, definitely a case with the R-33 and R-27ER and possibly a case with AIM-120B and R-77. 

Note, that these scenarios assume employment of the Phoenix in the 30-50 nautical mile ranges, from angels 25-35, and firing platform mach number of 1 - 1.1, against high subsonic or transonic bandits. Firing the missile from extreme ranges (say above 60 miles), may indeed give other results, as the missile may enter bandit's 10NM defend bubble, before the AI actually has the opportunity to fire and thus offset, but these are far from optimal shots. That doesn't mean you SHOULD NOT take such shots, just that i wasn't including them in my tests. Same could be said for shots inside 20NM, or low altitude shots. The missile behavior might as well be very different based on AI actions.

So my recommendations would be, under "standard or expected"  engagement conditions, against cruise missiles or fast approaching bombers, the Mk60's should fare better. Against actively engaging bandits, like other air-superiority or interceptor assets, the Mk47 should fare better.

[WarthogOsl]

My typical use case is on the TTI servers, where I'm firing at AI fighter targets from 60-70 miles.  So typically the Phoenix is going active well before they can fire their missiles (especially MiG-25 and earlier).  So, they wont start any kind of maneuvering until the 54 goes active.

[captain_dalan]

6 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

My typical use case is on the TTI servers, where I'm firing at AI fighter targets from 60-70 miles.  So typically the Phoenix is going active well before they can fire their missiles (especially MiG-25 and earlier).  So, they wont start any kind of maneuvering until the 54 goes active.

Ah, that changes things dramatically. Those ranges are sufficiently larger, that the missile endgame might as well be significantly altered. I'll try and run some test scenarios tonight. What's your Pk on those launches? 

[WarthogOsl]

16 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Ah, that changes things dramatically. Those ranges are sufficiently larger, that the missile endgame might as well be significantly altered. I'll try and run some test scenarios tonight. What's your Pk on those launches? 

In the past around 50%.  I typically launch from at around 40k and Mach .7 or .8.  Things seemed to have changed in the month or two though.   Thoug I'd say that if the missile actually managed to get to the target without going vertical, it's still around 50%.