missiles The AIM-54 Phoenix missile - Technology, History and Performance

[DSplayer 271]

Heyo! @Iron_physik gave me permission to make a version of his popular "The AIM-9 Sidewinder missile - Technology, History and Performance" and "The AIM-7 Sparrow missile - Technology, History and Performance" for the AIM-54 Phoenix, one of the most technologically advanced missiles for its time.

 

 

 

 

 

The AIM-54 Phoenix (Airborne Interception Missile) is a radar guided air to air missile that was used alongside its more popular compatriots, the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow, and used operationally with the AWG-9 radar system mounted on the F-14A and F-14B Tomcat. This missile is the grandfather of all Fox-3 active radar homing missiles used in today's modern air to air battlefield.

 

 

 

Here's a brief explanation of how the AIM-54 Phoenix works utilizing the super small amount of information that is available to the public:

 

Spoiler

Guidance Modes:

The AIM-54's operates in 4 distinct modes, 3 of which will be important to gameplay in WT. Those 3 modes are sample data semi-active (datalink mid-course guidance), continuous semi active (Fox-1 mode basically), and active (Fox-3 fire and forget). For a pretty good explanation of the AIM-54 guidance, I'll direct you to a thesis written about the AIM-54 and AWG-9 system written by Naval Undergraduate Stephen Thornton Long^[1].

 

 

 

 

The sample data semi-active, like stated in the document above, is used during the mid-course guidance phase of a TWS missile shot prior to the missile going "pitbull" or fully radar active. Once the missile is active, the firing aircraft no longer has to support the missile and can turn away. The AIM-54 will be fired in a Fox-1 mode (continuous semi-active) when the AIM-54 is fired in a PD-STT (Pulse Doppler Single Target Track) at a target. This mode doesn't not allow for the AIM-54 to go active in any way (unless fired within 10nms) and will basically be a super long range AIM-7. The AIM-54 can be fired in an active mode off the rail when ether in P-STT (Pulse Single Target Track), PH ACT switch is selected in the RIO seat, a TCS track is used, the missile is fired within 10nms of the target, or ACM cover is lifted upwards (which disregards any prior radar modes i.e. disregards if you're in PD-STT or TWS, that missile is going active off the rail). An exception is used for P-STT and PH-ACT when used outside of a the seeker's own detection range: the AIM-54 will fall back to the AWG-9's datalink guidance and guide on that course using that guidance until it detects the target with its own seeker.

 

This datalink guidance (not to be confused with military tactical data links like Link-16 or Link-4) uses the AWG-9's pulse signals, datalink transmitter at the tail of the AIM-54, and the antenna of the AIM-54 itself in order to give mid-course guidance to the missile.

 

 

Lofting:

The AIM-54 does not loft when:

• Using P-STT to fire a missile
• PH ACT switch is engaged
• ACM cover is up
• If fired within 10nms of the target

 

Active Distance :

 

The AIM-54 can have varying active distances depending on the target size switch in the RIO's pit as this switch changes when the AWG-9's WCS sends the active command to the missile.

• Target size small sends the active signal at 6 nms
• Target size normal sends the active signal at 10 nms
• Target size large sends the active signal at 13 nms

 

 

 

The Phoenix Evolution and Performance

 

 

 

Major Variants:

 

 

AIM-54A

 

Without going into the history of the precursor systems that eventually led to the development of the AIM-54, the development of the AIM-54 Phoenix (AAM-N-11 Phoenix at the time) began in 1960 by Hughes with it being redesignated the AIM-54A in 1962. The Phoenix was developed initially to face the ever growing threat of Soviet bombers carrying anti-ship missiles against US carriers. The missile was then optimized to face that threat along with fighter aircraft. Initially intended to be mounted on the F-111B, it was later mounted on the F-14 platform after the F-111B was cancelled.  The first production AIM-54A missiles were delivered in 1973 and were ready for deployment with the first F-14A squadron (VF-1 Wolfpack on the USS Enterprise) in 1974 during the first F-14 deployment. AIM-54As during airborne testing had achieved a success rate of 88% during its test program. Most famously in 1973, an F-14A was able to fire 6 AIM-54As at various target drones within 37 seconds at ranges up to 43.19 nms (80 kms) with 4 scoring direct hits, 1 missing due to the target drone veering off course due to a malfunction, and 1 missing due to a hardware failure. These were determined that if there were no hardware malfunctions, the missiles would have hit the targets. Initial AIM-54A production would eventually end in 1981.

 

Sidenote: AIM-54As can be distinctly differentiated from AIM-54Cs because they're all painted white compared to AIM-54Cs (which initially came in white but were later phased out with grey as their standard color).

 

 

There were several subvariants/improvements of the AIM-54A that are known specifically about what the exact improvements did in terms of performance.

• Reject Image Device (RID) offered improved capabilities against low altitude targets over water, and was incor­porated during production of later missiles.

• Extended Active Gate (EAG) improved the missile’s resistance to certain ECM threats, and was also a production feature of later mis­siles.

• High Altitude Performance (HAP) modification improved performance against very high-altitude and high-speed targets.

 

There were also 2 distinct variants of motors used by the AIM-54A. There was one made by Rocketdyne utilizing their Mk47 Mod 0 motor. This was initially found to be substandard construction and reliability when initially delivered so a secondary company, Aerojet, utilizing their Mk60 motor. There were several differences with these motors even though they were all designated the MXU-637/B. Aerojet production of the Mk60 motor would eventually end by 1978.

• Burn Time 
  • The Aerojet Mk60 burned for 30 20.6 seconds while the Rocketdyne Mk47 Mod 0 burned for 27 seconds
• Isp
  • Aerojet Mk60 had an estimated Isp of 250 while the Rocketdyne Mk47 Mod 0 had an Isp of 252
• Thrust
  • The Aerojet Mk60 produced around 17000Ns of thrust compared to the roughly 15000Ns of the Rocketdyne Mk47 Mod 0
• Weight
  • The Mk60 motor weighed approx. 256 kgs while the Mk47 motor weight 201 kgs. Their respective fuel weights were 208 kgs and 163 kgs.
• Propellant
  • The Mk47 Mod 0 used Flexadyne (tradename for CTPB but formulation might be different) while the Mk60 used CTPB.

Even with these differences, the missile was still rated to the same top speed, range, and altitude.

 

AIM-54A Performance

 

• Length: 13.15 ft (401 cm)

• Finspan: 36.41 in (92.5 cm)

• Diameter: 14.96 in (38 cm)

• Weight: 978.85 lbs (444 kgs) | Up to 1000 lbs by 1999

  • With Aerojet Mk60 Motor: 987.01 lbs (447.7 kgs)

  • With Rocketdyne (later Hercules) Mk47 Mod 0 Motor: 1039.92 lbs (471.7 kgs)

• Speed: Mach 4.3

• Propulsion:

  • Aerojet Mk60

    • Thrust: 17,020.4N for 30 20.6 seconds

  • Rocketdyne (later Hercules) Mk47 Mod 0

    • Thrust: 13,595N for 27 seconds

  • 1970s Document (one of the only definitive data sources we have regarding the AIM-54's motor performance for any variant)

    • Thrust: 4000 lbf (17793 N) for 24+ seconds (dependent on altitude)

    • Total Impulse: 97000 lbs

• Guidance duration: 160 seconds minimum

• Warhead:  133.77 lbs (60.68 kg) Mk82 Mod 0 blast fragmentation and impact fuse

  • Detection Device: DSU-28/A

  • Safety Fuse: FSU-10/A

  • Detonation distance: 50 feet (15 meters) 

• Guidance type: Sample data semi-active, continuous semi-active, active, home-on jam

• Maneuvering capability: At least 18Gs

• Max Launch Altitude: 48,800 ft (14,878 m)

• Max Missile Altitude : 81,400 ft (24,817 m)

• Min Range: 2.1 nm (203.25 m)

• Max Range: 107.92nm (200 km)

 

 

AIM-54C

 

Development of an improved AIM-54 variant began in 1976. The 1979 Iranian Revolution had accelerated the development of an improved AIM-54 due to the AIM-54As that were sent to Iran to equip their air force's F-14A Tomcats being potentially compromised. In August of the same year, the first development models were completed. By 1981, the first AIM-54Cs were delivered. By the next year, production of the AIM-54A had switched over to production of the AIM-54C. Initial Operational Capability of the AIM-54C was reached in 1984. The AIM-54C features a completely new digital WGU-11/B guidance and WCU-7/B control sections. With the progression of computer technology, they were able to integrate a programmable digital signal processor and an autopilot that uses a strap-down inertial navigation system. All while improving the ECCM capability of the missile. This INS system was later used as the bases for the AIM-120 AMRAAM. It was touted that the missile had improved range and speed thanks to an improved motor. However I was unable to find any statistics to substantiate this claim outside of a new Mk47 Mod 1 motor that incorporated a reduced smoke signature. There was a new DSU-28/B target detection device which improved the fusing accuracy in high-clutter environments and for small and low-altitude targets.

 

Sidenote: Rocketdyne's McGregor, Texas factory, which produced the Mk47 motor, was sold to Hercules Inc. in 1978 so the motor might also be called the Hercules Mk47 motor.

 

 

 

AIM-54C Performance

 

• Length: 13.15 ft (401 cm)

• Finspan: 36.41 in (92.5 cm)

• Diameter: 14.96 in (38 cm)

• Weight:  1026.47 lbs (465.6 kgs) 1000.9 lbs (454 kgs) | 1020-1040 lbs depending on configuration

• Speed: Mach 5+

• Propulsion:

  • Rocketdyne (later Hercules) Mk47 Mod 1

    • Propellant type: HTPB
    • Thrust: 13,595N for 27 seconds

  • Aerojet Mk60 (some squadrons equipped their AIM-54Cs with their remaining Mk60 motors)

    • Propellant type: CTPB
    • Thrust: 17,793N for 20.6 seconds

• Guidance duration: 160 seconds minimum

• Warhead:

  • 133.77 lbs (60.68 kg) Mk82 Mod 0 warhead blast fragmentation and impact fuse (serial number 83001 through 83054)

    • Detection Device: DSU-28

    • Safety Fuse: FSU-10/A

    • Detonation distance: 50 feet (15 meters)

  • 133.77 lbs (60.68 kg) WDU-29/B blast fragmentation and impact fuse warhead in a WAU-16/B or WAU-20/B  (serial number 83055 to end of production)

    • Detection Device: DSU-28/B

    • Safety Fuse: FSU-10/A

    • Detonation distance: 50 feet (15 meters)

• Guidance type: Sample data semi-active, continuous semi-active, active, home-on jam

• Maneuvering capability: At least 18Gs but more maneuverable than the AIM-54A

• Max Launch Altitude: 60,000 ft (18,292.68 m)

• Max Missile Altitude : 100,000 ft (30,487.81 m)

• Min Range: 2.1 nm (203.25 m)

• Max Range: 107.92nm+ (200 km+)

 

AIM-54C+ (AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed)

First delivered in 1985 as a configuration Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) to the AIM-54C, the AIM-54C+ or AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed was the final known major operational improvement variant of the AIM-54. This variant featured improved ECCM performance along with finally removing the need for externally bottled coolant to be used as the missile was now cooled with its own internally provided coolant supply. With the LAU-132A pylons on the F-14D, they no longer carried coolant bottles and reduced the weight and complexity. By the year 2000, all the AIM-54s left in the US Navy's inventory was AIM-54Cs, with all AIM-54As being expended. The AIM-54 was later retired in 2004, 2 years before the F-14 Tomcat itself was retired from service. 

 

Sidenote: The AIM-54A and the earlier AIM-54C both had the requirement for external coolant that brought more external weight along with extra complexity. The coolant bottle was stored in the LAU-93 pylon itself and therefore necessitated that the front 2 AIM-54 fuselage pylons in order for early AIM-54s to be fired (as the rear and glove pylons didn't carry a coolant bottle). It is said that these cooled AIM-54s could be fired from the LAU-132A pylons of the F-14D even though they didn't have cooling. The aircraft would have to be confined to stricter launch parameters. The name coolant used is a bit of a misnomer since it is intended to keep the internals of the AIM-54 from getting too cold at the harsher environments of high altitude flight.

 

 

 

 

AIM-54C+ (AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed) Performance

 

• Length: 13.15 ft (401 cm)

• Finspan: 36.41 in (92.5 cm)

• Diameter: 14.96 in (38 cm)

• Weight:  1023 lbs (464.025 kg)

• Speed: Mach 5+

• Propulsion:

  • Hercules Mk47 Mod 1

    • Propellant type: HTPB
    • Thrust: 13,595N for 27 seconds

• Guidance duration: 160 seconds minimum

• Warhead:

  • 133.77 lbs ( 60.68 kg) WDU-29/B blast fragmentation and impact fuse warhead in a WAU-16/B or WAU-20/B

    • Detection Device: DSU-28/B
    • Safety Fuse: FSU-10/A
    • Detonation distance: 50 feet (15 meters)
• Guidance type: Sample data semi-active, continuous semi-active, active, home-on jam

• Maneuvering capability: At least 18Gs but more maneuverable than the AIM-54A

• Max Launch Altitude: 60,000 ft (18,292.68 m)

• Max Missile Altitude : 100,000 ft (30,487.81 m)

• Min Range: 2.1 nm (203.25 m)

• Max Range: 107.92nm+ (200 km+)

 

 

 

 

 

Sources:

• An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System, Stephen Thornton Long, Naval Postgraduate School, March 1977 
  • Cover
• https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html
• Missile Forecast, AIM-54A/C/C+ Phoenix, Forecast International, November 1997
  • For most of the statistics
• AIM-54 Phoenix Missile, Navy.mil, March 2017
• AIM-54 Fusing Information CAT-UXO
• Hazard Classification Of United States Military Explosives and Munitions, U.S. Army, June 2009
• AD-A142-508, Weapon File, USAF, June 1984
• Heatblur AIM-54 Whitepaper
• Heatblur F-14 Manual
• Solid Propulsion Enabling Technologies and Milestones for Navy Air-launched Tactical Missiles, AIAA 2011-6941, Thomas L. Moore, September 2011
• Phoenix Missile Flight Test and Data Base, Mark James Bergen, California State University Northridge, May 1975
• https://aviatia.net/aim-54-phoenix/
• https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54.htm
  • NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-54 PHOENIX MISSILE, N88-NTSP-A-50-8007C/A, APRIL 1999
• Aerospace Weapon System Acquisition Milestones: A Data Base, 1987

 

Further Reading/Watching

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnvLkBOenxM
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF1Kv3SHviI
• https://youtu.be/4bT9gQ4gVhw?t=271
  • Shows how fast the AIM-54 gets up to speed at medium to high altitude compared to WT
• https://youtu.be/GTsKANmFLDE?t=440
  • AIM-54C demonstrating its ability to pull high Gs in order to hit a target during a live fire test in 1984.
  • Also includes further AIM-54 live firings with TCS footage of impacts.

 

Obviously not all the data will be 100% accurate so I would love you guy's support if you guys are able to pitch in and help aggregate sources in improving the understanding of this missile. Thanks again to @Iron_physikfor letting me make a version of his popular missile "Technology, History and Performance" series. Btw there's a video of the AIM-54C somewhere on YT where it does a pretty hard turn and if someone could find that, it would be great. Now one of the Further Watching videos

Edited May 21, 2023 by DSplayer

[spacenavy90 1,402]

@DSplayer

Were you able to locate a copy of "An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System"? Could you share it?

[DSplayer 271]

44 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

@DSplayer

Were you able to locate a copy of "An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System"? Could you share it?

I wasn't able to yet but I was able to find a couple of pages (those that I posted here) on the DCS forums. I currently have a request for the document through the FOIA system atm so perhaps maybe in a month I can post a PDF copy somewhere.

[spacenavy90 1,402]

5 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

I wasn't able to yet but I was able to find a couple of pages (those that I posted here) on the DCS forums. I currently have a request for the document through the FOIA system atm so perhaps maybe in a month I can post a PDF copy somewhere.

Sounds good, I might be able to get my hands on a copy before that. If so I will let you know.

[MythicPi 593]

Do you have sources for the proximity fuse range of the AIM-54A? 15m makes more sense considering the size of the warhead than what we have in-game, which is 8m as seen in this snip:

 

Having its correct range would likely help a decent bit at getting hits more reliably at the very least.

[spacenavy90 1,402]

1 hour ago, MythicPi said:

Do you have sources for the proximity fuse range of the AIM-54A? 15m makes more sense considering the size of the warhead than what we have in-game, which is 8m as seen in this snip:

 

Having its correct range would likely help a decent bit at getting hits more reliably at the very least.

 

Going forward it is going to be almost impossible to find sources for things like this, not just limited to the F-14/AIM-54.

The tactical manual would likely have this information, but it is both very difficult to find and also likely export restricted meaning it could not be used as a source anyway.

Many of my sources mention the Mk334 radar proximity fuze but no details any further.

[tripod2008 593]

1 hour ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

Going forward it is going to be almost impossible to find sources for things like this, not just limited to the F-14/AIM-54.

The tactical manual would likely have this information, but it is both very difficult to find and also likely export restricted meaning it could not be used as a source anyway.

Many of my sources mention the Mk334 radar proximity fuze but no details any further.

Would it be worth looking for info on predecessor missiles? (E.g. AIM-47 / -26, etc.) Since they should be similarly equipt, additionally since we know that the AIM-54 uses a derivative of the Mk 81's warhead we know a lot of info about it and could probably extrapolate "certainty" ranges for fragmentation/ blast etc. and go that way about our reasoning for a increase to the fusing range for the AIM-54 itself.

Edited June 21, 2022 by tripod2008

[spacenavy90 1,402]

9 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

Would it be worth looking for info on predecessor missiles? (E.g. AIM-47 / -26, etc.) Since they should be similarly equipt, additionally since we know that the AIM-54 uses a derivative of the Mk 81's warhead we know a lot of info about it and could probably extrapolate "certainty" ranges for fragmentation/ blast etc. and go that way about our reasoning for a increase to the fusing range for the AIM-54 itself.

 

Probably not if your goal is to bug report it. Gaijin would certainly not accept it as the fuzing of a completely separate missile is unrelated to the one being reported.

[Flame2512 3,384]

The AIM-54 has a continuous rod warhead, this website claims the rod has a maximum radius of 50 ft / 19 m. If you can find a few reliable sources for the road radius you could potentially use that to argue for a larger proximity fuse range (most other continuous rod missiles in game have a proximity fuse radius a little lower than the rod radius, which makes sense).

[tripod2008 593]

 

54 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

completely separate missile

All three share a lot in common, you know being designed by the same company in the same time frame to meet similar needs. And there is a similar link between the AN/ASG-18 and the AN/AWG-9, its not really that surprising considering that both the AN/ASG-18 and GAR-9 (AIM-47) were selected as the winners of the USAF's LRI-X program, to arm the upcoming F-103 (later the F-108) and B-70 bomber and as those programs died they were looked over by other programs and salvaged to cut down on costs and time spent retracing the same steps (The Missile radar combo went; YF-12A>F-111B>F-14A) especially since money was tight off the back of Vietnam.

Spoiler

XAIM-47A on the Left, XAIM-54A on the right

 

25 minutes ago, Flame2512 said:

The AIM-54 has a continuous rod warhead, this website claims the rod has a maximum radius of 50 ft / 19 m. If you can find a few reliable sources for the road radius you could potentially use that to argue for a larger proximity fuse range (most other continuous rod missiles in game have a proximity fuse radius a little lower than the rod radius, which makes sense).

The maximum circumference of the "polygon" and therefore the radius is directly tied to the length of its members, which in this case are almost certainly laid flat along some length of the Warhead section of the missile and so an upper bound "could" realistically be computed, and since we know the mass and type of explosive; the internal volume used up for that should be able to be derived the same way they did with the changes to the Nord's that they made so a rough ballpark could be established from known sources.

 

The only issue is really if they don't run the entire length of the section or if there are multiple rings (the diameter of the rods themselves would have a minor impact on how many can be spaced inside the "packed" circumference, and effects their ability to deform before the ring breaks under inertial forces), though I'm pretty sure at least one cross-section / trainer missile exists somewhere on the internet.  

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by tripod2008

[spacenavy90 1,402]

1 hour ago, tripod2008 said:

 

All three share a lot in common, you know being designed by the same company in the same time frame to meet similar needs.

 

 

Oh no, I understand what you mean and I agree. But Gaijin is overly picky about this stuff. So what I'm saying is that is how Gaijin will see any report and deny it outright.

[MythicPi 593]

How about it @Smin1080p @k_stepanovich? Would we be able to provide calculations for the proximity fuse on the AIM-54A? It doesn't make much sense that the Phoenix has an explosive mass 6x that of a sparrow in-game, but the exact same proximity fuse...

 

If not, could we at least get an explanation as to why it was decided to give it a smaller proxy fuse than something like the R-23/24 while still having 3x the explosive mass? 

[GOT_MILK 6]

It utilises a MK-334 proximity fuze with an impact fuze as a back-up.

 

https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/missiles/aim-54-phoenix-missile

 

The tactical missile uses a high-explosive, continuous-rod warhead with an effective radius of 19.2 meters (50.0 feet)

 

now why would a fuse be set to 5meters when the effective radius is 19.2 meters 

 

I’ll try find more but this smells very smelly gaijin. The AIM7F is a more potent missle atm 

 

 

[gaelan@psn 1,951]

1 hour ago, GOT_MILK said:

It utilises a MK-334 proximity fuze with an impact fuze as a back-up.

 

https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/missiles/aim-54-phoenix-missile

 

The tactical missile uses a high-explosive, continuous-rod warhead with an effective radius of 19.2 meters (50.0 feet)

 

now why would a fuse be set to 5meters when the effective radius is 19.2 meters 

 

I’ll try find more but this smells very smelly gaijin. The AIM7F is a more potent missle atm 

 

 

This is just about the only thing holding the Phoenix back from being enjoyable, why bother dodging it when it's just going to over lead and fly right by you without detonating 

[nighthawk2174 80]

4 hours ago, GOT_MILK said:

It utilises a MK-334 proximity fuze with an impact fuze as a back-up.

 

https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/missiles/aim-54-phoenix-missile

 

The tactical missile uses a high-explosive, continuous-rod warhead with an effective radius of 19.2 meters (50.0 feet)

 

now why would a fuse be set to 5meters when the effective radius is 19.2 meters 

 

I’ll try find more but this smells very smelly gaijin. The AIM7F is a more potent missle atm 

 

 

Is there a bug report filed for the proxy range?

[tripod2008 593]

20 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Is there a bug report filed for the proxy range?

Pretty sure that that website was already tried and rejected since it doesn't site the sources it used.

[MythicPi 593]

12 hours ago, gaelan@psn said:

This is just about the only thing holding the Phoenix back from being enjoyable, why bother dodging it when it's just going to over lead and fly right by you without detonating 

Lets be honest, there's a lot holding the phoenix back in WT, how bad radar missiles are at keeping locks since they were universally nerfed with massive increases to notch sector, their guidance being somewhat questionable (particularly the phoenix, which is just about a joke to dodge), the fact the AWG-9 is a pile of **** in-game, etc... The proxy fuse being effectively a copy of the 7F's is just the xxxx cherry on top. Likely all of this is being done because the average player can't be bothered to learn SARH and ARH missile defense, so gaijin needed to make them easy enough to accidentally dodge so ppl wouldn't complain too much...

 

Also forgot to mention the fact we never get EC maps (maybe once every 4-6h?) so they're launched from like 2000m alt or less most of the time vs targets around the same altitude -_-

Edited June 24, 2022 by MythicPi

[MaMoran20@psn 198]

3 hours ago, MythicPi said:

Lets be honest, there's a lot holding the phoenix back in WT, how bad radar missiles are at keeping locks since they were universally nerfed with massive increases to notch sector, their guidance being somewhat questionable (particularly the phoenix, which is just about a joke to dodge), the fact the AWG-9 is a pile of **** in-game, etc... The proxy fuse being effectively a copy of the 7F's is just the xxxx cherry on top. Likely all of this is being done because the average player can't be bothered to learn SARH and ARH missile defense, so gaijin needed to make them easy enough to accidentally dodge so ppl wouldn't complain too much...

 

Also forgot to mention the fact we never get EC maps (maybe once every 4-6h?) so they're launched from like 2000m alt or less most of the time vs targets around the same altitude -_-

I finally had my first EC match since the update came out, pretty sad they aren't forcing them for top tier. Instead we play on Lake Ladoga. 4 tomcats shot down with f4j due to the same reason, they fire from low alts while being well under mach 1 and they just fly straight to me, players just need to turn a bit to notch the radar due to the wide notch sector.

[nighthawk2174 80]

On 24/06/2022 at 06:07, MythicPi said:

Lets be honest, there's a lot holding the phoenix back in WT, how bad radar missiles are at keeping locks since they were universally nerfed with massive increases to notch sector, their guidance being somewhat questionable (particularly the phoenix, which is just about a joke to dodge), the fact the AWG-9 is a pile of **** in-game, etc... The proxy fuse being effectively a copy of the 7F's is just the xxxx cherry on top. Likely all of this is being done because the average player can't be bothered to learn SARH and ARH missile defense, so gaijin needed to make them easy enough to accidentally dodge so ppl wouldn't complain too much...

 

Also forgot to mention the fact we never get EC maps (maybe once every 4-6h?) so they're launched from like 2000m alt or less most of the time vs targets around the same altitude -_-

Yeah the notch sector thing is just implemented wrong for missiles; a poor reading of documentation and understanding of radars.  Hec we have footage of an AIM-54 direct hitting a maneuvering target that was in the beam.

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by nighthawk2174

[tripod2008 593]

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Yeah the notch sector thing is just wrong; a poor reading of documentation and understanding of radars.  Hec we have footage of an AIM-54 direct hitting a maneuvering target that was in the beam.

 

Makes me wonder if anyone has attempted to recreate the following scenario's in WT, or if the report is in the public domain somewhere

 

[nighthawk2174 80]

37 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

Makes me wonder if anyone has attempted to recreate the following scenario's in WT, or if the report is in the public domain somewhere

 

I would if I could but I'm still grinding for an F4.  But this would be a great idea tbh.

[spacenavy90 1,402]

49 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

Makes me wonder if anyone has attempted to recreate the following scenario's in WT, or if the report is in the public domain somewhere

 

 

11 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

I would if I could but I'm still grinding for an F4.  But this would be a great idea tbh.

 

I'm always down for testing this kind of stuff when available. Anyone can send me a PM and we can exchange discord info & war thunder adds.

[The_Baron3 494]

2 hours ago, tripod2008 said:

Makes me wonder if anyone has attempted to recreate the following scenario's in WT, or if the report is in the public domain somewhere

 

The test alone against a target flying at 200ft sounds like something that already wouldn’t fly (pun intended) in war thunder. The video states that the missile came within 3ft of the target, while in war thunder flying close to the ground is alone enough to defeat a Fox-1/3. Gaijin seems to think players are too dumb to learn counter radar missile tactics, so instead of dealing with the outcry they instead dumbed these systems down to a ridiculous degree (notching is laughably easy, and chaff is so effective at times you’d think the defending aircraft was using 2000s ECM to counter the radar!)

[spacenavy90 1,402]

18 minutes ago, The_Baron3 said:

The test alone against a target flying at 200ft sounds like something that already wouldn’t fly (pun intended) in war thunder. The video states that the missile came within 3ft of the target, while in war thunder flying close to the ground is alone enough to defeat a Fox-1/3. Gaijin seems to think players are too dumb to learn counter radar missile tactics, so instead of dealing with the outcry they instead dumbed these systems down to a ridiculous degree (notching is laughably easy, and chaff is so effective at times you’d think the defending aircraft was using 2000s ECM to counter the radar!)

 

Trueee. Stop holding players hands and let us defeat them ourselves.

[DSplayer 271]

On 24/06/2022 at 03:03, tripod2008 said:

Pretty sure that that website was already tried and rejected since it doesn't site the sources it used.

Yep, that was my bug report. You're gonna need like an actual manual describing the AIM-54 in detail before that happens. Basically it's not going to be possible.

But "An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System, Stephen Thornton Long, Naval Postgraduate School, March 1977" does state that the warhead has an effective radius of 50 ft. That wording is a bit of a problem since it doesn't detail how close the fuse itself actually detonates at (which is something I think is pretty much impossible to find in any circumstance and probably varied from missile to missile irl depending on the missile shoot).

The page in question:

Spoiler

 

 

The same document also details the success of a test against a low flying target that was flying at an altitude of 50ft, something that is downright almost impossible to do in WT thanks to their modelling of radar against targets that are close to the ground.

 

Spoiler