AIM-54 Phoenix motor/propellant question

Dilbert

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
3 January 2006
Messages
81
Reaction score
15
Hello,

I'm doing some research with an eye to updating the "minizap" missile simulator:
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/missiles/minizap.zip

There's a pretty good source available now for calibrating AIM-9 Sidewinder performance in the simulator:
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/betaforum/aim9lperf.jpg

So, I'm interested to approach it also from the other extreme, and accurately model the AIM-54 Phoenix - it being much larger, heavier, faster, and having a lofted trajectory. I expect that if minizap can be tuned to model these two missiles to high accuracy, then everything in between has a good chance of being reasonably represented as well.

Fortunately, some AIM-54 reference data seems also to now be publicly available:
http://acgsc.org/Meetings/Meeting_99/SubcommitteA/SubA_6_2_Phoenix%20Project%20Overview.ppt

However, I'm confused about the propellant weight for Phoenix missiles.
As I understand, there exist two Phoenix motors:

Hercules/Rocketdyne Mk 47 (Mod 1?), using Flexadyne (PBAN) propellant (impulse ~252 s)
Aerojet Mk 60, using ammonium perchlorate-polyurethane rubber binder propellant (impulse ~252 s)

It's still unclear to me if the two motors are interchangeable, or 1:1 correlated to AIM-54A vs AIM-54C versions; most sources simply list MXU-637/B as the propulsion unit for both missiles. i.e. I don't know if the motors are interchangeable with similar performance, or if the AIM-54C included a flight performance upgrade (with the Mk 60 motor) together with its ECCM improvements.

The latter would seem likely, but the confusing bit comes from the "Hazard Classification of United States Military Explosives and Munitions USA 2009" document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38141871/Hazard-Classification-of-United-States-Military-Explosives-and-Munitions-USA-2009

This document lists "MXU-637/B" for the AIM-54A as containing 459 lbs propellant,
and "MXU-637A/B" for the AIM-54C as containing 360 lbs propellant.

Since AIM-54C seems by all accounts to be a heavier, faster, longer-ranged missile than AIM-54A - what's it doing here with 100 lbs (22%) less propellant than AIM-54A?

Thanks in advance for any insight
 
I wish there was more follow up. In this video interview, Jim Howe at around the 15 min mark says that they didn’t trust the Phoenix to hit anything beyond about 40 miles if the target was maneuvering. He says the missile had about 30 secs of burn time. Its seeker was pulse only, so could be distracted.

View: https://youtu.be/YJW5As4Os4U
 
What was the range of the Phoenix's seeker in the active terminal-homing mode.
 
He said something along the lines of half the launch distance + 5 miles as a rule of thumb. Mind you he’s talking about launches under 40 miles.
 
In Fighters Over The Fleet

Friedman points out that the Phoenix was a watered down Eagle. Eagle had a sustainer motor once the booster fell off.
So it looks like the AAAM contenders all attempted to address the long range, endgame energy problem.
 
This document lists "MXU-637/B" for the AIM-54A as containing 459 lbs propellant,
and "MXU-637A/B" for the AIM-54C as containing 360 lbs propellant.

Since AIM-54C seems by all accounts to be a heavier, faster, longer-ranged missile than AIM-54A - what's it doing here with 100 lbs (22%) less propellant than AIM-54A?
Given the above, I can only conclude that the C's propellant was more energetic per unit weight and/or burned with a different profile to give a longer sustain and hence either preserve or lengthen range with a greater missile weight.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom