Originally intended to be part of the previous chapter, this discussion showcases the performance of the “new” AIM-54 Phoenix against its de facto successor: the AIM-120 AMRAAM.
AIM-120C-5 Comparison
Comparing the AMRAAM to the Phoenix makes little sense on paper: they were never meant to face each other as adversaries, and circa 15 years separate the AIM-54C from the AIM-120C-5. 26 years if the AIM-54A is considered instead. That’s a huge amount of time in terms of technology and warfare.
Let’s see what happened.
35,000k
At 40nm, none of the AIM-120C-5 connected; the radar lock was lost every time, and the missile went dumb.
Moving to 20nm instead, we see the AMRAAM’s brutal acceleration, peaking at almost M4, whereas the Phoenix reached speeds close to M3.6. Without accounting for the manual loft, the Phoenix generally arrives later but faster, and reaches higher altitudes. When the Tomcat pitches the nose up instead, the difference becomes narrower, with the AIM-54 arriving faster and only 2s after the AIM-120C-5.
25,000
At 7.6km, the only outlier is the standard launch of the AIM-120C. The reason is rather simple: the lock was lost before “pitbul”, and the missile failed to find its target.
Disregarding this result, the levelled employment of the Phoenix just barely hit the target at a speed of M1.06.
Interestingly, 25° of pitch made the Phoenix and the AMRAAM almost indistinguishable in terms of outcome, with the Phoenix arriving a couple of seconds earlier and basically at the same speed. However, the two missiles achieved this goal in different ways: the AMRAAM used its explosivity, and the Phoenix took advantage of its slower but prolonged acceleration.
At 20nm, the AMRAAM failed to connect. As usual, it reached a much higher speed, but the constant manoeuvre of the target eventually bled its energy off. The manually lofted sample shaved the target, passing just 200m behind it. A few more knots and the AIM-120C-5 would have splashed it.
15,000
At 15,000ft or 4.5km, the roles are inverted. The manually lofted AIM-120 was the only missile to hit its intended target at 40nm. The lofted AIM-54 behaved as the AMRAAM before, passing extremely close, but failing to cover the last hundred meters.
The standard launches show again how the supersonic employment of the Phoenix at medium altitude is detrimental. As explained in Part II of this series, in fact, the AIM-54 reaches higher altitudes when launched from a subsonic speed. The result is a much greater “pool” of energy available in the terminal phase.
At close range, none of the considered missiles managed to connect. The target’s abrupt turn and fast acceleration to over M1.5 proved too much for the already exhausted rocket motors.
Top to Bottom
The previous chapter showed how the AIM-54 Phoenix performance drastically changed when the engaged target is manoeuvring at a much lower altitude than the fighter. So, how would the lighter and faster AIM-120 behave in such a scenario? Let’s have a look.
40nm ΔALT
Both the Phoenix and the AMRAAM-C-5 have an “easy” life at medium range and high altitude. Although the loss energy-wise is conspicuous due to the dive, as thoroughly described in the previous chapter, both missiles arrive with similar performance. The results can be grouped depending on the usage of the manual loft. As always, this technique grants a marginal but visible boost to every missile in the game.
Although the difference is minimal, the AIM-120C-5 performs better, but the advantage is minimal, and around 0.07% and 0.08%. Flight time-wise, the newer and improved missile arrives between 2 and 6 seconds before the “venerabilis” AIM-54 Phoenix.
20nm ΔALT
Moving closer, the explosivity of the AIM-120C-5 should grant it a decisive boost compared to the ancient slow-burner. The reality is different, and no missile impacted their target. A curiosity: the manually lofted AIM-120C-5 reached a vastly higher peak altitude compared to the standard AMRAAM. However, as the curves show, the speed of the former was not as high as we have seen in co-altitude scenarios. The AIM-54 suffered from a similar issue, but, oddly enough, the abrupt dive cost the Phoenix even more energy, raising questions about whether manual loft is worth it or not in this case.
Conclusions
And that’s it for this study about the recent AIM-54 Phoenix update. The plethora of charts and observations should have painted a clear picture of the main changes and pros and cons of the new update.
The comparison between AIM-the-younger and AIM-the-elder, the AMRAAM and the Phoenix, should have further demonstrated the improvements brought by the recent patch, whilst still remarking how the AIM-54 is an old, heavy missile, which tends to bleed energy in certain scenarios.
Before closing this study and moving to more interesting topics, I want to stress again a point very dear to me, which is also behind the “Digital Cockpit Simulator” meme I involuntarily inspired a few years ago.
The raison d’être of this study is to assess the feasibility of the missile against a target employing defensive manoeuvres and not relying entirely on their magical awareness or RWR to pull a last-second split-S, tonneau, or whatever exploit or manoeuvre is fashioned these days. Again, the SPO-15 has been a considerable step in the correct direction, but the AI is still unaffected. Another solution would be to allow the deactivation or configuration of certain components as “bent” for both players and AI. We have random failures already, so a bulk of the work is technically done already.
Considering that the vast majority of players play on their own, the status of certain avionics and AI is even less acceptable, and a major disservice.
Leave comments and feedback in the Discussion Forum thread.