Prez

Alamo Aggressors 2 x Bluefor F-15 Prez | F-15 TrueMetroMan | F-15

Squadron: Alamo Aggressors Timezone: 1600z - 2000z Maps: Caucuses + PG

I want to inquire about the implementation of the new Range Gate to the AIM-120's seeker. There is a noticeable improvement in certain areas, however, it seems that it has exacerbated some still lingering issues. Specifically, I want to know if perhaps the coding of the range gate is such that when the missile breaks lock, the range gate stays and therefore makes it nearly more difficult to reacquire the target. So if the target notches and the missile does not immediately reacquire, the target will fly outside of whatever the range gate parameters are and disappear. I believe this problem may increase for missiles with very high terminal energy as they clear a lot of ground very quickly and would thus decrease the time the target would be within the range gate if the missile loses track. TACVIEW: The tacview I'm including was done on the Growling Sidewinder public pvp server on May 3rd. I have taken the time to delete all other objects from the file that are not my aircraft, the AIM-120Cs and the 3 target aircraft. The first target (Vader9999100) is shot down no problem. The second target (womby) performs a vertical sliceback maneuver and momentarily defeats the seekerhead, but the missile very clearly fails to reacquire even though the target is WELL within the seeker FOV and is practically nose hot. The third target (<404> ADLER) enters a notch/beam, momentarily defeats the seeker, but the missile fails to reacquire even though the target is within FOV and outside of notch parameters. F-15 triple TWS.zip.acmi

You're gonna have to be more specific about that than just telling me to go look at a tacview. There are 6 pages and 150 replies to that thread. I'm not spending time sifting through it to look at something that wouldn't change my opinion. I participate in both milsim and competitive DCS, and so my opinion is such. I'm not part of the bias from either community here.

I don't believe it's functional anymore. I've tried using it thinking the same thing, but it doesn't work. The button has been completely replaced.

You simply have to baby the missile more than you are used to. It's not magic, it's physics. Regardless of the guidance issues, the missile is not smart. You have to do everything you can to improve the performance of your shots. From the short time I have been using the new missile in training, I've quickly adapted the SOP of the missile and have seen, frankly, the exact same performance at range and altitude compared to the previous iteration of the missile. A lot of people are upset with the reality of the AIM-54 because they had a year of it being the most insane thing ever, and making up for their poor employment standards.

The only inaccurate thing I can think right now with the AIM-54 in terms of major grievances is the guidance logic (which I think has been improved for the time being by getting seemingly reverted to older code) and the seeker differences. It should perform horribly at low altitudes. It's the size of a small car and weighs half a ton. The motor really isn't that powerful compared to the thrust to weight of the AIM-120 or R-27. It just burns for a long time and should really only be used at upper-medium to high altitudes. You should really be using sparrows in the lower altitude blocks and just get in closer.

The mk47 mod 1 that the 54C gets should only be about 5% stronger than the mod 0 on the A. And you're gonna need to figure out your testing standards because the guidance should literally be the exact same across all the missiles. The higher lofting may just be from the fact that it does not travel as fast and therefore has more time to climb vs the mk60.

The missile wasn't that bad, although it can be argued that the US inventory of Phoenixes were very old as it was expensive to produce. A lot of 54As were upgraded to Cs and most of the Cs were produced in the 80s. The failures most likely came from the upgrade packages for the missile rather than the brand new ones. I believe the USN actually fired 3 in combat. Two of them had motor failures and the third was on a target that turned and ran. Not a very good sample size when in tests it performed very well, but obviously there are discrepancies between tests and real world scenarios. Simulated missile failures would be interesting. It'd make the Sparrow even more annoying to use if the Gulf War was anything to go by lol.

I don’t know why this thread is talking about balance when this is not simply about balance for competitive events. The ECM on the F-14 is just blatantly breaking the current modeling of the AIM-120C. You may look at it as balance where I see it as fixing game breaking features.

I personally cannot say, nor do I have the clearance or legal means to confirm the behavior of what should be realistically modeled, but an educated guess would tell you: No, this interaction should not be happening. It's an issue with the code and how the missile switches between HOJ and standard tracking guidance.

The F-14 jammer blinks so quickly that it denies the missile's ability to HOJ as currently modeled on both ends

As currently implemented, a jamming aircraft cannot be seen by the radar until entering 29NM. Other airframes like the F-15 and F-18 can see jamming aircraft well outside of their own detection range due to the obvious nature of noise jammers. However, the F-16's radar fails to even see the jamming until getting into 29 miles at which point you'd be able to lock up the target anyways. Tested on: Private multiplayer server Test subjects: all players Map: Caucuses Game version: 2.7.9.18080 Alamo_Training_V6-20220105-154111.trk

The only thing I would really like to see as an addition to the F-14 would be graphical change to the back seat when the LANTIRN is attached to switch the fish bowl out for the PTID. Like, I would love to get the PTID functionality, but I would be more than happy to simply get it as a visual change in the back like how the LANTIRN control panel is added upon putting the pod on.

I honestly don't know what would cause this besides some liberal coding of the missiles, but HB reverted the Sparrows on the F-14 back to the ED missiles, so you would need to direct these complaints to them. Other than that, are you completely sure the target being fired upon does not have a jammer? Because there is currently no way for the Tomcat to discern a jamming contact from a non-jamming one. The radar is completely unaffected by jamming at all at this current time.

Again, I believe your interpretation of the wording is simply wrong. Obviously, I have know way of knowing whether or not this is the case besides reading your statements and then cross examining with my own documentation. Here, in this excerpt talking specifically about the TWS launch and track method, it specifically states that each missile is guided via assigned coded messages for the tracked target the missile was assigned to on launch. It would then guide to target using AWG-9 commands until commanded active. It even states that if active missile fails to lock then the missile would be guided all the way to target anyways via the AWG-9 messages. They even say that the missile going active is a "transfer" of guidance, and not simply activating the seeker. Nowhere in this does it state that the missile requires PD reflection to guide in TWS. If that were the case it would not be able to guide multiple missiles at once. Especially in a situation of a bomber formation. How would your supposed doppler gate work against an organized group of bombers all flying practically exactly the same?

I still can't seem to understand your reasoning or evidence for the AIM-54 actually looking for PD reflections during it's mid-course phase, especially in a multi-launch TWS situation. Would the missile not become confused by the reflections off multiple targets? I think that your interpretation of the SD/A functionality might be a bit too literal. Plus, if the missile were "actively" looking for the PD reflections during mid-course then it wouldn't be considered passive guidance. And again, from all I've read, the AIM-54 would guide all the way until the terminal phase strictly through updates from the radar, not from the missile's ability to see PD reflections. Also, as far as the radar dish is concerned: I know the 54 has a larger dish and therefore could have a longer seeker range for PD. I just don't know how much farther. On the note of the sparrow numbers you gave, from all the sources I've seen, the 7F had a max seeker range of 22NM, 26 for the 7M, and then somewhere in the low 30s for the 7P.

No, you are still required to maintain lock the entire time for PD-STT launches. It's just that the behavior of the missile mid-course is the same in both TWS and PD-STT. The terminal phase is what is different between the two launch methods. The AIM-54 doesn't have lock-on after launch capabilities as far as I am aware. Would you mind posting a screenshot of the exact wording? Because from the missile testing documentation I have, it's more expressly stated that these are guidance updates from the AWG-9's own telemetry calculations than it is from the seeker looking for PD reflections. Looking for the reflections at range also wouldn't make much sense given the significantly smaller dish inside the missile and the fact that it is not a CW-guided weapon. I know it looks out for it in STT during the terminal phase as per my documentation, but not during the mid-course phase.

The AIM-54A did have DL mid-course guidance. It didn't require being able to see radar reflections until the terminal phase. It would guide passively to target via mid course radar DL updates in both TWS and PD-STT until powering it's seeker for either active(in TWS) or semi-active(PD-STT) terminal guidance. In TWS, this is specifically called Sample Data/Active or SD/A. This is from a 1975 Phoenix flight test study done at California State University, Northridge.

IRL, the AIM-54A was not deemed suitable against fighter targets by the US Navy. Iran used them because it's all they had and they were fighting export 50s/60s/70s Soviet aircraft. Even when 54C was introduced, some units used only sparrows through the Gulf War. However, the AIM-54C was quite good against fighters. There is documentation on a test shot conducted against a high-G maneuvering QF-86 within 10NM where the phoenix scored a hit. But as far as legitimately being used against fighters at range, it really does heavily depend on parameters, but more so on the intelligence and technology of the other fighter. Not all aircraft have sophisticated RWRs, cold war Russian aircraft are a good example of that. I know AI are omnipotent, but as far as real life goes this is a major factor. Also, the training of the pilots. Are they even trained to fight against Fox-3 capable jets in a head on engagement? Can their RWR even detect if they've been spiked and launched on? (Examples from the Gulf War) There's more than just the kinematics at play. However, if you really care about the kinematics than you really should only be taking shots at a max of 40 or so miles against fighter targets above 30k. The air density in DCS decreases exponentially, so you'd never feasibly be able to make shots longer than 30NM below something like 20k especially with the current loft profile. IRL, it's the same thing. Fighters aren't usually cruising around at 30k like they are in DCS. Most non-interceptor engagements in history were conducted at very low altitude. You're just not hitting something maneuvering 50 miles away at 10k feet even with a phoenix. Plus, from the F-14 crewmembers that have spoken about the use of the AIM-54, you're going to get a fighter employment number between 30-45NM anyways.

And AIM-7F kill with a 50k ft altitude difference at 45 miles lol. Wish the Sparrow was that good

I know there's already a thread talking about this Tomcast episode, but I'm not here to talk about the AIM-54 Phoenix. I had one specific thing come to my attention when watching the video and it was a short question from Bio to Wahoo about whether or not the AWG-9 had a TTI counter yet. This question came when Wahoo was talking about an AIM-7F shoot against a TALOS cruise missile in 1979. Wahoo said they did not have TTIs just yet(or that he was unsure), but BIO did. The question is asked at at almost 51:00 exactly (video linked starts at 50:48). So, I'm wondering if we can get, or ever will get, a TTI counter for the AIM-7 Sparrow. I know the AIM-54 already has one, but I don't see as to why the Sparrow wouldn't have one given that the Phoenix still gets one when fired in semi-active. I know it's a bit of anecdotal evidence, but I don't really have a better source other than two legitimate F-14 RIOs talking about it.

Good to hear! I didn’t know the DDD was supposed to be like that, but the bearing display on the TID getting fixed should help out a ton. Thanks!

It was a relatively recent fix to the Tomcat where the bearing line on the TID when in STT would not adjust in azimuth while banking and turning until after the turn was complete. The same issue still persists on the DDD when in both PD-STT and P-STT. It makes it very difficult, as a RIO, to accurately determine azimuth changes while maneuvering in STT trying to not break gimbal limits. Not only this, but the TID also still displays incorrect bearing info while maneuvering which, while repeated on the DDD, is not what's repeated on the TID's target bearing line. I hope this gets investigated and fixed whenever possible. Thank you, HB team.

The AIM-54C already has a slightly better motor than the A with the mk47. It’s about 5% stronger. Plus, the better range and whatnot would probably have to come from a better loft profile. The current profile certainly seems half done with how aggressive the missile course corrects and how little lead the missile pulls. So, HB will have to fully model, not only the missile as a whole, but the digital seeker head improvements over the A before we see any super great improvements outside of it going active on its own.