Timo Niemelä
-
Posts
16 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Timo Niemelä
-
-
Hi,
Long before discovering DCS videos and this forum, I tried figuring out A- and F-pole distances for Phoenix's launched in the famous six-on-six test by compiling information from various books and the web. In case someone else is interested in this test or even wants to replicate it in DCS, here's some stuff:A book by Mike Spick has a nice illustration of the test, showing in which order the drones were engaged:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his book James Perry Stevenson offers some pictures that display the positions of the F-14 and the drones at various points during the test. However, after cross-referencing other sources, I concluded that the scale is most likely displayed in statute miles, not nautical miles, despite what it says.
Archived report by Forecast International states: "six AIM-54As were launched within 37 seconds against six drones at ranges up to 80 kilometers (43.19 nautical miles)" This is spot on the distance between drone E (first target according to Spick) and the F-14 at "first launch" if scale is assumed to be in regular miles. (God I love the metric system...)
The last picture states "last missile active", but doesn't specify which missile is considered "last". My assumption is that since drone D suffered a radar augmentation failure and was discounted from the test, this might refer to the point when Phoenix number 5 goes pitbull, with other missiles already in terminal stage (except number 6).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I estimated launch distance for each missile based on drone speeds and launch intervals (There's a video on youtube named F-0442 F-14 Progress Report #7 that has actual footage of the launches), adjusted the scale to what is hopefully correct and put together this...
It may be totally inaccurate since even the sources contradict each other to at least some degree. The picture in Spick's book shows the drones getting hit at a much greater distance, but the illustration is cartoonish and most likely not meant to represent all distances accurately. Spick also states that the first Phoenix was launched from a distance of 31 Nmi, which doesn't even agree with the illustration on the previous page.
Some observations:
-The AIM-54 isn't exactly reaching warp speed at this altitude...
-I assume the AWG-9 was required to guide all six missiles simultaneously at some point, so no missile could be allowed to reach pitbull before the last one had began receiving mid-course guidance. Presumably for this reason the crew selected first three targets manually.
-Can't help but to notice the F-14 approached the drone formation from a rather weird angle that seems even more puzzling after watching FlyandWire's awesome video on intercept geometry (Thanks @Karon for providing excellent and informative content!!). Any ideas why?-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, skywalker22 said:
You/we should know the main purpose of real AIM-54, it was designed for one thing only, and this was to intercept (slow maneuvering) Soviet bombers, not agile fighters and cruse missiles. Phoenix was never intended to be an anti-fighter weapon.
It's a common misconception that the Phoenix couldn't be effectively used against other fighters. It was tested against small, maneuvering targets back in the 70's and again with the C-model in the 80's. Yes, it's primary role was a long range carrier defense weapon against bombers and it was reserved mainly for this role (at least the A-model) because it was large, expensive and no other missile could be effectively employed in this role. This doesn't mean it somehow cannot hit a fighter.
Here's an article where Dave "Bio" Baranek talks about the Phoenix vs fighters thing. He mentions how the Phoenix repeatedly hit fighter-sized targets in tests and that they trained using the AIM-54C against simulated Mig-29's.https://jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279
"Smokin" Joe Ruzicka mentioning how remarkably agile this missile was for its size:
https://jalopnik.com/an-elite-f-14-airman-explains-why-the-tomcat-was-so-imp-1610043625
Quote:
"---They reported back that the first Phoenix was "Boola Boola", meaning a direct hit and completely destroying the drone. They said what happened next was pretty amazing. The second Phoenix quickly made an adjustment off what was left of the drone and hit the largest remaining part. Remember, this 1,000lb missile is traveling at Mach 3.0 and only a couple of miles behind the first missile, so there was very little time for the missile to react."
The two first USN Phoenix shots didn't work simply because the missiles were improperly armed and as a result, their motors never ignited. This doesn't tell anything about their actual capabilities. I don't know much about the third time the Phoenix was used in combat by the USN, but it seems the target was well outside the missiles no-escape zone when it made a U-turn and ran.
-
8
-
-
19 hours ago, RustBelt said:
The big thing with the C was. The airframes and motors were already bought, and it could be used as a bigger, easier to work with proof of concept. By the time of the C, the NAVY knew that they were never getting any real work out of the phoenix. So you either just throw out Millions of dollars or you make some lemonade and learn some stuff with already amortized frames.
We know the 14D tested and was going to be ready to carry AIM-120s before they were end of life. But they never got rid of the Phoenix to justify doing that because 14Ds were better at being bombcats given that carriers always operated with joint forces protection anywhere shooting was happening. So the C was just a means of recouping losses in the AIM-54 program through testing for newer FOX-3 development.
That makes perfect sense. The successor of the Phoenix was to become in the form of a completely new missile (AIM-152) that was already in the works and bore very little resemblance to that 60's thing it was meant to replace. Even though the Phoenix airframe would have allowed fitting a much more powerful motor (like the R-37 which finally entered service after decades in "development Hell"), it still would have resulted in an oversized missile that could be carried in fewer numbers with extra drag and weight.
Like you said, there was simply no reason to go all out on the AIM-54C, in fact the opposite, for making the best use of tax dollars.
The fact that the F-14D never got the AMRAAM makes sense as well. The Tomcat was headed towards retirement as soon as the Super Tomcat 21 got cancelled in favor of the Super Hornet, and given the existing stockpile of pricey AIM-54's only the Tomcats could use, it's hard to justify upgrading the F-14D's to carry other FOX3's.
-
2 hours ago, GGTharos said:
A, B, C1-4 use the original rocket motor. C5 to some version of D use a different all-boost rocket motor, and there's been no news that I recall that it has been changed since. All other performance relates to electronics, guidance, target detection, ECM rejection etc.
Thanks! If you have links / sources on more detailed info about different AMRAAM variants please let me know. Does the D have a more powerful motor or is the extra range a result of squeezing everything out of the guidance computer?
-
12 hours ago, IronMike said:
I was mainly talking aim120c, the b will be much easier to go against, but it is still a successor to the aim54, a more modern, newer missile, and will have advantages and disadvantages alike.
That contrast has left me pondering what was even the point in upgrading the Phoenix instead of adopting the AIM-120, given that the AMRAAM was just around the corner and the C-model seems nothing but an expensive paper tiger in that context.
Apologies for this bitter tone, I can’t help but to feel disappointed that the 1000 pounds of Cold War nostalgia called the Phoenix was far from being a weapon that in any way complimented the finest member of the prestigious Tomcat lineage, the F-14D. Then again, it was just a stopgap measure until the AIM-152 so understandably there was no reason to upgrade it very far.
With the awesome APG-71 and the passive tracking and targeting capabilities provided by the IRST, the F-14D should have been the king of BVR right until the F-22 came to claim that throne in 2005. Instead it ended up being the only teen-series fighter forced to carry obsolete junk while everyone else got to frolic around with their brand spanking new AMRAAMs. But the Cold War was over and that meant so was the Tomcat.
Adding insult to injury, the Russians developed their R-33 Phoenix-clone into a truly hypersonic ultra long range missile, scoring a hit at 300km in 1994 test.I'll try to get over my frustration somehow
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Spurts said:
I thought DCS only had the B and C-5 AMRAAM.
You may be right, I don't play DCS myself (...yet, at least)
-
2 hours ago, IronMike said:
But within 40nm, ofc the aim120 will and should win.
Would this be the case with any AMRAAM model or just the AIM-120C-7? (DCS features multiple AIM-120 variants, right?) If I'm not mistaken, there's quite a performance gap between A, B and C, and a considerable range difference even between a C-6 and C-7. I believe the Navy requested extended range for the C-7 specifically to counter the (soon to be) absence of the AIM-54C+.
-
On 9/21/2022 at 2:41 PM, Lurker said:
Are there any tests, real world Phoenix tests down low? As in below 30,000 feet or lower?
Here's one. From a book by Mike Spick (Modern fighting aircraft F-14) This is the AIM-54A.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, Machalot said:14 hours ago, Sindar said:
But NASA knows better.
What does this mean? In this thread there is a graph showing a good match between DCS and the NASA sim results.
I think he was just surprised to learn about the Phoenix's relatively weak motor, but acknowledged that NASA probably has the most accurate data. I don't think he disagreed with the sim results.
I think many of us here were rather surprised to find out how low the C's impulse actually was. You'd think they would have equipped it with something more powerful to compliment its long range potential.
-
6 hours ago, near_blind said:
In the R-27 the USSR had finally achieved something approaching parity with the AIM-7. Without spending a page droning on about BVR, the tl;dr is you never want to fight on an equal footing if you can help it.
Agree. I didn't mean that they necessarily expected the R-27 to be better than the Sparrow (poor framing on my part), but rather that it no longer provided a sufficient edge. Plus you need to leave room for error when estimating the capabilities of the enemy. Underestimating might prove catastrophic and not much was known about the R-27 at the time.
I feel the AIM-152 would have allowed the Tomcat to live up to its true potential (okay maybe even more so when combined with an AESA radar on the ST21) Even though the AIM-54C offered improved performance, it was envisioned as a stopgap measure, not a long term solution. Too bad it ended up being the big Cat's sharpest claw.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Sindar said:
P.S. The reasonableness of adopting an aircraft with such a powerful radar and such energetically weak missiles raises doubts. But NASA knows better.
I've also wondered why the AIM-54C received such a weak motor. The AMRAAM was in the works roughly during the same time, so clearly there should have been more efficient propellant options available. It doesn't make sense to upgrade all the electronics of a very expensive missile and then upgrade the motor as well, but with one that limits the missiles performance. Yes there was less smoke, but judging from AIM-54C test launch videos still quite a bit.
And when the C-model entered service, it was very much expected to counter thread from enemy fighters, not just to hit bombers. I quote Dave “Bio” Baranek from an internet article:
"When we started to get serious about the threat, especially when the AA-10 Alamo arrived, we realized we had to employ AIM-54s against enemy fighters. So of course we began to train with them. I think the capability was in TACTS all along, we just never used it. Fortunately the Navy introduced the AIM-54C in 1987, when we really needed it.
----One of the coolest visuals I remember was from TACTS debriefs at Fallon, when a division of Tomcats launched AIM-54Cs against simulated Fulcrums at 30-plus miles."
It sure sounds like the Sparrow wasn't expected to cut it against the R-27.
-
3 hours ago, Pally said:
p.s: If Timo Niemelä is reading this, have a peek at FlyandWire.com
I'll check that out.
I first fell in love with the mightiest of Grumman's Cats when I got a model F-14A for my 6th birthday back in -94. Nothing cooler than that could not exist. I had forgotten all that enthusiasm for fighter jets for decades until the Finnish HX -Challenge was brought up frequently in the news and a "big" Air Show in 2017 (big as in Finnish standards = anything with a jet engine and an afterburner flies around) sparked a friend of mine to ask me if I ever had a favorite fighter aircraft. My answer: "Well there was this thing called the Tomcat that got retired because apparently it was too bad-ass for the post -Cold War world...let me look into it."
Man if I could travel back in time...the only thing I wanna see is a Tomcat doing a knife edge wing sweep pass!
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, IronMike said:
the Tomcat remains a mythical beast, especially when you start creating rather realistic scenarios.
That's gotta be the best sales pitch ever!
If I manage to save enough money for a new PC, I might give it a go...
-
4
-
-
49 minutes ago, IronMike said:
it is great to see that our work sparks interest even outside of DCS. I hope you find what you came looking for.
I've got 7 books about fighter planes in my bookshelf (6 of which are about the F-14), but I didn't even begin to comprehend the basics of the fine art of modern air combat until I began watching DCS videos on youtube. So yes, this game has fascinating, educational value, even for those who do not play it! Yes, it's only a simulator, but clearly the best representation of the actual capabilities of fighter jets we can have in a public space.
Since I've allowed myself to become a "Tomcat fanboy", it was disappointing to learn that you can't call the Phoenix a hypersonic missile (especially since it's such a trendy word at the moment, ha ha)....but now I have an even deeper appreciation for the fine nuances that actually matter in the right context. That is thanks to you. And I guess this has been a lesson that all missile max speed figures should be taken with a grain of salt...
Since I am what you might call "an information hoarder", I'd be overjoyed if you could make a thread / share the sources on publicly available info on the AIM-54C/C+ (AIM-54A is much easier to find, but I've been chasing any document that says the C could go active on its own). Doens't matter that much if you can't though, I know everything you apply to the game is based on solid source material.
Thumbs up for you guys!P.S. So disappointed that the US Navy never went through with the AIM-152. The big Cat could have had so much sharper claws...
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 9/5/2022 at 9:55 PM, Cobra847 said:
Re guidance- we hope to make further improvements in this area, however it requires the help of our partners and moving the missile to the new schema. We'll be driving this topic forwards as quickly as possible. Guidance can have significant effects on kinematics, and over the years both guidance and our subsequent kinematics have changed. Right now, we've chosen to make a missile that is as close as possible aerodynamically - even if guidance isn't perfect yet. This to leave ourselves with the correct foundation for any improvements that should come from guidance, not aerodynamics, possibly at the cost of lessened performance for a time.
Perhaps this could explain why the current Phoenix seems "too slow" while being extremely accurate at the same time.
Given what you said, I decided to make some remarks based on the 1980 DoD document and introduce some thoughts:
1: The AIM-54A was able to hit Mach 4.3 when launched at no higher than 48 800 ft (this is listed as the highest demonstrated launch altitude). Launch speed is not mentioned, but I haven't found any test launch done at more than M1.5...
2: The upgraded AIM-54C was at least expected to be faster. (Perhaps the M5 number was total BS, but the max distance was expected to increase as well, suggesting that at least some improvement into speed overall could be possible. Of course the additional range might be due to better guidance or a higher max launch altitude [although how is an F-14 supposed to fly much higher, let alone at 60 000 feet??] )
3: Assuming the C has the same rocket motor impulse as the A, the only conclusion is that the C is able to utilize a more optimized loft trajectory / flight profile that allows the missile to make better use of same amount of propellant energy. Meaning better guidance can make a big difference. The document does acknowledge that the C was going to be slightly heavier.
Hypothesis: The A was kinematically able to exceed Mach 4.3, but limited guidance tech kept its speed range relatively low. In the longest range real world test (110Nmi launch range, missile covered a horizontal distance of 72,5Nmi in 157,2s) for example, I think its plausible that the missile exceeded Mach 4, but drift due to older INU forced it to make course corrections that dragged its speed down faster, resulting in the observed mean speed of around Mach 3. If I remember correctly, the loft is done under an autopilot and the missile will begin receiving guidance from the AWG-9 during the "mid-phase" of flight -even with PDSTT mode. (correct me if I'm wrong!)
Conclusion: There is nothing wrong with the current DCS AIM-54A model since it gives results that match the real world tests, but the C could/should be able to achieve a higher mean speed overall if/when guidance gets updated. I don't know what the difference is between A and C now, I don't play DCS myself. The reason I'm here is to learn more about the Phoenix, and the awesome ground work by the Heatblur developer team makes this forum a goldmine for detailed information. My sincerest Thanks!!
So, does any of this sound reasonable?
Btw, some sources state that the maximum launch speed for the Phoenix was Mach 1.6. Is this perhaps a recommendation or the highest launch speed recorded rather than an actual limit..? In DCS it is clearly possible to launch a Phoenix at a higher speed.And while I'm at it...
... a question closely related to the topic: A book by John Lake states: "deck launched intercept radius (for F-14A) with four Phoenix, two Sparrows, two Sidewinders and external fuel : 134 nm at Mach 1.5". I have assumed that this means the available range when the F-14 gets off the deck and accelerates to Mach 1.5, meaning a Tomcat could hit at least M1.5 with such loadout. Is this correct?
I ask because some have stated that getting the F-14 to that speed with a heavy loadout is extremely difficult or borderline impossible.Thanks.
-
2
-
DCS: F-14 Development Update - AIM-54 Phoenix Improvements & Overhaul - Guided Discussion
in DCS: F-14A & B
Posted
Where did you get this graph? Can I find similar ones somewhere with different loadouts or for different aircraft? I'd love to compare the Tomcats performance with something like the F-15 or especially the Super Hornet...