Strider21

For sure it a system of systems but I disagree with the idea that the changes in the recent simply reduced the range performance. They seem to be 100% worse under the identical conditions as before. I hear you and understand your point. But again the recent patch didn't just change FM there seems to be other things going such that at least in my experience/test the 54C is no longer effective in game. If the flight model is 100% accurate but the missile will never hit due to other reasons it is not usable to the player.

No I understand they had the kinematic energy. The reason I use the ACE AI Su-30 with chaff is this is what I have found to highest threat AI aircraft and represents what I would see in a DCS mission. Running the scenario without chaff and getting higher Pk won't really then represent what I will see in a mission. Exact same setup pre-patch netted 50% Pk. In realistic "game" scenario against a Su-30 I would argue the 54C is not effective at 25NM or 30NM. Maybe its better at 20NM but I haven't run the test.

Appreciate the comment. In all these test the AI had chaff. In previous test pre-patch, with the same conditions (AI with CHAFF) Pk was about 50%

@IronMike I appreciate the time you guys are taking to look into this issue. This is obvious but just to be clear I have no idea how a real AIM-54C should perform and am glad you guys are happy that it matches the CFD data. That being said in its current state, at least by my testing, it isn't just a reduction in range but there seems to massive drop in percentage kill. In a previous comment you said something along the lines that the performance is reduced but is still usable. My experience is different. I ran 25 shots of the AIM-54C (TACVIEW attached). All shots were in SP with Jester with an airstarted F-14B. Conditions were the NTTR map, with default ISA weather conditions, and the target was a ACE AI Su-30 with A2A loadout but no jammer. The target size switch for all shots was NORMAL. For the first two shots I included a crank post-firing but stopped but doing that so that there was no thought the radar was losing track. The shots were taken in TWS-AUTO. Some scripting was used to spawn the SU-30. In all shots the target roughly started co-alt (25K) but tended to dive in defense. The first 10 shots the firing aircraft was a ~25K ft ~0.98 MACH at ~30 NM range to target. The second 15 shots the firing aircraft was a ~25K ft ~0.98 MACH at 25 NM to the target. The results were as follows: 30 NM 0/10 (0% Pk) 25 NM 0/15 (0% Pk) Having run this test pre-patch I was roughly seeing 50% Pk when the AIM-54C was fired at 35NM. I appreciated that data sets of 10 and 15 are not statistically significant but this is a limitation these tests. From these tests IMHO it is hard not to conclude that at least against the AI Su-30 the AIM-54C is not effective at 25 NM or 35 NM when co-alt at 25K. Is this real-life performance? Of course nobody knows. Is this a realistic setup and adversary for the F-14B? perhaps not. I would love to hear any critique on this setup or what I can do to improve Pk of the AIM-54C is this scenario. The TACVIEW file was unfortunately 6 MB (over the forum limit) but is a link to a google drive upload. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bXMP9mw5-gkLJugt2p4Ap5X1Pao4Za8j/view?usp=sharing

Just checked and this bug is still present in 2.7.9. Trac k File demonstrating the issue on the Forrestal, Stennis and SC attached. server-20211223-133518.trk

When you spawn 2 (or more) F-14s in MP on the Forrestal, Stennis or SC they will take damage to the wings. Track file demonstrating the damage on each of the carriers is attached. This bug limits the ability to use F-14 in multiplayer groups. If anyone has a work around for this bug it would be most appreciated. The bug has been around since Sept or Oct. server-20211223-133518.trk

Appreciate it.

Not sure if it is related to wing sweep but you cannot spawn more than one F-14 in MP next to each other (empty deck) on the SC, Stennis or Forrestal without causing damage to one or both of the F-14 clients. Has been this way since the Forrestal was released.

@IronMike Any chance to get a comment on what appears to be a wing sweep bug when spawning in MP. See thread above.

Same here. Haven't been able to reliability spawn F-14s in MP together for a couple months. Is this something HB is looking at or aware of? Kinda kills the ability to use the F-14 in MP on the SC, Stennis or Forrestal. I understand things take time and HB has lot of things on the go and I know maybe the MP player base isn't the focus but an update from HB would be most appreciated.

Does anyone have a technique to spawn more than one F-14 in MP? Every time I try to do it the two F-14s spawn next to each other and damage their wings? This happens on the SC and Forrestal. It happens on public servers and locally hosted user missions. Not sure if this a ED or HB bug to fix. It used to work but sometime this summer/fall it started happening.

I also have this problem in basiclly any MP mission with F-14 spawns on the SC. It used to work fine up until a patch sometime this summer. Somewhat related in MP F-14s cannot use CATs adjacent to each other (ie 1&2 or 3&4). I get that this is EA but it really prevents the SC being used in MP with the SC.

@Arew Thanks! I agree that sounds very plausible. Perhaps the art (texture) in DCS doesn't quite match RL.

The upper White Bars range from around ~5500 lbs/hr to ~11000 lbs/hr and low band is from ~1100 lbs/hr to ~3100 lbs/hr. For setting optimum fuel flows these are huge ranges. Above about 30,000 ft you won't even see fuel flows above ~5500 lbs/hr so you cannot even set the fuel flow in that range. And at 25,000 ft, a Full Mil throttle setting is at the very bottom of the upper White Bar range. Likewise at 25k when you can just enter the White Bar range you are still 4ish units of AOA away from best cruise speed. So the band doesn't seem to correlate with best cruise speeds. Your loiter time in the lower band ranges by a factor of ~3. Plus the AOA indicator already preciously allows you to set the optimum climb and cruise speeds at the appropriate tick marks. It is still unclear to me exactly what the White Bars are supposed to indicate to the pilot and I suspect unless there is some missing information it isn't optimum loiter or cruise fuel flows.

Can you explain how you use it? Particularly considering loiter and cruise (max range?) are two different performance conditions.

I think it is something similar but would like to see a direct reference or explanation. The top end of the upper band (11K) is around full MIL at lower levels and of course the FF gauge doesn't indicate true FF when the AB is used so I am not sure exactly how the bars are used or intended to be used. If you want best climb, cruise or max endurance you the set the AOA not the FF? Best range vs best climb are different parameters. The bars are also not mentioned in the NATOPS but the NATOPs does discuss using AOA for setting performance conditions. Also it seems odd that the lower band is only indicated on the right.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I want to know what the three white bars on the outside of the FF gauge (1 on the top left and 2 on the right) not the fuel flow tapes. Presumably they indicate some notional FF values maybe like the ticks on the AOA gauge.

What do the white bars on the fuel flow gauges indicate? They aren't mentioned in the HB Manual or the A-model NATOPS.

Thank you for the time taken to post the video. What is the time table (timeline?) you are using? What do you consider a MAR for the R-33? I agree 1v1 isn't that difficult. Even 1v2 is doable but it can result in needing to defend a whole bunch of missiles. Launch and Leave BVR timelines are designed around the ability to continuously assess the engagement and then abort if the situation changes or you no longer have the advantage. Correct me if I am wrong but in your video you essentially have to commit to the merge? Against all other threats in the F-14 you have the time and space to abort? I guess the crux of my point is that with the R-33 performance advantage you are saying you essentially you need to work to towards the WVR engagement or least within the MAR and by and large disregard launch and leave tactics. In situations like a liberation campaign where you are flying with the AI Wingman against a 2-ship of MIg-31s and potentially other threats, IMHO, this makes the Mig-31 engagement more challenging than all other threats. Attached are a couple successful engagements 1v2 against ACE AI the second required a defense against 6xmissiles, which honestly I don't think is a great tactic as if you mess up any of those you are going to get hit. Tacview-20210802-142746-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20210802-143827-DCS-F-14 vs Mig31x2 BVR.zip.acmi

I would love to be proven wrong as it would make this engagement a lot easier but currently the R-33 significantly outranges the AIM-54. You cannot employ, crank, support to pitbull, and then abort without facing a a high energy R-33. What are you using as a MAR for the R-33?

I am not sure how it relates to the real life Mig-31/R-33 but apparently it is due to the PESA radar on the Mig-31 in that it is not traditional SARH with continuous CW illumination.

Take a look my TACVIEWs. The R-33 has ton a more energy when fired at the same alt/speed/distance it will hit you before your missile goes active if you crank to gimbals. Also, as per my first post, I am already setting TGT Size - Large. This is great info. I am not sure what the difference is but in 1v2 I find the AI consistently firing at ~65nm when it starts at 25000, 0.8 Mach with ACE AI on the Nevada map. See attached TACVIEW as an example. Tacview-20210802-143827-DCS-F-14 vs Mig31x2 BVR.zip.acmi

The R-33 is SARH it doesn't go active. If you employ and crank the R-33 will reach you long before your -54s go active. Not sure if this has changed but that is the current performance delta. When you barrel roll do you maintain TWS track and continue to support? How do you time your barrel roll? Do you have an example TACVIEW file? Thanks

Can you clarify by off-angle press? Is this essentially a crank pre-employment. I understand your plan but the challenge is that in the crank/post-employment you will face a high energy R-33. I have found you need to go cold at 65nm to sufficiently bleed the R-33 before turning back hot but once you add a second Mig-31 this becomes very challenging and you ultimately end up having to defeat/evade a number of R-33s. To a certain degree it becomes a game of chance. I have added two examples. One successful and one unsuccessful. Tacview-20210802-142746-DCS.zip.acmiTacview-20210802-142037-DCS.zip.acmi

Any tips to getting to that range while facing an inbound R-33?