Airhunter

Does it still get SARH mid-course in PD-STT though? With the switch active prior to launch that is.

For you. Not for others or people who know how to counter it. I have been flying against the 14 online since the Tomcat came out and never had any issues dealing with them and their missiles. And again, please give me a day or two to run said tests and show you hard, up to date evidence.

This will not be against AI but a player vs. player setup, BVR start at 35k feet.

Now you are just making up theories in your own head. This is never a consideration or concern. Not sure about the latter either I just remember someone (I think IronMike) posting the correct behavior of the missile in various modes and mentioning this. But being the same as in P-STT would also make sense.

If all you are getting your opinion from is "flying online" then this is the end of our discussion. And no I have not lately if you are wondering. The only thing that changed as of recent with the API is the increased chaff resistance and ability to re-acquire in the terminal phase. Specifically for you I will do some tests with a friend of mine, him in the 14 chucking 6 Aim-54A Mk. 60's at me and me defeating 95+ % of them in say a Mig-21 or 29. Tacviews and videos to follow. Again, DCS and missile modeling is not based around airquake or some very small competitive scene who are all screeching like little children. This is not what PH ACT does. PH ACT simply commands the missile active off the rail in PD modes (no loft) but as far as I understood still SARH mid-course as long as there is a lock, latter of which is missing in DCS.

It's not my opinion. It's the exact same seeker as on the 54A Mk.47 and probably the easiest missiles in DCS to beat and spoof if you know what you are doing.

There is no improved ECM resistance or even such a thing in DCS. Motor is also reduced smoke and not entirely smokeless (as it should be). Have you even read some of the document excerpts in this thread?

Hearblur has documentation and logic diagrams on the A. It does not overperform by DCS standards. The R-27 family is also fully analogue. Your comments on the AMRAAM could be made by a 12 year old at this point and you have no idea what you are talking about. Advanced is neither a techical nor scientific term describing anything it is purely there for marketing as the acronym AMRAAM sounded good for the polticians. However we know for a fact that the C and 120A share a lot of components (documented by the same part/unit designation). Not to mention that both were developed by Raytheon roughly during the same timeframe. Why reinvent the wheel for each project so to speak.

Glad we can agree on that.

It does not prove it for a fact obviously and yes modern semi-active missiles, well whatever you can call modern, like the R-27 and AIM-7 all have an INS. However, we know they are semi-active and rely on the plane's radar reflection to guide on in the terminal phase. We also know that even the 54A had the capability to go active off the rail or when commanded by the WCS. So if I'm an engineer working on the 54C program and finding out that we are goimg to use a strap-down INS in said upgraded missile as well as all new digital electronics I'd have a hard time not to make it as lethal and smart as possible and give it the ability to guide better and know where it is in space at all times. It would be really surprising to me that the same company that's working on an active AIM120 during the same timeframe would simply ignore those capabilities and findings for the in-house 54C given no real space restrictions like with the AMRAAM. And yes, obviously DCS and the missile API are very limiting and by themselves an educated guess on how missiles guide and work. I'd also be curious whether you guys CFD'd the 54A or C model? Because the A had additional "bulges" on the outside which would result in a slightly different aero than the C and more drag, especially at AOA. I guess we will see where this leads us once you guys implement the full, new missile API from ED. I sure hope the C will be a noticeable improvement compared to the A by then.

So the 54C behaving like the 54A (in some cases worse) is not a best guess on your end either?

What he is saying is that this very thing is never a consideration for weapon development. You want your weapon to be as lethal and capable as possible, leaving ROE's up to the one who employs it. By that logic any heater or fox-1 can jump targets if the right conditions are met. Modern missiles like the METEOR can even be re-assigned to a different target when in flight. DCS airquake isn't the real world.

Exactly, at some point ALL or most DCS weapons are guesswork, especially the AMRAAM as most of what is known about it is either based on some old HUD footage, general missile guidence algo's or simply other sims which shall not be named. So what kind of evidence and proof outside of the actual weapons and employment manuals or logic diagrams (which we'll never see) would be needed to get this straight? Or why does said developer feel such resistance to these suggestions? Does he feel having the 54C behave and guide exactly like the A is more realistic despite said evidence or reports of improvements in guidence? An educated guess on new data is just as much if not less of a guess as the C behaving like an A which there is also 0 evidence for. And again it is pretty anecdotal and laughable if you claim to have some accurate simulation of both Phoenix variants yet the C underperforms in amost all aspects compared to the A in your simulation of it. No one here is claiming to know some secret and be in the know on how it should perform but these reports at least indicate a similarity to the 120A, especially given no space restrictions - same manufacturer, roughly the same era. I think 20 some years of development and improvement should at least make one or two leaps in certain areas. Not to mention if you asked former crew about what missile they would rather take into combat all of them say 54C no doubt. So again, I don't understand some choices that were made at HB. Why have the 54C in the game alltogether if there is no data available on it apart from the usual CFD treatment the entire 54 family has gotten (even though the 54A has a slightly different geometry and weight)? I'd be at least happy if we could get proper, white AIM-54A textures to visually differentiate the two like you can with most munitions and missiles in DCS. Especially now that the 54C is pretty much made up and a worse A. This isn't some attack or jab at the developer or Heatblur, I just genuinely don't understand the logic behind this. To me it sounds like "We have made the choice/guess early in the development to make the 54C behave just like the A but somehow be worse, and are now just sticking with it because we don't have further hard data and documentation despite some reports and indications that came up along the road that indicate certain differences". At this point I'm not even saying or sticking with the fact that it should go active on its own but it should at least have the well documented higher ceiling, smoother guidence and reach Mach 5+ due to said higher ceiling. In short, be a better choice than the 54A in almost all scenarios. This should be the goal no matter how it's achieved.

Well, if you at least listen to Klarsnow (not me, as I don't work in the military nor know any specifics) you'd understand that command/inertial indeed describes the very way an AMRAAM or any modern Fox-3 missile behaves. Command/Inertial is not mentioned with regards to the AIM-54A or a Fox-1 as far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong). Having a strap-down INS really comes down to the missile knowing where it is in space and with relation to the target track as well as having memory for when the command phase might be lost or broken (loss of radar support). According to the same report the 54C seeker and guidence & control system had a programmable database and target parameters, which stems from the more digital nature of said missile. It had a higher max. ceiling than the 54A and could allegedly go Mach 5+ for this very reason. The new seeker as well as the mention of better dealing with cluster as well as beaming targets probably implies some sort of PRF change (possible MPRF like in the AMRAAM) or being programmable for specific target parameters as mentioned bfore. Furthermore the 54C did not havy any space restrictions like the AMRAAM did and a much bigger seeker as well as contrl & guidence section. The only anecdotal part of this discussion is how the 54C is legitimately worse in your simultion than the 54A (especially Mk60 engine kinematics wise), since the ccm does not really matter that much in DCS (spam more chaff to get a new roll of the dice). Should you be able to find and share a reference to the 54A having command/inertial guidence as well then that would be a legitimate proof of us being in the wrong here.

By this logic, if you guys know nothing about the 54C then why is it in the game? The are various reports and evals. done by the navy which state its sometimes 4x fold increase in capability and more range (probably due to said command inertial guidence and said on board INS) compared to the 54A. It is at the point where our in-game AIM54A's show up as 54C's (texture wise). While adjusting ccm values in game for the C is probably one reasonabe option it's still not a true representation of what is described in various places and reports. Also you guys requesting exact evidence in the form of weapon manuals is basically asking for something you'll probably never get and ignoring the publicaly available information that we have (hence this thread). If you have 0 documentation on the 54C why ask for counter-evidence for the information we already have rather than accept it and make some educated guesses based on these sources and the fact that it's Raytheon. Because right now there is even less evidence and documentation for how the 54C is behaving in the game. It even lofts way lower than the 54A as of right now.

The D also had a ton of avionics changes in the pilot's cockpit and a new "HOTAS".Can't really compare the D to the B. And the engine (to my knowledge?) was pretty much the same as in the B (minus potential AFC's).

Good to hear! I also hope the ACM cover behavior for the MH will work proper now.

Hopefully this is finally fixed next patch. The switch to ED's AIM-7's happened a long time ago afaik.

I thought this was regarding the Phoenix?

@IronMikeIs this something you guys are aware of for the next major patch? Sparrows have been broken or simply working wrong for the past year or so.

Well, ideally we'd have SC parity with HB's own crew models and animations but those take a significant amount of time and ED probably has a say in this as well. I just finally want the Forrestal as is in the game after a 1+ year delay.

With METEOR's two-way datalink it should be possible. Not with the ingame 120C5 though.

It's neither an A seeker nor a C seeker, it is DCS API. So many limitations that come with it.

Another thing - how soon after the Forrestal will we see Saratoga? Would be a perfect fit for the early 90's 14B.