Grater Tovakia

So, I have been away from DCS for a while, and finally was able to sit down today and get into things. My suspicions have all been confirmed regarding the Phoenix. The vast majority of you who complain are employing it terribly wrong. In a series of missions against Veteran AI, my Phoenix's hit roughly 90% of the time. Just now on MP, I took a 50-mile shot on some low and slow missiles, lost the tracks! and the Greatest White Hope got the job done. As someone who has been eagerly waiting to see how a more accurate C model performs, I am beyond impressed. Thank you to HB and the community who have chipped away at this.

Works just fine for me, sometimes you need to micro him a little (using scan at alt and range) but more often than not letting him do his thing works for me.

My understanding is that in 89, missiles schemes were changed across the board to darker tones. This however took some time. The below image is from 89/90 iirc. This is likely the case, Im well aware asking for the white Cs is very rivet counting of me and not a big deal lol. I Just think it would be cool if they managed to pull it off.

Very cool! Does anybody know if they are going to offer a white variant for the 54C or just the A?

There were in fact uprgades to the 54As like the HAP (High Altitude Performance) mod but there is little to no info about these mini upgrades anywhere. As is the case with questions surrounding stuff like the TID tapes and their 80s upgrades there is just so many minor tweaks and such out there that we only know the name of and none of the function. Its important to remember also that not every "upgrade" would mean a quantum jump in capability, they could simply be corrective. Sorry for the late reply, Ive been out and about recently. Have a good one!

Honestly having jester checklists would be really cool.

there is no hard evidence that the 54C was ever fitted with the mk60 motor. While pictures like this offer a good case it should be remembered that 54Cs were painted white, so these could be a case of partially painted missiles and/or these are the "retrofitted upgrades" that occurred in the late 80s and into the 90s but there is no source out there that can hard confirm exactly which missiles were retrofitted/fused. On top of this, AIM-54 upkeep documentation from the 90s makes no mention of the mk60 motor only the mk47 Mod 1 which the A, C, and C ECCM Sealed all had by this time period. To be perfectly honest, I don't see any other variants coming to DCS especially seeing how slim our current knowledge on them currently is. One can dream though!

so sad, thoughts and prayers to the family. blue skies and tailwinds.

"The TARGET DATA category contains message button functionality used to modify hooked track symbols. The FRIEND, UNK (Unknown), HOST (Hostile) and MULT TGT (Multiple Target) message functions are used to mark a hooked symbol as the respective category (multiple target can be set in addition to the other three)." -http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html?highlight=mult#id17 Unless a recent change has occurred I would assume that it is implemented seeing as the DATA TRANs function which is not implemented is marked as such right beneath it.

I think some of the AIM-54C's woes come from the API. After a number of tests based off the real world 110NM AIM-54 test in the 70s (amusingly the DCS AWG and 54 were outperformed by their real world brethren) I found the AIM-54C performs worse than both the mk47A and the mk60A every single time. This is in the arena of energy retention, top speed, peak altitude in the loft, and finally the TTI. I've been meaning to expand these tests, gather more data, and maybe even complete a more detailed write up however I just wanted to drop my observations in here.

I seem to remember that during Iran tensions tests were done and the 54 was found to be a decent emergency tool against surface combatants. Never operationally used obviously. BreaKKer I have used them against ships in PAL just fine as Omega said. May be an employment issue on your end.

Ive been asking myself this as well, my interpretation was that it in essence allowed for track reassignment. However I may be totally wrong. Would love some SME/HB input on this matter.

As it seems this thread has some interest on the topic, attached is a good report done by CIA in 1979 on the Soviet bomber threat with a focus on the emerging threat into the 1980s. Personally I have always given the Soviet bombers a low chance of success, this is for a myriad of reasons really many of which are outlined in the attached report. A critical function people seem to neglect in these calculations is range, an multi axis coordinated attack sounds fantastic, but when your bombers are at their limits of fuel and you don't have a clear idea of exactly where the CVBGs is this perfect plan goes out of the window rather rapidly. Another issue here is that assuming we go by NATO's perfect number of 4 CVBGs that is a lot to contend with when your bombers are carrying at max 2 missiles each, on top of this is the Soviet leaderships estimates that this type of attack could only be performed a mere number of times given the expected losses. Add on a determined well trained enemy who has purpose built equipment for such an envoirment and who's EW and SA is far superior to your own and you have what basically equates to a suicide mission. Also for your example of 10 Backfires making it through the missile screen, 20 AS-4s no matter their capability would have a tough time breaking through any CVBG/CTF of a number greater than one and this is assuming no extra escorts, SAGs, or Standing Forces had joined with the Carrier group. Soviet Naval Aviation Antiship Doctrine.pdf

I apologize, my response was more regarding slower cruise missiles as Ironmike said and not with missiles such as the AS-4. I somewhat ignored the example the OP gave as a means by which to address the larger missile/bomber threat and how the OOB doctrine dealt with it. However I've heard it referenced about the ability to shoot down the missiles yet this may have simply been a case of lack of clarification on the missiles in question and like my comment not directed specifically at the AS-4. At the same time I would like to believe, given certain tests that had AIM-54s being launched at targets (albeit with enlarged RCS and at a difference of altitude) with closure at around Mach 4 during which Tomcats could in fact intercept said target despite the closure, that killing an AS-4 was in fact feasible despite the closure. I of course will defer to HB on this as they seem to have a good team asking the right questions, I just find it a little odd.* In spite of this it is all largely theoretical, while I am sure an attempt would be made to shoot at an AS-4 the brunt of that task would largely fall on the ships within the CVBG. I apologize again for the confusion lol. I ask that the RIOs here correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt the DATA TRANs function help negate that? if the track is lost the RIO can reassign the track no? *attached is the test I am referring to

while Outer Air Battle put the priority focus on killing the bombers, killing the missiles was a tested (and practiced) means of employment for the Tomcats and their AIM-54s.

well you exceeded 6.5 Gs which certainly couldn't have helped However that limit was a bit more admin related and less of a hard avionics/airframe limitation. The INS will drift over time and per testimony it could in fact be unreliable at points. Honestly I would chock it up to Random Failures. Personally seems a little too offset to simply be drift, do you by any chance remember how long you were flying for?

Join the 141st Royal Sidewinder's Squadron Today! The 141 offers a number of experiences like SATAL, MILSIM, and just laid back server flying. We offer training, tournaments, and a welcoming community. To become a full member is really easy, and 141 membership does not preclude you from joining other squadrons either! In the end, if you are looking for a relaxed and informative social sphere along with fun events, then hop in and check out the squadron! https://discord.gg/cv4m6Xdk

Hey there, I think this is just an Art/Animation issue but when using the "flaps up" key bind and the "flaps emergency up" keybind they both set the lever to the same position which to me seems like the Flaps EMERG UP position given the markings next to the lever. If possible I think it would be cool to implement a detent keybind along with fixing the keybinds already there, to allow for easier usage of the lever with mouse. Attached is a quick video showing me using the keybinds and the response of the flap level to those inputs: https://vimeo.com/556316041

I think that is a valid solution, I really hope EED and HB are able to figure something out.

as is standard for my personal crusade to give us new 54 textures, I am obligated to remind you the 54C was white as well

so, Just wanted to revive this after a picture was posted in Discord with a clearly white AIM-54C. Ive been saying it for a while but its nice to see some proof that AIM-54Cs through 89 (and even a little afterwards) were white. Any updates on if HB plan to attempt different AIM-54 schemes?

Bio talks about it in his interview with Mover as well as TOMCAT RIO Also it should be noted that what the OP said was not all true. The 54s were limited to fleet defense prior to the C not just because of capability but because of magazine reserves. If the Balloon went up they wanted a sizeable reserve to deal with Bombers. That again was just one factor however. Bio explains it well in both the interview and his book.

Yeah this was the position I was trying to advocate and you did it a lot better lol.

Im just parroting what I have heard, but if you look at parts the commonality is there.

There was an AIM-54B but aside from that one production document we haven't heard much about that. And yes the C+/ECCM sealed. I know that ECCM sealed was in service relatively early around the 87-88 time frame, while C+ was in 86 along with the regular C.