NeedzWD40

What was the closure rate? Altitude? Your load and attacker load? Did you immediately go evasive as soon as he launched? 5nmi head on is Sidewinder territory, if not Sparrow. I'd honestly be surprised if the AIM-54 would have time to release, acquire, and guide at such a distance against a maneuvering target. At high speeds, I can't even get an AIM-120C to hit an immediately evasive target at 5nmi on the deck. The no-escape is maybe about 4nmi for that missile in those conditions, depending on speed and quickness of evasion. Coincidentally, I was able to get a tail-on hit with an AIM-54AMk60 at 5nmi on the deck in my brief testing. The Mk47 series however did not have the juice to make it.

BLUF: Current DCS AI attack helicopter logic lacks the ability to properly leverage the AH-64's capabilities. I'll preface this by saying that this could apply to the entirety of DCS' AI helicopter logic, but for now I'm going to focus on the peculiarities that will represent issues for leveraging the AH-64 as an AI unit. For the longest time now, DCS' AI helicopter logic has basically been representative of either low threat or no threat battles. They will consistently fly at altitudes of 500 feet or higher above ground level to launch missiles, perform close range diving attacks with rockets, and over/undershoot with cannons. When threatened, their defensive action consists of diving while attempting to beam, often bouncing off the ground (and sometimes crashing entirely) while dodging threats. In other cases, they have an unparalleled ability to simply stand still while SAMs fly right by them, while simultaneously getting hammered by SACLOS weapons such as Rapier. Attacking from NOE at maximum weapon range is not in their vocabulary nor their syllabus. This is further hampered by their reaction to fast movers, which is to fly at altitude in a "come at me bro" fashion -- often catching one of the big theatre SAMs for their trouble. This AH-64D's idea of taking on a dangerous target -- a SAM site -- is to fly high and attempt to launch missiles. The two ship made a bouncing, bobbing, and weaving pattern as they got closer to the target and missiles soared past them. Rather than remain on the deck behind cover and perform a bob-up attack, they wound around in circles until the site ran out of missiles. They were then promptly shot down by SHORAD as they got close to the site. This behavior is often repeated with other targets such as T-90s or BMP-3s, which pack quite a wallop with their ATGMs -- weapons which the AI doesn't react to (despite having a laser warning system). Rather than leveraging their considerable long stick in the HELLFIRE, they get within deadly envelopes of all sorts of threats, to the point that the mission designer must set the AI to invulnerable in order to ensure some resemblance of mission success. In addition to this, AI weapon usage logic is quite simplified: Missiles > Rockets > Gun is the priority, the only exception being that cannon/guns will be used in air combat in conjunction with missiles, if available. Targets that would be better served by cannon fire are ignored as long as missiles or rockets are present on the airframe. Further, when getting close to targets (and getting the proverbial stuffing shot out of them), they will refuse to use the turreted gun or rockets to suppress threats, instead soaking up hits like an aerial target practice backstop. Rockets also represent another issue, as the AI will rarely utilize hover fire rockets nor break off attacks before coming into contact distance with targets. Oftentimes, they'll make a rocket run without shooting anything whatsoever, simply flying over the target while every 12.7mm in the theatre blasts away at them. While the current suite of AI logic is fine for some situations, they will come up short 90% of the time, especially that involving force vs force scenarios. A better decision matrix involving the helicopter's capabilities will be required, ie knowing when to stand off, when to bob up; when to hover fire, when to running fire; when and where to use the cannon, and so on. Flying up to 500ft to launch weapons is inherently dangerous, not to mention their reaction to aerial threats which is to climb as high as possible to meet the threat -- effectively playing in the other guy's territory. Because of these reasons, I hope that an overhaul of their logic is in the cards, so players can properly leverage AI flights as well as giving mission designers the tools to properly encompass a scenario.

Well, that explains it: PvP often gives conditions that would be uncommonly seen in reality and thus the AIM-54 is "nerfed" now because... It is performing kinematically per the whitepaper. I ran through your test mission and launched from 45,000ft at 70nmi on the F-16 and scored a hit, but notably the seeker had some difficulty with acquisition. I went a bit closer on the F/A-18A and opted for a 60nmi launch at 35,000ft. I was also able to score a 70nmi STT (the horror!) kill on the 10,000ft B-52 with a 40,000ft launch. From my perspective, that is pretty good performance for the conditions, well above what one can expect from any available weapon in the playable arsenal. While it is true that anyone could turn cold or notch the missile (or even zigzag at low altitude to lose TWS tracks), the fact is that the AIM-54 is offering some pretty long first-shot potential, even with the more realistic performance. Playing around at low altitudes or getting within touching distance of AMRAAMs is simply playing to the other guy's advantage and is really to be expected, as we've seen in the real world with the AMRAAM's introduction. Whether we like it or not, the F-14 and by extension, the AIM-54, is a product of its age. Expecting it to go toe-to-toe with technology decades in advance is asking a bit much.

Am I reading that right and these are launches at 3,000ft?

No, even the old AIM-54Cs are still problematic in the AI's hands.

It pains me to say this, but... Better to just use AIM-54AMk60. It seems to perform as expected, if you can get past the relatively weaker seeker.

A second set of tests in more controlled conditions has these results: The AIM-54C was fired in TWS at ~90nmi, approximately when the "HOT TRIGGER" light came on. The missile climbed to an altitude of almost 105,000ft at a pitch angle of ~45deg. At the top of its climb, the speed had dropped down to ~900KTAS. Missile made no attempt to acquire the target or follow presumed AWG-9 commands; it seemingly gave up on the descent as speed dropped down to under 700KTAS. The second test was done in STT and launch was performed at the same distance, approximately 90nmi. Behavior was identical to the TWS shot. The AIM-54AMk47 was launched in conditions approximating the AIM-54C's, except that the pitch angle seemingly topped out at 22deg. Altitude reached was similar to the AIM-54C, however energy retention was slightly greater and the missile made a couple of attempts to acquire the target. STT behavior was similar, with the exception that maximum altitude reached was ~110,000ft. The missile did not have the kinematics to hit given the conditions, despite seemingly attempting to acquire the target. The AIM-54AMk60 was launched in the same conditions as the previous two; however, maximum altitude attained was ~98,000ft with nearly twice the speed: ~1900KTAS. The missile acquired the target twice, then hit with a speed of approximately 1500KTAS. An STT launch resulted in very similar results as well as a hit. When altering the launch range to ~70nmi, the AIM-54C topped out at ~84,000ft, with a speed of 1450KTAS. The maximum pitch angle attained was 25deg. The missile acquired the target twice and hit. A second altering of the range to ~77nmi resulted in the missile missing, with a maximum height of ~95,000ft but a maximum speed of ~1200KTAS. The missile acquired the target but did not have the kinematics to make a hit. I've tried to keep test conditions as ideal as possible but naturally there will be some variances in launch altitude, speed, etc. with each track. Overall, it would seem that the Mk60 variation may be performing too well as it seemingly holds twice the energy as the Mk47 powered variations. However, the AIM-54C clearly has some guidance trouble that isn't affecting either A model, since ~70nmi seems to be a magic barrier as to whether it tracks and guides properly or performs wasteful energy-losing maneuvers. If so desired, I can make some additional tracks of the AMk47 model. I've attached the Tacview files of these tests that will hopefully give some insight into what is going on. F-14 AIM54 Tests.zip

Can do. FWIW test conditions were in the Marianas with the H-6 and J-11 as targets; I will try and correlate those conditions on the Caucasus.

Nothing scientific to report here, just some oddities in performance between the three variants (AIM-54AMk47, AIM-54AMk60, and AIM-54Mk47): It seems like the AIM-54CMk47 has some really strange changes to its guidance routine that results in a lot more weirdness than the AIM-54A series. For example, the AIM-54CMk47 climbs to an markedly higher altitude, but seems to drag more on descent. It also seems to simply quit tracking in the terminal phase, often flying right in front of the target at longer ranges. When testing launches beyond 70nmi, the missile almost always seems to get confused at goes stupid in the final seconds of flight, whether TWS or STT launches. Under that range, the missile seems to have virtually no issues and tracks very well in either mode. By contrast, the AIM-54AMk47 is able to accurately guide itself and hit targets further out and with greater accuracy, TWS or STT. I was able to destroy a bomber target in STT from 90nmi with the A model with room to spare, a feat that the C model seemingly went stupid over. The Mk60 had virtually no problems with kinematic performance at this range and greater, the only limitation being the AWG-9's ability to track a target. Beyond that, within about 50nmi the AIM-54C seems to remain the superior variant over either A model, especially against maneuvering targets.

Sorry but not legal. Unclass, yes. But not legal. Suggest you remove said link. Here's a rundown of why: https://www.wrc.noaa.gov/wrso/security_guide/distribu.htm

Mostly these kinds of guys: With a helping of And a few That marks the bulk of what the D has shot up the most.

Oh, naturally! We have many people already going Mr. D over this now! And for my next act... You are most correct! Please accept 100 interwebz buckz and this totally legit Game B-Child! The character in question: This little game found its way onto many different platforms. Later iterations became mostly exclusive to Sony & co.

Small caveat to this: we won't be receiving a feature complete module at launch; the delays simply mean the features planned to be working at EA are not ready. So George might currently shoot wildly and jam the winch (100 internet points and a fake portable game player to those who get this reference). Or the transmission blows up when you pull 100.1% on the collective. Or HELLFIRE shoots backwards. That sort of thing. Just to head off those who might believe that a delay means they could get a working FCR or some such.

Great idea! I vote Mi-2.

Not SOON™... ... TWO WEEKS™!

Unless you've got a really complicated goal, then it's pretty easy to set up a simple shake n' bake scenario on just about any of the maps. If you've got something particular in mind, feel free to share it; there's more than enough people (me included) who would be willing to show you the ropes.

Since radios don't work outside of easy commo right now, but other than that: Radios are mostly identical to the UH-1's. Only exception is the UHF radio only works on the MAIN setting and not BOTH. UHF knob turns to MAIN to get UHF on. FM radio to TR, preset to 1-6 (doesn't support manual tuning yet). To the left of that radio is the other FM radio and the rightmost knob is set to TR to turn it on.

Oh yeah, spent tons of time on Comanche 3 and Gold. 640x480 doesn't seem as big as it used to be!

Strictly curious here: do you have the Mi-24? If so, how do you handle aiming the missile sight while flying? I've tried to use the ministick on my throttle to aim while simultaneously flying in SP and it just doesn't work out. 99% of the time I'm relying on Petrovich to handle weapon aiming and front seat duties because the workload is just too high. How would you plan to handle the AH-64's front or backseat duties without any form of AI assistance? I'm not against allowing seat jumping in MP nor forcing slots to be single player only, but I'd think that some form of AI -- whether it's an AP hold of some kind or an auto target function -- is necessary to operate the aircraft as a single person.

Taking away the FCR and restricting weapons gets you 90% of the way there. With the way most people play, all the extra data capabilities won't get used anyways, so it's plenty suitable. You can also advance the years a bit and give some greater capabilities to the enemy while keeping the core the same. It did if you asked for an air strike on an enemy aircraft. F-16s would show up to help out in that event.

The range has been reduced and the AI will use them at about 35nmi from a target now; this is apparently a weapon-level change because the old Flanker F-14 does the same with the exact same weapon. Curiously enough, the R-33 launched by the MiG-31 is being treated similar. I still see no (or little) use of the modern AIM-54 types, so the old AIM-54C is still what I'd suggest putting on AI F-14s.

If looking for official reading: FM 1-112 Attack Helicopter Operations FM 3-04.126 Attack Reconnaissance Helicopter Operations FM 3-04 Army Aviation There are more like these; search for "army attack helicopter operations" and you can get a whole lot of info out there. If looking for non-gov't publications: Apache AH-64 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) 1976–2005 (Osprey Publishing) AH-64 Apache Units of Operations Enduring Freedom & Iraqi Freedom (Osprey Publishing)

Until the AIM-54s are fixed for the AI, you can reuse the old AIM-54Cs; you can customize from a loadout template in this mission: These work just fine for the AI and they will use them from a proper distance far out. The only issue is the glove stations hover as the module doesn't recognize the old missiles for the glove pylons.

Yeah there was, early on in the video:

Just a note that the Forrestal still takes damage on aircraft trapping/landing as of the current update.