Rare Loadouts

[King_Hrothgar]

Iran allegedly had much better luck with them, but yes, complaints about the AIM-54 are inevitable. I predict half the forum will be screaming how broken they are. Of that half, half will be claiming it's too accurate, the other half will complain it isn't accurate enough. How the missile actually performs compared to the real one will have no impact on the forum debate.

[Hadwell]

Iran allegedly had much better luck with them, but yes, complaints about the AIM-54 are inevitable. I predict half the forum will be screaming how broken they are. Of that half, half will be claiming it's too accurate, the other half will complain it isn't accurate enough. How the missile actually performs compared to the real one will have no impact on the forum debate.

 

*coughs*r3r....*coughs*

[probad]

I predict half the forum will be screaming how broken they are. Of that half, half will be claiming it's too accurate, the other half will complain it isn't accurate enough. How the missile actually performs compared to the real one will have no impact on the forum debate.

 

I expect this drama to play out for the F-14 release as a whole, not just the AIM-54. I think more than any other plane of the era its achieved a kind of mythical status as to its capabilities with more expectations shaped by pop culture and wishful thinking than reality!

[Hummingbird]

I expect this drama to play out for the F-14 release as a whole, not just the AIM-54. I think more than any other plane of the era its achieved a kind of mythical status as to its capabilities with more expectations shaped by pop culture and wishful thinking than reality!

 

Good thing we have the real life data to shoot down the fantasies of haters or fanboys alike then :thumbup:

 

[Solty]

Wasn't Phoinex missle dropped because of the lack of maneuverability which lead to being poor missile against fighters? Maybe I am wrong but the purpose of the missile was long range interception of bombers right?

Edited January 30, 2016 by Solty

[Hummingbird]

The AIM-54 Phoenix was dropped because the F-14 was retired. Infact I believe production had stopped many years earlier, simply because very few were ever used due to the fact that ROE usually demanded (and still do) a visual ID of the target.

 

In other words many of the AIM-54's in service were very old and probably prone to failure (at least records seem to suggest so).

 

When brand new the missile obviously performed beautifully however as demonstrated against drone targets in the states.

[Grundar]

The AIM-54 Phoenix was dropped because the F-14 was retired. Infact I believe production had stopped many years earlier, simply because very few were ever used due to the fact that ROE usually demanded (and still do) a visual ID of the target.

 

In other words many of the AIM-54's in service were very old and probably prone to failure (at least records seem to suggest so).

 

When brand new the missile obviously performed beautifully however as demonstrated against drone targets in the states.

 

Yep agree 100% on all of that. The AIM-54's were getting old and cost around $500,000 USD each to buy and a fair enough amount to keep maintained and only one aircraft could utilize them in the fleet and that was getting retired.

 

ROE is a big thing to, visual identification is often required making many BVR missiles less useful than they could/should be.

[Tirak]

It doesn't need to be detected. When flying the Su-27, I have no clue when an F-15 actually fires an AIM-120, so I start doing barrel rolls or zigzagging once I'm within absolute max range. This bleeds the missile's energy so that it cannot hit unless launched within about 10km, at which point I'll see the missile trail. The same will apply to the AIM-54. If you know an F-14 is in firing range, simply take light evasive action to cut its range from 100km to 15km, problem solved. Now yes, the wikipedia max range of the AIM-54 is closer to 200km, but we all know it's max range against a target flying mach 2 into it when launched from a mach 2 fighter is going to be well under 100km at 14km height. Even if the missiles were realistic, this method would still be effective with a little modification (wider zigzags mostly). It's also important to remember that the Su-27's R-27ER isn't exactly a short ranged missile either and the Su-27 does have the radar to make use of that range.

 

So you will be rolling and evading from the moment you pick the F-14 up at 150nm? Will the Su-27 RWR even pick up a spike from that range?

 

Anyway, we will see when it finally happens. Because LN is making the missile special, I have faith that it will be modeled correctly, which in the current DCS environment means it's going to so vastly outperform everything else, the complaints on the forums will be long and numerous. And it is because of that reason that I am fairly certain the weapon will be banned. Hell, the R3R got banned because the SPAAMRAM crowd didn't like that it was accurate at 5nm against an unmanuvering target.

 

If I'm honest, that really, really irks me, because I'm going to have to watch my very favorite aircraft be sidelined because whiny players won't want to adjust their tactics to suit an F-14 being on the field. And while I agree, there are things you can do to make the Phoenix less effective, I question the playerbase's willingness to adapt, when they can more easily go on the forums and bitch to high heaven.

[GGTharos]

So you will be rolling and evading from the moment you pick the F-14 up at 150nm? Will the Su-27 RWR even pick up a spike from that range?

 

Don't need to. An F-14 won't pick you up before 90nm and it won't be able to launch on you in TWS before about 50nm, if it's realistically modeled.

[Tirak]

Don't need to. An F-14 won't pick you up before 90nm and it won't be able to launch on you in TWS before about 50nm, if it's realistically modeled.

 

Depends on what I'm looking to do. For example, i could just go into STT mode and light up your world and suppress you. You don't know how far away I really am, all you know is your RWR is screaming bloody murder, i can keep you pinned without firing a shot.

 

And where are you getting these ranges from? In my looking, I'm seeing TWS mode working out to 104 miles, and detection ranges of bomber sized targets at 250m.

[RoflSeal]

Depends on what I'm looking to do. For example, i could just go into STT mode and light up your world and suppress you. You don't know how far away I really am, all you know is your RWR is screaming bloody murder, i can keep you pinned without firing a shot.

 

And where are you getting these ranges from? In my looking, I'm seeing TWS mode working out to 104 miles, and detection ranges of bomber sized targets at 250m.

 

Well, you would in the Su-27, The one thing Beryoza is good at ingame is estimating the range of the primary threat.

[Fer_Fer]

I don't know really. It mostly comes down to the pilot and the question if they manage to model ground interference properly, if they do, i don't think the AIM 54 will present a lot of issues in the Georgia map, where most of the action takes place in the mountains anyways.

likewise, i don't know how well the AIM 54 does against maneuvering targets, especially when i heard that during the Iran-Iraq war, the F1's needed to spot the missile as the RWR did not detect it.

 

So i don't think it will be giving problems on Georgia, although NTTR and Hormuz it can give quite a few problems.

[GGTharos]

And where are you getting these ranges from? In my looking, I'm seeing TWS mode working out to 104 miles, and detection ranges of bomber sized targets at 250m.

 

Something like the attached fragment here.

[Tirak]

Something like the attached fragment here.

 

I note that it says these ranges are at a 5m^2 rcs target. From my, admittedly brief looking, the Su-27 has 15m^2 cross section.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

[GGTharos]

That will give you a small increase, you need 8x the RCS to increase the range by half (so say your target is detected at 90nm for 5smq, you'd need 40sqm to detect it at 135nm).

 

In any case, all fighters in DCS are 5sqm; values from the internet are next to useless unfortunately: Having seen some real life measurements, they just don't line up and they depend on too many things :/

 

For example, notice that they set the MiG-21 at 3sqm, but it has been measured in RL at 10sqm.

[Skjold]

Nope, it'll be:

 

1) F-14 detects Su-27 at 120nm.

2) F-14 fires AIM-54C (ECCM) at 80nm

3) 8nm from target AIM-54C (ECCM) goes pitbull, activating its onboard radar. It is at this moment that the Su-27 first knows he's been fired on.

4) At Mach 5, the missile covers that distance in... an eighth of a second...

5) One week after release, all major servers ban AIM-54C (ECCM) usage and the F-14 becomes a lawnmower because with AIM-7s it simply cannot play the BVR game.

 

Only 1) and 3) are actually correct, maybe 2)

 

You really think an AIM-54C will be going Mach 5 after it has travelled 72 nm? Why don't we use Phoenixes to power space exploration right now?

[Tirak]

Only 1) and 3) are actually correct, maybe 2)

 

You really think an AIM-54C will be going Mach 5 after it has travelled 72 nm? Why don't we use Phoenixes to power space exploration right now?

 

2 we have conflicting information for, I'll admit my math was wrong on 4.

 

Though fun fact, NASA does use the Phoenix.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/Phoenix/phoenixmissile.html

[GGTharos]

And its from NASA's documents that we know that you don't have a mach 5 missile :)

 

The Mach 5 phase lasts 8 seconds from a Mach 2 launch with a very specific trajectory.

[FWind]

Something like the attached fragment here.

 

Is it form F-14‘s manual？？

[Cobra847]

Is it form F-14‘s manual？？

 

It's from Aero Series 25 - F-14.

[FWind]

It's from Aero Series 25 - F-14.

 

tanks:thumbup:

[BlackLion213]

Wasn't Phoinex missle dropped because of the lack of maneuverability which lead to being poor missile against fighters? Maybe I am wrong but the purpose of the missile was long range interception of bombers right?

 

No, it was actually the first US missile to hit a drone maneuvering at more than 6 Gs. The ability to hit maneuvering and low flying targets was an important part of it's original design specifications.

 

There are reasons that it wasn't adapted to other US aircraft, namely size and weight. It was a really big missile - ~13' (4 meters) and 987 lbs. Mounting multiple Phoenixes on the 40,000 lb F-14 led to noticeable changes in performance, can you imagine the hit to a 28,000 lb F-15C or 17,000 lb F-16C?

 

The AIM-54 had to be big. When it was originally developed, the size of the electronics and radar demanded a certain size for the nose and fuselage. Also, it had a big warhead because the USN wanted it to be effective against bombers (one hit one kill) and against cruise missiles (large blast radius with improved odds of a "range/indirect hit"). Lastly, for effectiveness against bombers with cruise missiles, they wanted a lot of range and a powerful (and heavy) rocket motor. The rocket motor was also an essential part of improving it's effectiveness against fighters, since it would give much more energy for maneuvering against agile targets.

 

Of course, even back in the 1970s, the dream was for a missile with the capability of the Phoenix, but smaller and lighter than the sparrow. But the tech simply wasn't there in the 1970s and early 1980s. But by the mid-80s and early-90s, digital processors and miniaturization had delivered and the dream arrived: the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

 

The AMRAAM offered Phoenix like capabilities (with less range and a smaller warhead) in a more reliable package and for 1/3rd the weight. Therefore, you could mount a bunch of them on a fighter ranging from small to large without the performance penalties of carrying 2 Phoenixes.

 

However, there was a 17 year gap between the Phoenix going operational and the AMRAAM entering service. It didn't even exist for the first half of the Tomcat's service life. The AIM-54C was still very relevant for the USN even after the AMRAAM because it offered more range against bombers (and fighters - but the range is more relevant for the bomber/cruise missile threat) and a bigger warhead.

 

In short (have I ever done short? ;)), the AIM-54 wasn't adapted to other fighters or kept in service because it was big and the compact solution eventually came to fruition. It wasn't a matter of the Phoenix being inadequate against fighters or not meeting expectations ("Bio" Baranek insists it was actually better at fighters than most would think). The future is the AMRAAM and the Phoenix didn't make sense of the other US fighters once the tech allowed for the "compact phoenix".

 

But from 1974 to 1991, the Phoenix was in a class of it's own as a BVR weapon and it was good enough to still be a real threat even after 1991, even if it's tech was outdated.

 

At least this is what I've gathered from my reading. :)

 

-Nick

[hvymtal]

No, it was actually the first US missile to hit a drone maneuvering at more than 6 Gs. The ability to hit maneuvering and low flying targets was an important part of it's original design specifications.

 

There are reasons that it wasn't adapted to other US aircraft, namely size and weight. It was a really big missile - ~13' (4 meters) and 987 lbs. Mounting multiple Phoenixes on the 40,000 lb F-14 led to noticeable changes in performance, can you imagine the hit to a 28,000 lb F-15C or 17,000 lb F-16C?

 

The AIM-54 had to be big. When it was originally developed, the size of the electronics and radar demanded a certain size for the nose and fuselage. Also, it had a big warhead because the USN wanted it to be effective against bombers (one hit one kill) and against cruise missiles (large blast radius with improved odds of a "range/indirect hit"). Lastly, for effectiveness against bombers with cruise missiles, they wanted a lot of range and a powerful (and heavy) rocket motor. The rocket motor was also an essential part of improving it's effectiveness against fighters, since it would give much more energy for maneuvering against agile targets.

 

Of course, even back in the 1970s, the dream was for a missile with the capability of the Phoenix, but smaller and lighter than the sparrow. But the tech simply wasn't there in the 1970s and early 1980s. But by the mid-80s and early-90s, digital processors and miniaturization had delivered and the dream arrived: the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

 

The AMRAAM offered Phoenix like capabilities (with less range and a smaller warhead) in a more reliable package and for 1/3rd the weight. Therefore, you could mount a bunch of them on a fighter ranging from small to large without the performance penalties of carrying 2 Phoenixes.

 

However, there was a 17 year gap between the Phoenix going operational and the AMRAAM entering service. It didn't even exist for the first half of the Tomcat's service life. The AIM-54C was still very relevant for the USN even after the AMRAAM because it offered more range against bombers (and fighters - but the range is more relevant for the bomber/cruise missile threat) and a bigger warhead.

 

In short (have I ever done short? ;)), the AIM-54 wasn't adapted to other fighters or kept in service because it was big and the compact solution eventually came to fruition. It wasn't a matter of the Phoenix being inadequate against fighters or not meeting expectations ("Bio" Baranek insists it was actually better at fighters than most would think). The future is the AMRAAM and the Phoenix didn't make sense of the other US fighters once the tech allowed for the "compact phoenix".

 

But from 1974 to 1991, the Phoenix was in a class of it's own as a BVR weapon and it was good enough to still be a real threat even after 1991, even if it's tech was outdated.

 

At least this is what I've gathered from my reading. :)

 

-Nick

 

I think the real problem is that internet people seem to use the AIM-9 and AIM-7 as the standards for anti-fighter weaponry, IE high control surface size/body size & weight ratio; they seem to completely ignoring booster time and the fact that if its, turning its not really accelerating that much (which is the basis for all missile evasion techniques in the first place) and even a mammoth such as the phoenix will turn. If fully-loaded flankers (over 50klb with 56% fuel and full guns) can pull 9g all day without ripping its wings AND out-turn everything else in the sky i don't see why the AIM-54 shouldn't be able to get onto maneuvering targets as well as any other missile. Honestly with the 120C's tiny ass fins i see no reason it shouldn't be as good if not better.

[OnlyforDCS]

It's from Aero Series 25 - F-14.

 

Cobra can you tell us will Leatherneck be doing the missile modeling for the AIM54C or will this be up to Eagle Dynamics?

[Cobra847]

Cobra can you tell us will Leatherneck be doing the missile modeling for the AIM54C or will this be up to Eagle Dynamics?

 

We will be doing missile modeling for the AIM-54 based on CFD Simulations and expert advice.