AIM-54 guidance

[FWind]

I stated previously that the Navy's terminology was precise regarding semi-active for a reason.

 

The missile data link provides the location for the antenna to look for an echo. Everything else was encoded in the pulse.

 

There's about 30 pages of redaction giving harder data on the AWG-9 and AIM-54 itself. I'm waiting to determine if an appeal is desired.

 

Tanks，I can‘t foud the report online

[GGTharos]

So pure when in mid-course on the horizontal channel + probably the usual loft formula on the vertical channel, and APN when homing.

 

Interesting, thanks!

[JunMcKill]

I think that in all this simulations games (including DCS), the real power of the electronic countermeasure (or jamming) is underrated, then why there are so many aircraft IRL dedicated to that ?, americans never go to any war without send first their active jamming aircrafts with their sorties.

 

EA-6B Prowler (US)

EF-111A Raven (US)

EC-130H Compass Call (US)

EA-18G Growler (US)

Kawasaki EC-1 (Japan)

Shaanxi Y-8EW (China)

Embraer R-99 (Brazil)

IAI 202B Arava (Israel)

Tornado ECR (Germany-Italy)

EF-10B Skynight (US)

An-12BK-PPS (Soviet Union)

Mi-8PP (Soviet Union)

An-26REP (Soviet Union)

Tu-16RM-2 (Soviet Union)

 

and others

[lunaticfringe]

Tanks，I can‘t foud the report online

 

That's because it was just released through FOIA to me yesterday.

[lunaticfringe]

So pure when in mid-course on the horizontal channel + probably the usual loft formula on the vertical channel, and APN when homing.

 

Doesn't need to be pure. Gimbal limits present lead opportunity- all it has to do is hear the reflection.

[CheckGear]

I think that in all this simulations games (including DCS), the real power of the electronic countermeasure (or jamming) is underrated, then why there are so many aircraft IRL dedicated to that ?, americans never go to any war without send first their active jamming aircrafts with their sorties.

 

EA-6B Prowler (US)

EF-111A Raven (US)

EC-130H Compass Call (US)

EA-18G Growler (US)

Kawasaki EC-1 (Japan)

Shaanxi Y-8EW (China)

Embraer R-99 (Brazil)

IAI 202B Arava (Israel)

Tornado ECR (Germany-Italy)

EF-10B Skynight (US)

An-12BK-PPS (Soviet Union)

Mi-8PP (Soviet Union)

An-26REP (Soviet Union)

Tu-16RM-2 (Soviet Union)

 

and others

 

Given the complexity of electronic warfare, it's an intensely difficult thing to simulate.

 

What I'd really like to see is a simulation that accurately depicts the disparity in skill and training between First World and Third World militaries.

[GGTharos]

Jun, modeling EW is a significant task. I'd love to see it too, but I don't think it's practically feasible - that said, I already have a pretty good idea of how it could be well modeled, IMHO, but it has caveats - it requires a lot of work in terms of writing a good RF model, and making the sensors and AI respect it ... and then updating it smartly over the network for MP as well.

 

And even after all that's done, you'd get a lot 'wah wah' over 'my jammer should always defeat that slammer!' etc :)

 

But for SoJs alone (the aircraft that you have listed), the intended function might not be too difficult to implement - it would still require a bunch of work but the simplest way to model it would be to reduce radar gains for radars in the EW's beam on that azimuth.

 

So, say you're in your A-10, you know the SoJ is blasting that SA-2 with music from 250, you would approach the combat area from 250 (thus putting yourself in the beam), and exit in the same direction, too. Your own jammer would be more effective thanks to the SoJ jammer.

 

I think that in all this simulations games (including DCS), the real power of the electronic countermeasure (or jamming) is underrated, then why there are so many aircraft IRL dedicated to that ?, americans never go to any war without send first their active jamming aircrafts with their sorties.

 

EA-6B Prowler (US)

EF-111A Raven (US)

EC-130H Compass Call (US)

EA-18G Growler (US)

Kawasaki EC-1 (Japan)

Shaanxi Y-8EW (China)

Embraer R-99 (Brazil)

IAI 202B Arava (Israel)

Tornado ECR (Germany-Italy)

EF-10B Skynight (US)

An-12BK-PPS (Soviet Union)

Mi-8PP (Soviet Union)

An-26REP (Soviet Union)

Tu-16RM-2 (Soviet Union)

 

and others

Edited September 1, 2016 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

I interpreted it that way because he mentioned 'constant gain' vs 'PN', but I could definitely be wrong.

 

Doesn't need to be pure. Gimbal limits present lead opportunity- all it has to do is hear the reflection.

[JunMcKill]

I agree, simulate a goof RF model is factible, but the problem will be to implement inside DCS world with all the complexity (including weather/atmospheric conditions), and at the same time distribute all these RF signals in a high bandwith spectrum to all clients in the MP environment! WOW! more data to Tx/Rx in real time! (excluding the Wah Wah for bad guidance of missiles, or lags and warping! LMAO!) :)

 

Jun, modeling EW is a significant task. I'd love to see it too, but I don't think it's practically feasible - that said, I already have a pretty good idea of how it could be well modeled, IMHO, but it has caveats - it requires a lot of work in terms of writing a good RF model, and making the sensors and AI respect it ... and then updating it smartly over the network for MP as well.

 

And even after all that's done, you'd get a lot 'wah wah' over 'my jammer should always defeat that slammer!' etc :)

 

But for SoJs alone (the aircraft that you have listed), the intended function might not be too difficult to implement - it would still require a bunch of work but the simplest way to model it would be to reduce radar gains for radars in the EW's beam on that azimuth.

 

So, say you're in your A-10, you know the SoJ is blasting that SA-2 with music from 250, you would approach the combat area from 250 (thus putting yourself in the beam), and exit in the same direction, too. Your own jammer would be more effective thanks to the SoJ jammer.

[GGTharos]

There are tricks you can use for the network, like instead of sending a different frequency/prf each time to represent ECCM for the ECM to react to, you just resolve this on the client to a large degree - ie. we know ECM/ECCM techniques of both sets, and if they are fully automated, you only need to sent 'ecm program number' instead of just 'ecm on/off'.

 

Your virtual radar set then resolves any potential problems this can cause. And then you have to make AI respect it.

[EcceHomo]

I stated previously that the Navy's terminology was precise regarding semi-active for a reason.

 

The missile data link provides the location for the antenna to look for an echo. Everything else was encoded in the pulse.

 

There's about 30 pages of redaction giving harder data on the AWG-9 and AIM-54 itself. I'm waiting to determine if an appeal is desired.

 

Have AIM-54C ever upgraded command-inertial midcourse guidance？

Is there any information to prove it?

[EcceHomo]

Some additional exerts from an article by Forecast International Inc. Missile Forecast November, 1997:

 

AIM-54A/C/C+ Phoenix - Archived 11/98

 

Control & Guidance. [...] Missiles use the Hughes AWG-9 Doppler radar fire control system, with an infrared subsystem. The central processing computer is built by Control Data Corporation. The missile incorporates command/inertial guidance through the mid-course and active terminal guidance; the onboard guidance system is designated DSQ-26, the detection device is designated the DSU-28, and the safety fuze the FSU-10/A. Northrop Corporation Electronics Division supplies the inertial reference component. The AIM-54C features an all-new Digital Electronics Unit with all-digital processing and an ability to identify targets by individual characteristics through pre-stored computer simulations. The aerodynamic control surfaces are electro-hydraulically actuated with components supplied by Hydraulic Research and Moog. Borg Warner has developed a pneumatic actuation system for the AIM-54.

 

AIM-54C Improved Phoenix. To meet anticipated threats in the 1980s and beyond, the Navy initiated development of the improved AIM-54C Phoenix. This development was accelerated due to the compromising of -54A technology in Iran. The C version is optimized for use against multiple, close-interval cruise missiles and waves or streams of hostile aircraft. The C model of the AIM-54 is also capable of operating in a severe electronic countermeasures environment, and features upgraded target detecting devices, electronic units, receiver-transmitter units, and autopilots, as compared with the AIM-54A. The Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA, redesigned the target detecting device, which incorporates a pseudo noise feature. This improves the missile's kill probability over a wider threat spectrum, increases its capability in poor weather, and also enhances the missile's reliability in the electronic counter-countermeasures environment.

The improved electronics unit is of digital design and incorporates an autopilot function. This increases the Phoenix's capability against very fast targets at very high altitudes. The unit's autopilot includes an inertial reference system.

The new receiver-transmitter unit is of solid-state design, incorporating some classified features for enhancement against opening targets, cluster threats, and beam aspect situations. The strap-down inertial reference feature is designated a command-inertial function and makes Phoenix much more accurate immediately after launch. With this enhancement, control of the missile is maintained by the AWG-9 fire control system on the F-14 through the mid-course point of flight. This is the command part of the technique. During this time, the missile's radar is also active. For terminal homing, the missile is fully autonomous, the inertial part of this technique. The AIM-54C provides a four-fold increase in missile capability over the AIM-54A. The AIM-54 command-inertial technology has been proven in tests against BQM-34 and BOMARC target drones. The tests were termed successful, and the command-inertial technology has also been incorporated into Hughes' AIM-120 AMRAAM program.

 

<Salute>

 

Is there any more information on this issue?

[GGTharos]

What information would you like to see?

[EcceHomo]

What information would you like to see?

 

In reality，the midcourse guidance of AIM-54C. In previous discussions, I saw instructions for command- inertial mid-course guidance. AIM-54C used command - inertial guidance before AIM-120? It replaces AIM-54A semi-active data sampling midcourse guidance? Or do they exist in AIM-54C? TWS is a prerequisite for discussion.

 

Is AIM-54C intercept the target automatically after firing? Like AIM-120, it relies entirely on inertial navigation?（I know that activation information exists, but if the activation information is left aside, AIM-54C can track unmaneuvering and small maneuvering targets with inertial unit（(without radar assistance, ie. intercept the target automatically after firing)）

 

Or inertial navigation as a secondary aid. Improving the accuracy of semi-active data sampling?

[GGTharos]

Inertial navigation doesn't track anything other than a point in space that the missile will fly to. For air to ground this might be accurate enough, but it isn't accurate enough for an AAM.

Inertial navigation serves to get the module to a point where the seeker can pick up the target and commence terminal homing.

[FWind]

Edited September 28, 2019 by FWind

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 8/1/2016 at 12:11 PM, punk said:

Some additional exerts from an article by Forecast International Inc. Missile Forecast November, 1997:

 

AIM-54A/C/C+ Phoenix - Archived 11/98

 

Control & Guidance. [...] Missiles use the Hughes AWG-9 Doppler radar fire control system, with an infrared subsystem. The central processing computer is built by Control Data Corporation. The missile incorporates command/inertial guidance through the mid-course and active terminal guidance; the onboard guidance system is designated DSQ-26, the detection device is designated the DSU-28, and the safety fuze the FSU-10/A. Northrop Corporation Electronics Division supplies the inertial reference component. The AIM-54C features an all-new Digital Electronics Unit with all-digital processing and an ability to identify targets by individual characteristics through pre-stored computer simulations. The aerodynamic control surfaces are electro-hydraulically actuated with components supplied by Hydraulic Research and Moog. Borg Warner has developed a pneumatic actuation system for the AIM-54.

 

AIM-54C Improved Phoenix. To meet anticipated threats in the 1980s and beyond, the Navy initiated development of the improved AIM-54C Phoenix. This development was accelerated due to the compromising of -54A technology in Iran. The C version is optimized for use against multiple, close-interval cruise missiles and waves or streams of hostile aircraft. The C model of the AIM-54 is also capable of operating in a severe electronic countermeasures environment, and features upgraded target detecting devices, electronic units, receiver-transmitter units, and autopilots, as compared with the AIM-54A. The Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA, redesigned the target detecting device, which incorporates a pseudo noise feature. This improves the missile's kill probability over a wider threat spectrum, increases its capability in poor weather, and also enhances the missile's reliability in the electronic counter-countermeasures environment.

The improved electronics unit is of digital design and incorporates an autopilot function. This increases the Phoenix's capability against very fast targets at very high altitudes. The unit's autopilot includes an inertial reference system.

The new receiver-transmitter unit is of solid-state design, incorporating some classified features for enhancement against opening targets, cluster threats, and beam aspect situations. The strap-down inertial reference feature is designated a command-inertial function and makes Phoenix much more accurate immediately after launch. With this enhancement, control of the missile is maintained by the AWG-9 fire control system on the F-14 through the mid-course point of flight. This is the command part of the technique. During this time, the missile's radar is also active. For terminal homing, the missile is fully autonomous, the inertial part of this technique. The AIM-54C provides a four-fold increase in missile capability over the AIM-54A. The AIM-54 command-inertial technology has been proven in tests against BQM-34 and BOMARC target drones. The tests were termed successful, and the command-inertial technology has also been incorporated into Hughes' AIM-120 AMRAAM program.

 

<Salute>

Do you still have a link to the original post?

[Schmidtfire]

On 4/30/2021 at 12:56 AM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

The AIM-54C provides a four-fold increase in missile capability over the AIM-54A.

I would really like to see this in DCS.

[punk]

On 4/29/2021 at 5:56 PM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Do you still have a link to the original post?

No, sorry. The machine with all my Tomcat research died and unable to resurrect at this time.

 

Salute,

[Raubritter]

On 4/30/2021 at 1:56 AM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Do you still have a link to the original post?

 

AIM-54 archived report.pdf

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Very cool thank you