Can the AIM-54 take down fighter aircraft

[BlackLion213]

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=F-14+Gillcrist

 

Page 41 of this book describing the hit on a maneuvering drone.

 

Have a good night. :)

 

-Nick

[NaCH]

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=F-14+Gillcrist

 

Page 41 of this book describing the hit on a maneuvering drone.

 

Have a good night. :)

 

-Nick

 

Ok I will have to trust on that on that book, is the only writing that I saw a drone doing that.

 

I saw drones simulating terminal attacks on ships doing pull ups.. but not G turn.

I even provided evidence and pilots writing about this and why the test does not prove PK but just process training.

FYI look at the video I put.. for the QF4...

[BlackLion213]

Ok I will have to trust on that on that book, is the only writing that I saw a drone doing that.

 

I saw drones simulating terminal attacks on ships doing pull ups.. but not G turn.

I even provided evidence and pilots writing about this and why the test does not prove PK but just process training.

FYI look at the video I put.. for the QF4...

 

It's a nice video, thank you for posting. But as the above text implies, drones can be used a lot of different ways (though most are not used as maneuvering targets - I agree about that).

 

I'm glad you found the above text helpful. :)

 

-Nick

[QJW]

My question is why did they retire it????

 

Cuz it was costing way too much money and really cutting into the military budget. It's a super expensive plane like the F-22

 

Edit: Didn't realize you meant the AIM-54. It also costed a butt load of money

[lunaticfringe]

Is still to be proveen in the modern era that similar SA / technology on both sides how well BVR will perform.. so far most if not all of the kills were done against planes that have not idea they had a missile coming

 

Protip: that is the basis of 80+% of *all kills throughout the history of air combat*.

[lunaticfringe]

Short range engagement against a 6G maneuvering target drone. The missile doesn't care about radius because it's outside.

 

But nah- it can't maneuver to compensate, yo.

 

[NaCH]

Protip: that is the basis of 80+% of *all kills throughout the history of air combat*.

 

Correct. So how is possible that the missiles has a PK iof 80% ?

How can you evade a missile that proven 70% kill against drones like the sparrow or higher from the aim54 as stated by their manufacturers. The same applies for the 120.

As stated here against drones that evade misses even though you in the video I post are used in level flight.

 

The sparrow has a PK less than 7% in combat the aim54, the 120?

 

The current longest kill in bvr is 35km against a non manuvrable plane all the rest of the shot missed.

 

 

This is some is not stated by me is stated by a mayor of usaf and also by security and defense analysts and there many documents on this.

 

 

But as we agree with blacklion, let's agree to disagree.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Short range engagement against a 6G maneuvering target drone. The missile doesn't care about radius because it's outside.

 

But nah- it can't maneuver to compensate, yo.

 

 

Wow, nice vid

[Coyote Duster]

Correct. So how is possible that the missiles has a PK iof 80% ?

How can you evade a missile that proven 70% kill against drones like the sparrow or higher from the aim54 as stated by their manufacturers. The same applies for the 120.

As stated here against drones that evade misses even though you in the video I post are used in level flight.

 

The sparrow has a PK less than 7% in combat the aim54, the 120?

 

The current longest kill in bvr is 35km against a non manuvrable plane all the rest of the shot missed.

 

 

This is some is not stated by me is stated by a mayor of usaf and also by security and defense analysts and there many documents on this.

 

 

But as we agree with blacklion, let's agree to disagree.

 

You gotta remember that the sparrow was used in nam a lot and you had a 50/50 chance of it even tracking or the motor even igniting at the time, but I'll tell you what if we're ever in a major air conflict again I'll garantee you those hit percentages will skyrocket

[Tirak]

You gotta remember that the sparrow was used in nam a lot and you had a 50/50 chance of it even tracking or the motor even igniting at the time, but I'll tell you what if we're ever in a major air conflict again I'll garantee you those hit percentages will skyrocket

 

The major problem was pilots didn't know how to use the missile, and would fire it outside of parameters. If fired as instructed in the manual, the Sparrow was fairly accurate, even in early days, but pilots forgot that pretty quick in a dogfight and launched sparrows at targets while under high g, something early Sparrows weren't built to handle.

[SinusoidDelta]

Many reasons the sparrow Pk is so low. I don't think it's at all misleading to say missile performance is an order of magnitude better than it was 30 years ago. I see that "Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range" paper referenced quite often. I'm not trying to bad mouth the author but it's very short sighted to treat gulf war 1 as some kind of weapons development end game. I'm not sure what the implied alternative to BVR is supposed to be. Thankfully there has never been a true large scale conflict from which we could derive a useful Pk.

[turkeydriver]

Correct. So how is possible that the missiles has a PK iof 80% ?

How can you evade a missile that proven 70% kill against drones like the sparrow or higher from the aim54 as stated by their manufacturers. The same applies for the 120.

As stated here against drones that evade misses even though you in the video I post are used in level flight.

 

The sparrow has a PK less than 7% in combat the aim54, the 120?

 

The current longest kill in bvr is 35km against a non manuvrable plane all the rest of the shot missed.

 

 

This is some is not stated by me is stated by a mayor of usaf and also by security and defense analysts and there many documents on this.

 

 

But as we agree with blacklion, let's agree to disagree.

 

Any person that quotes "Sparrow" kill percentages is quoting nothing. There are so many different factors let alone the F and M being completely different weapons that accounted for the majority of kills in Desert Storm 1. The Ault report does a good job of placing the blame in all the correct spots.

[Coyote Duster]

The major problem was pilots didn't know how to use the missile, and would fire it outside of parameters. If fired as instructed in the manual, the Sparrow was fairly accurate, even in early days, but pilots forgot that pretty quick in a dogfight and launched sparrows at targets while under high g, something early Sparrows weren't built to handle.

 

Had no idea, I just know that the missile at the time had some problems, still plenty found their marks, and I never knew that the pilots weren't utalizing it correctly.

[Coyote Duster]

I'm confident now thanks to you guys that the Phoenix will do its job, I don't expect a kill everytime, seeing how I've spammed amraams and had a good Russian pilot dodge all of them. I've never had doubts when it came to the sparrow either, and I'm sure a mid 80s sparrow will do just fine in the fight.

[captain_dalan]

You gotta remember that the sparrow was used in nam a lot and you had a 50/50 chance of it even tracking or the motor even igniting at the time, but I'll tell you what if we're ever in a major air conflict again I'll garantee you those hit percentages will skyrocket

 

Not to mention that, because of the high probability of the missile just going ballistic of the rail, pilots and aviators would often ripple fire them, thus even further leading to a bad PK.

[Dudikoff]

The major problem was pilots didn't know how to use the missile, and would fire it outside of parameters. If fired as instructed in the manual, the Sparrow was fairly accurate, even in early days, but pilots forgot that pretty quick in a dogfight and launched sparrows at targets while under high g, something early Sparrows weren't built to handle.

 

It sounds like you're referring to the early Sidewinders which had a very narrow envelope and couldn't handle a turn by the launching aircraft of more than 2G's at launch. The Sparrow problems were numerous, but mostly they were reliability issues due to its complexity.

[Tirak]

It sounds like you're referring to the early Sidewinders which had a very narrow envelope and couldn't handle a turn by the launching aircraft of more than 2G's at launch. The Sparrow problems were numerous, but mostly they were reliability issues due to its complexity.

 

Nope, referring to the Sparrows, though the Sidewinders had huge problems too, and was definitely the worse of the two when it came to seeking, resulting in pilots trying to use sparrows in dogfights as well, with predictable results.

[Dudikoff]

Nope, referring to the Sparrows, though the Sidewinders had huge problems too, and was definitely the worse of the two when it came to seeking, resulting in pilots trying to use sparrows in dogfights as well, with predictable results.

 

I'm just saying that from what I've read in the Clashes, your two arguments as written directly match the main AIM-9B problems (out of envelope shots and limited G's when launching). As the pilots were pretty much untrained in the dogfights and the very limited AIM-9 envelope, the Sparrow not surprisingly became a preferred weapon for such pilots (although there are also doctrinal differences between the Air Force and the Navy). As its minimum range was almost the same as Sidewinder's, it had a much higher maximum range which was pretty handy at low levels, plus it had envelope indications on the radar scope (albeit unreliable if the target was maneuvering) unlike for the AIM-9's. Also, it was all-aspect and you didn't have to worry about the limited IR seeker coolant available.

 

According to that book, the fact remains that in practice it was noticeably less reliable than the AIM-9's, especially compared to the later models. If the pilots were (better) trained, the AIM-9 would have put on a much better show as demonstrated by the Navy in the second campaign. But, we're getting OT here :)

Edited June 9, 2016 by Dudikoff

[Tirak]

I'm just saying that from what I've read in the Clashes, your two arguments as written directly match the main AIM-9B problems (out of envelope shots and limited G's when launching). As the pilots were pretty much untrained in the dogfights and the very limited AIM-9 envelope, the Sparrow not surprisingly became a preferred weapon for such pilots (although there are also doctrinal differences between the Air Force and the Navy). As its minimum range was almost the same as Sidewinder's, it had a much higher maximum range which was pretty handy at low levels, plus it had envelope indications on the radar scope (albeit unreliable if the target was maneuvering) unlike for the AIM-9's. Also, it was all-aspect and you didn't have to worry about the limited IR seeker coolant available.

 

According to that book, the fact remains that in practice it was noticeably less reliable than the AIM-9's, especially compared to the later models. If the pilots were (better) trained, the AIM-9 would have put on a much better show as demonstrated by the Navy in the second campaign. But, we're getting OT here :)

 

Yep, the "Dogfight" Sparrow is the direct result of this, with greater G tolerances and instantaneous turn rates thanks to redesigned fins. It was because the 9B was so awful that Sparrows kept getting thrown even when they weren't within proper launch parameters. This lead to lots of hung stores from over G and missed shots. To be fair, early Sparrows most certainly did have reliability problems because of the fragility of those early electronics (Thus the ripple fire practice), but how Sparrows were launched in the early days is just as important to factor in when looking at the poor Pk rates that the weapon demonstrated. It's one of the many reasons why using Vietnam as an example of how BVR missiles perform in real combat when extrapolating for modern weapons is a shaky argument to make.

 

With that said, this little off topic line is reminding me just how badly I want a Phantom :P

[Dudikoff]

Yep, the "Dogfight" Sparrow is the direct result of this, with greater G tolerances and instantaneous turn rates thanks to redesigned fins. It was because the 9B was so awful that Sparrows kept getting thrown even when they weren't within proper launch parameters.

 

Given that they took a few seconds to launch at least (unlike the Sidewinder), they were not the optimal missile for close engagements :)

 

To be fair, early Sparrows most certainly did have reliability problems because of the fragility of those early electronics (Thus the ripple fire practice), but how Sparrows were launched in the early days is just as important to factor in when looking at the poor Pk rates that the weapon demonstrated.

 

Yeah, supposedly the squadron at Udorn swore by their Sparrow, but they invested much more care at their handling, storage and maintenance.

 

It's one of the many reasons why using Vietnam as an example of how BVR missiles perform in real combat when extrapolating for modern weapons is a shaky argument to make.

 

The Vietnam experience is a good example of how high tech weapons are not a decisive factor on their own without proper tactics and properly trained pilots. So, given inexperienced pilots, you might do worse than assume they won't get great results in BVR even with advanced planes/missiles.

 

With that said, this little off topic line is reminding me just how badly I want a Phantom

 

The Phantom would be pretty cool to have, even more so with a proper Vietnam terrain and a few other planes (A-7 at the very least), but I dread to think of how such a (jungle infested) thing would run on my computer.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Dudikoff

[JunMcKill]

IMHO, ED should fix the guidance and range of all missiles to real life specs in DCS world, before the AIM-54 enters with the F-14 module.

 

If you analyses the missile_data.lua, will notice that most of the Rmax figures are below the published specs, the same for russian than for american weapons.

[Fri13]

IMHO, ED should fix the guidance and range of all missiles to real life specs in DCS world, before the AIM-54 enters with the F-14 module.

 

If you analyses the missile_data.lua, will notice that most of the Rmax figures are below the published specs, the same for russian than for american weapons.

 

Missiles are Work In Progress (WIP).

 

And the problem is that they need to do the modeling and all for each missile individually. And that as well requires them to start simulating radar, instead just use a simple pie with figures for max detection range, max lock range and then use a multiplier for ECM to change those ranges.

 

And how complex it would become to do a good wave simuation?

 

It would be needed to get even semi-believable simulation and so on combat situations as well.

[Zibell]

Also, published specs are more often than not just marketing BS.

[Jumbik]

Also, published specs are more often than not just marketing BS.

 

 

Exactly, the same goes with cars... the fuel consumption charts come to my mind. :D

 

 

Max. specs are always taken from the best possible conditions and additionally "embellished" up.

[Coyote Duster]

Short range engagement against a 6G maneuvering target drone. The missile doesn't care about radius because it's outside.

 

But nah- it can't maneuver to compensate, yo.

 

 

that phoenix launch and kill was epic