Modelled AIM-54 effect on a typical DCS PvP server

[Pikey]

Hi gents. This is by no means a post enciting disagreement or trolling, in fact, I'd like to begin by dismissing any real world data from the begining, any real world tactics, from the begining, and talk about the simulation of the way in which players of DCS in multiplayer approach problems in order to "win" with specific emphasis on the use of a proposed AIM-54 in game.

 

So you can get fanciful here, imaginative, with freedom to not be bullied by statistics, merely using the following assumptions:

 

1. The AIM54 when released with the Tomcat will be able to shoot down fighters if they don't evade the missile.

2. At release it will far outrange any other in game missile.

3. Players without the missile (different airframe) would like to defeat you.

 

The question is.... can we get a decent asymetric MP game going with one side only Tomcat's and what design measures would you put in game to make that the best you could?

 

I'd especially like to hear from the FC3 players who love their aircraft and want to go Tomcat hunting. Would you enjoy the challenge? Under what circumstances? What would be a fair or fun setup? How do you think the PvP would turn out?

[some1]

How do you think the PvP would turn out?

 

People will load 6 phoenixes, fire all of them simultaneously at one target, turn back, land, rearm, repeat.

 

That's my vision of the future, at least on the airquake servers. :P

[probad]

over land in a low2low scenario the f-14/aim54 pair has no advantages

hi2low is questionable too especially over terrain, very possible to get stabbed in the stomach by terrainmasked opponent while being pigslow lugging aim54s. very possible to get all 54s terrain trashed too at er/et standoff range leaving you with 9/9+7s.

expect it to deter hi2hi and low2hi engagements however.

 

expect aim54 to completely wreck ignorant pilots but not be able to even touch experienced ones. how good tomcatters are will be determined by their ability to fight with 7s.

Edited January 25, 2017 by probad

[HiJack]

I think our Su-27 pilots is looking forward to the challenge, at least I hope so. It is going to be a game changer, but let us play with the real thing modeled as realistic as possible and see how the tactics change. WAR is anyway never fair.

[Beamscanner]

keep in mind that it takes two people to proficiently engage targets with the F-14/AIM-54.. In most cases, it'll be one guy switching back and forth. So his actions/reactions will be delayed..

[probad]

In most cases, it'll be one guy switching back and forth. So his actions/reactions will be delayed..

dear god i hope that's not going to be encouraged.

2crew or bust

and the second guy better be breathing too, none of that jester bs.

[NaCH]

Let us play with the real thing modeled as realistic as possible and see how the tactics change. WAR is anyway never fair.

 

So fair to say that it wont hit a thing as the current PK 0.

[Xenovia]

naaah i hate having a second person flying with me, i rather switch back and forth, better yet get a second monitor so i can just move my mouse to the RIO seat. Or i can just have the Jester AI. Personally i like to have FULL CONTROL of my aircraft i hate having a second person, because i don't know if he/she will be dumb enough to fire the missiles, when i dont want to fire missiles.

[captain_dalan]

People will load 6 phoenixes, fire all of them simultaneously at one target, turn back, land, rearm, repeat.

 

That's my vision of the future, at least on the airquake servers. :P

:megalol:

Probably true!

 

IMO, the best way this would work is in operational simulations. Like large number of AC with different roles, doing their stuff. Like providing air cover or combat air patrols. Jousting matches? Not so much. Are those still a thing in the MP environment?

 

WAR is anyway never fair.

Amen to that!

[probad]

Are those still a thing in the MP environment?

yes they are and they always will be. its low investment since dying has no real consequence, and its kind of a coinflip for a win so people still get positive reinforcement out of it.

 

so long as there are low effort people there will be low effort gameplay :)

[SinusoidDelta]

Regarding real life tactics, there's this excerpt from the book Eagle Engaged by Steve Davies:

The Aim-54 was designed to be a long range bomber destroyer and was designed for multiple target engagements. The awg-9 radar that it was coupled with was able to engage multiple targets through a spot lighting technique. The radar would shift its beam from one target to another (from 1-6) and would cycle through the targets. These would then be fed into an analog computer and the corrections for the AIM-54 were periodically updated ; however, if one of the bogeys changed it’s path and was not in the ‘spot light volume’ when the AWG-9 cycled back to shine the target, both missile and radar would go stupid. In a BVR engagement a bogey could perform a 30 degree check turn and go down to a lower altitude to counter a Phoenix shot. Also, the missile was expensive and hard to maintain. The AIM-54 was a pioneer in that it was the first step towards a long range BVR missile. The AIM-120 made much more sense to equip the future force and was meant to be a cheaper and more effective alternative which could be fired from single seater aircraft(which lacked a RIO). Initially, the AIM-120 ran into a lot of software problems but once the code was worked out became the premier BVR missile for US ac.

 

 

 

yes they are and they always will be. its low investment since dying has no real consequence, and its kind of a coinflip for a win so people still get positive reinforcement out of it.

 

so long as there are low effort people there will be low effort gameplay :)

 

I'm pretty sure this is the type of discussion the OP said he did not want.

[probad]

what i remarked is actually more relevant to the op than your regurgitated mass, as it relates to online mp environment and motivations behind it, in contrast to your post.

 

for your convenience:

I'd like to begin by dismissing any real world data from the begining, any real world tactics

 

ontopic:

 

yes i'd personally love to go asymmetric against tomcats. i think any opposition would be valid against it so long as its got an afterburner. i would even go so far as to challenge it in a mig-15 or l-39, but that would be pushing it for most people (im also sure there will be someone who bags a cat in a prop job).

 

obviously everything would revolve around manipulating the awg-9 for both sides. beyond that i think we'll just see things progressed based on aim-54 attrition; when tomcats are forced to use aim-7s they become 'just another fighter.' aim-54s i do not believe are some sort of godmode missile; the range is just as much a boon as it is a bane. a phoenix may threaten a target at 60nm, but if the target goes full defensive to trash it, he is free to come back around for another go, because there is no way the attacking f-14 can press home an attack from so far away.

 

would something like mig-21s be effective or even fun matchup? i think yes, but a more overriding question would be, are there enough pilots who perceive it as a viable matchup? pilots would need to depend on cues beyond what their instruments can tell them, like visually sighting aim-54 contrails. i personally think that's very interesting; that's the sort of stuff that brings out the pilot from the plane, and that's what pvp for me really boils down to.

 

that's also the motivation behind my hopes that any mp servers involving tomcats would limit solo piloting, as i feel the teamwork between two people in the cockpit should be an inherent part of what makes or breaks the fights. the fact solo pilot would probably be self-restricting due to the complexity of the systems isn't as relevant as the fact both sides are getting cheated out of dealing with both the good and bad of the pilot-rio dynamic.

Edited January 26, 2017 by probad

[BlackLion213]

Regarding real life tactics, there's this excerpt from the book Eagle Engaged by Steve Davies:

 

The awg-9 radar that it was coupled with was able to engage multiple targets through a spot lighting technique. The radar would shift its beam from one target to another (from 1-6) and would cycle through the targets. These would then be fed into an analog computer and the corrections for the AIM-54 were periodically updated ; however, if one of the bogeys changed it’s path and was not in the ‘spot light volume’ when the AWG-9 cycled back to shine the target, both missile and radar would go stupid.

 

Yep...just like the APG-63/AMRAAM combination. I wouldn't expect complete resistance to notching out of a 1970s era RADAR when modern systems still have the susceptibility. I'm sure there have been a lot of improvements with digital processors compared to the old analog stuff.

 

 

obviously everything would revolve around manipulating the awg-9 for both sides. beyond that i think we'll just see things progressed based on aim-54 attrition; when tomcats are forced to use aim-7s they become 'just another fighter.'

 

But the Tomcat is just another fighter.

 

The Tomcat acquired its reputation when other fighters completely lacked TWS or multi-shot/multi-engagement capabilities. Back in the 1970s, the ability to fire several fire and forget weapons at long-range (which back then was ~20 miles against a fighter) was pretty remarkable. Plus the ability to hit maneuvering targets, sea-skimming cruise missiles, etc. But now....every US fighter can do that.

 

I really don't see the Tomcat adding anything not already seen with the F-15C carrying 6-8 AMRAAMs. Sure the AIM-54 may have a bit more range and a much bigger warhead, but nearly all Tomcat loadouts are mixed due to the heaviness and draginess of the AIM-54 and it's pylons. A F-15C (or F/A-18C) carrying 6 AMRAAMs will have many user advantages over a Tomcat carrying 6 AIM-54s.

 

I do disagree with the notion that the AIM-7 will be the decisive weapon for Tomcat engagements. Except for it's lower mass, the AIM-7 has no advantages over the AIM-54 in any scenario that I'm aware of. Most of the limitations mentioned are inherent to the age/design of the AWG-9 - the AIM-7 is even more dependent on the AWG-9 than the AIM-54.

 

I also think the range will effect the way that players respond to Tomcats in the field of battle, since they need to be aware and wary of them even if they are quite far away. I also think that players are right for fearing them a bit in the environment, the way they should the F-15C, MiG-29, or Su-27. But compared to those fighters, there is little that will be new from a tactics or defensive standpoint.

 

If a server hosts "80s night" and all other fighters are limited to their era appropriate SARH missiles while the Tomcat can carry the AIM-54 - then it has a big advantage. But as things stand right now...it's just a different A-A platform with it's own set of strengths and weaknesses. Just like the F-15C, Su-27, and MiG-29; though it will be one of the first modern-ish and highly effective A-A platforms available as a ASM/EFM module (as will the F/A-18C).

 

It will be a fun fighter to fight and fight against. :)

 

But it won't be an all-conquering killer of DCS A-A, but it will add needed and interesting diversity to the airspace. Some may also be a bit surprised by what it can do. :smilewink:

 

-Nick

[probad]

my remark that regarding the decisiveness of the aim-7 may be different than what you are thinking; no, i didn't mean to imply the aim-7 had any sort of inherent advantages over other missiles, but rather it's the proficiency and confidence of tomcat crews in employing them against alamo and amraam platforms that will set them apart.

in other words, non-reliance on any of the characteristics of the aim-54.

[BlackLion213]

my remark that regarding the decisiveness of the aim-7 may be different than what you are thinking; no, i didn't mean to imply the aim-7 had any sort of inherent advantages over other missiles, but rather it's the proficiency and confidence of tomcat crews in employing them against alamo and amraam platforms that will set them apart.

in other words, non-reliance on any of the characteristics of the aim-54.

 

Which is a totally fair statement and I agree with you. :)

 

-Nick

[Drag0nWIng]

the most important thing is that the released date of tomcat dlc.

if they decided to continue developing it for few years, any tactical is worthless to discussion.

the hype train is running out of fuel.

 

a typical load is 1/2 aim-54 and 1/2 aim-7 & 9.

6 birds on the cat is only shown in test video and it's too heavy to take off from the carrier.

and don't forget that if they didn't launch it on target, they needed fling the missiles off to landing.

(however they can bring the missile and bomb RTB after some improvement, always throwing the cashes into water is such uneconomical, but still have limit to carry all of them back.)

 

shooting 6 in one shot, not historical, not realistic, bro.

[some1]

shooting 6 in one shot, not historical, not realistic, bro.

 

Exactly like most online servers.

[probad]

the most important thing is that the released date of tomcat dlc.

if they decided to continue developing it for few years, any tactical is worthless to discussion.

the hype train is running out of fuel.

maybe for cod kiddies, in that case, good riddance.

 

hype is a load of rubbish for anyone whos really passionate about the f-14. it's about the plane, and it was, is, and always will be a timeless love affair.

 

shooting 6 in one shot, not historical, not realistic, bro.

read the op again

[Reflected]

If it will be modeled like the AMRAAM in this game, there's nothing to fear. You'll just change direction, pump out some chaff and the missile will go stupid :P

 

If it will be modeled realistically, you still have nothing to fear. Yes, it can put you on the defensive from pretty far, but it was mainly designed to be used against bombers. I emphasize the manily part, because there were successful experiments against maneuvering targets too. So while it can get a few kills from long distances, it's far from a God mode missile.

[Drag0nWIng]

reflected showed the key point.

you can just fly you eagle and launched all of 120 at once.

what will happened? most of missiles will waste.

and that 6 targets destroyed test have may limit, not suit for all environment, especially the high maneuver target.

[Robert31178]

"....you can just fly you eagle and launched all of 120 at once." lol makes me think of a song I heard recently. Second verse, listen closely lol.....

 

 

*warning - foul language**

[Drag0nWIng]

DFdxwZR3T1A

[joey45]

People will load 6 phoenixes, fire all of them simultaneously at one target, turn back, land, rearm, repeat.

 

That's my vision of the future, at least on the airquake servers. :P

 

They'll even eject and start with a fresh plane or just change planes.

[VIKBELL]

I would think the RIO is to lock up targets and the Front seat pilot is launch.

[BlackLion213]

Yes, it can put you on the defensive from pretty far, but it was mainly designed to be used against bombers. I emphasize the manily part, because there were successful experiments against maneuvering targets too.

 

If by "experiments" you mean successful validation of an intended capability - then I suppose you are mostly correct. :) The AIM-54 was no more designed for bombers than the AIM-7.

 

This incorrect notion that the AIM-54 was designed primarily to destroy bombers has been so widely distributed via aviation lore that it can't be taken back.

 

But in reality, the AIM-54 was designed to improve upon the deficiencies of the AIM-7 and expand it's capability. This book gives a great overview of the design spec and testing of the AIM-54A. Even very early in development, testing was applied to a broad set of scenarios including small and maneuvering targets such as fighters and sea-skimming cruise missiles.

 

However, there was a doctrinal emphasis on reserving the AIM-54 for existential threats against the battle group - until the mid-80s or so. Prior to this, engagements with fighters emphasized use of the AIM-7 for a practical reason - cost. USN planners of the 1970s and early-80s were quite convinced that the AIM-7 was more than adequate for destroying Soviet fighters of the era (namely the MiG-23 and MiG-21). By the mid-80s when the Su-27 and MiG-29 were coming online, it was clear that the AIM-54 would be needed against fighters to maintain the USN's edge moving forward.

 

This article gives a nice overview of the transition in tactics and why the transition was made: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279

 

-Nick