Modelled AIM-54 effect on a typical DCS PvP server

[probad]

on the other hand in dcs airquake where it's always opening day, 2-4-2 may be one of the better values, as you will almost invariably be squeezing off all 54s premerge, and furthermore it allows you to enter the mix without any heavy pallet rails.

[captain_dalan]

I'm not totally sure why this load-out was never used. I cannot find a single picture with this configuration (at least for USN Tomcats). Once the F-14 started carrying A-G ordnance the single phoenix on the shoulder pylon made a lot sense since it was a better counter balance to the weight of the LANTIRN (which weighs ~850-900 lbs IIRC) and it was far more capable than carrying a single sparrow instead.

 

One other issue to consider is that while the phoenix pallets interfere with fuselage lift a bit, the Tomcat's biggest tactical limitation was it's roll rate while it's biggest strength was pitch rate. Carrying two heavy phoenixes on the shoulder pylon further decentralizes the aircraft's mass and further slows the roll rate. Also, asymmetric loads would have a much bigger impact on performance than carriage in the central tunnel.

 

 

You are right of course (as well as the other posts above). The effect of pallets on the airflow under the "pancake" has often been mentioned (and in IMO over stressed) as an argument against using the 54's on the funnel mountings. However, one look at the Phoenix and the pallets when mounted along the center line shows they make the missile almost semi recessed (especially the first 2 center stations), similar to the AIM-7 that gets almost entirely recessed inside the fuselage. For a big and draggy missile like the 54 this plays a major role in the overall aerodynamic properties of the plane. Will the pallets affect the airflow along the funnel? They sure will, however just take a look at the 2 separate configurations in the EM charts. The difference in the performance between the 0x4x4 and 2x2x2 is negligible, and that's despite the extra 1000lbs ordnance without the pallet weight. What we often forget is that these pallets are unique in that they were specifically designed for their use on the F-14 and thus did not impact the performance much. Even with the missiles on. In fact, the empty conformal bags have a greater impact on the jet maneuverability (at least it stability) then the pallets.

 

Another thing is that, besides the drag added to the plane by mounting the heave missile on the shoulder pylons, you would also add stress on those said pylons. Thus you would also add more maintenance hours and another thing that you can break sooner (then later) in an environment that is already short on both supplies and time.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking....

The "little" range advantage that people keep referring to isn't that little.

 

Unfortunately, at the moment we can't say. "Anecdotal" information seams to place the "recommended" max launch distance against a fighter sized target at 30 nauticals. However, until we have the missile in game, we just don't know if it is so. Could be more, could be less. What is the same value for the AMRAAM (IRL)?

 

on the other hand in dcs airquake where it's always opening day, 2-4-2 may be one of the better values, as you will almost invariably be squeezing off all 54s premerge, and furthermore it allows you to enter the mix without any heavy pallet rails.

 

It has never occurred to me before , but did the 54 need any extra adapters or launchers for mounting them on the shoulder pylons?

Edited January 30, 2017 by captain_dalan

[BlackLion213]

Will the pallets affect the airflow along the funnel? They sure will, however just take a look at the 2 separate configurations in the EM charts. The difference in the performance between the 0x4x4 and 2x2x2 is negligible, and that's despite the extra 1000lbs ordnance without the pallet weight. What we often forget is that these pallets are unique in that they were specifically designed for their use on the F-14 and thus did not impact the performance much. Even with the missiles on. In fact, the empty conformal bags have a greater impact on the jet maneuverability (at least it stability) then the pallets.

 

Good information there, thanks! :thumbup:

 

Makes sense that the pallets wouldn't be terribly disruptive aerodynamically. Plus, the aircrew have a ton of practice flying and BFMing with the pallets and tanks in place - when deployed F-14s carried the pallets and tanks ~80% of the time, if not more.

 

There is a well-defined "shore configuration" vs "CV configuration" for F-14s (since the mid-80s at least). When at shore, they operate like their USAF counterparts: the aircraft are in the "clean" configuration unless a specific piece of ordnance is placed - as depicted for all aircraft in DCS.

 

In the "CV configuration" F-14s carry their tanks and forward phoenix pallets all the time and only have them removed for a specific reason (like when operating in the 4x4 configuration). If you look at photos around the boat, you see that F-14s are almost always set-up this way. This includes deployments to NAS Fallon and short practice cruises aboard the boat. Makes sense, there isn't much room to store or unload/reload these items. Having the F-14s like this at all times gives them the most operationally flexibility in terms of weapons, fuel, etc.

 

I got a little off topic...sorry. :)

 

-Nick

[lunaticfringe]

It has never occurred to me before , but did the 54 need any extra adapters or launchers for mounting them on the shoulder pylons?

 

Yes. You're also dealing with plumbed lines when dealing with non-sealed variants of the AIM-54, increasing the maintenance impact. Being that those were the easier locations to upload and download a weapon from, it's a simpler process long term for crews to keep the tunnel pallets installed forward as the primary Phoenix point, and work around the shoulders as required.

 

As to the 2x4x2 in use, see attached image.

[captain_dalan]

Yes. You're also dealing with plumbed lines when dealing with non-sealed variants of the AIM-54, increasing the maintenance impact. Being that those were the easier locations to upload and download a weapon from, it's a simpler process long term for crews to keep the tunnel pallets installed forward as the primary Phoenix point, and work around the shoulders as required.

Lunaticfringe to the rescue! It's good to see you still around mate! And highly informative as usual :thumbup:

EDIT: unfortunately i still need to spread that rep around.....apparently....... :(

[Blitz05]

Don't be so quick to write it off fellas lol, in a perfect launch scenario (tws) that missile is very high and going very fast I wanna say 80,000 feet and over Mach 2 someone correct me I don't remember the details, and by the time you do get a launch warning it's about 7 miles out and screaming at you, which in turn gives you literally seconds to react, what's to say another one isn't on its way? And it still doesn't even have to make contact with you to hurt you. And there isn't always going to be mountains to protect you. Even if you Guys do run away you just ceded the airspace to the cats.

 

climb out to 80k feet and then burn to mach 5, active radar was initiated between 3-5 miles giving you about 4 seconds of reaction time give or take the target altitude. But who knows how they will model it in DCS with how poorly the amraam is modeled I am not going to hold my breath. I really just see it used as missile boat, launch all 4 and pray they hit. But maybe we will get an actual ocean map to accompany better carrier combat.

[addde]

climb out to 80k feet and then burn to mach 5, active radar was initiated between 3-5 miles giving you about 4 seconds of reaction time give or take the target altitude. But who knows how they will model it in DCS with how poorly the amraam is modeled I am not going to hold my breath. I really just see it used as missile boat, launch all 4 and pray they hit. But maybe we will get an actual ocean map to accompany better carrier combat.

 

I Believe the radar activates at about 10-11 miles and its not going mach 5 anymore by then so i Think youre looking at 10-20 seconds from warning to impact.

[probad]

suppose if the target was sitting at 60kft and at like what 30? nm out you might catch him while the phoenix is near peak velocity

but certainly against the majority of players who scoot around at 6kft and even those fling around 23kft the phoenix likely wont be anywhere near m5.

[captain_dalan]

I Believe the radar activates at about 10-11 miles and its not going mach 5 anymore by then so i Think youre looking at 10-20 seconds from warning to impact.

suppose if the target was sitting at 60kft and at like what 30? nm out you might catch him while the phoenix is near peak velocity

but certainly against the majority of players who scoot around at 6kft and even those fling around 23kft the phoenix likely wont be anywhere near m5.

 

 

Pretty much so. On an ideal path, it may dive on target at mach 4 to 4.5 or something, but as soon as starts passing the 20kft there is no way it will stay that fast. Bellow 15kft? We'd be lucky to get to mach 3. That is why i said IMO the most dangerous way to use the missile would be in large operations, when you might actually catch people off guard. Jousting? Nah...

 

On the other hand, this weekend i had some extra spare time and i bought and installed FC3. I spent the Friday learning the keyboard and calibrating the stick the way i am used for it to respond in SF2 i FSX, but today i actually did some flying against AI's. I kept to the F-15 for the most part (as my history with sims mostly includes western AC and i find the Russian avionics harder to get around with), but did enough BVR bouts VS MiG29's and SU-27's to notice that not defending against a missile shot is suicidal 90% of the time if not more. True, at times my 120's get bonkers on their own for no apparent reason (could be my flying with random failures on, or it's just the way they are modeled) against targets that don't seam to be doing any evading (even Floggers going low and slow), but that is not the norm. On the receiving end of the stick, when fired upon, unless immediately beaming and launching counter measures (sometimes terrain masking as well) i end up with a missile in my nose (or butt). So, if the 54 gets to have similar performance against non evading target, then i can see how some extra reach could pose a problem against people forced to fly against it. Especially if the no escape zone is larger then the AMRAAM's. Yeah, they both get active at about the same distance from the target, but if you can launch it from a bit further away and moves a bit faster.......

 

Dunno, maybe there is merit to the concerns. We'll have to wait and see. Especially because flying against people and AI is a very different experience.

[Bearfoot]

I don't think it is going to be as asymmetric as all that in terms of capability, but it result in asymmetric tactics ...

 

(1) IIRC, the Phoenix was designed to take out those big attack birds at long range. E.g., the TU-22 etc. A more nimble target will find it a lot easier to out-fly.

 

(2) Having played a lot of Harpoon in a mis-spent youth, I can say that turn-and-burn tactics work really, really, really, well against a naive/itchy-fingered Phoenix-armed side. Tomcat(s) launch Phoenix's at long range, you turn and scoot, Phoenix runs out of energy, you turn back to attack. And the idea that the Tomcats will have time to turn around, land, refuel and rearm, and launch again before the opposition gets close enough to launch their load is fantasy.

 

That's not to see the 54 does not bring in its own advantages to the table that will change the game, but as with anything, it's got pro's and con's, and it by no means gives overwhelming dominance/advantages that cannot be countered or dealt with.

[OnlyforDCS]

A lot of speculation in this thread. I think its fair to say we will have to wait and see. With that said I believe two things will determine how effective the Tomcats and the AIM54 will be in the current Air to Air mixup.

 

First of all how effective the TWS mode is of their radar, and whether it will be able to guide the missiles effectively to their targets in TWS mode. Secondly, the actual effective range of the missile.

 

Basically if the Tomcats can achieve the effect of enemy pilots believing they may have been fired upon as soon as they see an F14 on their RWR, then the AIM54 has already done its job.

[The Black Swan]

A lot of speculation in this thread. I think its fair to say we will have to wait and see. With that said I believe two things will determine how effective the Tomcats and the AIM54 will be in the current Air to Air mixup.

 

First of all how effective the TWS mode is of their radar, and whether it will be able to guide the missiles effectively to their targets in TWS mode. Secondly, the actual effective range of the missile.

 

Basically if the Tomcats can achieve the effect of enemy pilots believing they may have been fired upon as soon as they see an F14 on their RWR, then the AIM54 has already done its job.

 

EXACTLY

[captain_dalan]

A lot of speculation in this thread. I think its fair to say we will have to wait and see. With that said I believe two things will determine how effective the Tomcats and the AIM54 will be in the current Air to Air mixup.

 

First of all how effective the TWS mode is of their radar, and whether it will be able to guide the missiles effectively to their targets in TWS mode. Secondly, the actual effective range of the missile.

 

Basically if the Tomcats can achieve the effect of enemy pilots believing they may have been fired upon as soon as they see an F14 on their RWR, then the AIM54 has already done its job.

Good points there.

As long as not pushing the radar to its limits (as in trying to track and launch 4+ targets at once or targets with very large separation) i think it will do fine......on flat ground......when not looking extremely down...... :P

[lunaticfringe]

Am I the only person who sees this conversation, or others on the forum of this vein, and laugh when someone says "oh, the Phoenix will only be at Mach 2-3 at the point of intercept at low altitude and won't be able to hit"?

 

All Machs are not created equal, and a weapon's control surfaces don't care how fast it's going relative to the speed of sound- they care how fast they're going relative to air density at sea level.

 

For those of you who think otherwise, do the Q math of a Mach 2 missile at 15,000' versus a Mach 5 missile at 50,000'- you'll learn.

[captain_dalan]

Am I the only person who sees this conversation, or others on the forum of this vein, and laugh when someone says "oh, the Phoenix will only be at Mach 2-3 at the point of intercept at low altitude and won't be able to hit"?

 

All Machs are not created equal, and a weapon's control surfaces don't care how fast it's going relative to the speed of sound- they care how fast they're going relative to air density at sea level.

 

For those of you who think otherwise, do the Q math of a Mach 2 missile at 15,000' versus a Mach 5 missile at 50,000'- you'll learn.

I think the notes on the altitude and mach were more pointed toward the time the enemy pilot would have to respond to the threat after the missile goes active, then to the actual capability of the missile to maneuver for the kill. After all at high altitudes that time would be nearly half then at lower altitudes.

[Frostie]

Mp will take another step back in the same way that botched missile AFM ruined BVR, everything bar the Tomcat is going to be in the weeds even the best F-15 pilots will be joining the kids down low. Many Tomcats will die from pushing in too deep and getting ambushed. Eventually there will be two kind of TC pilots, those that want to prune themselves with a something to zero k/d staying out of reach desperately trying to make those long range 54s hit without killing any friendlies kidding themselves that this sort of boredom is fun, and those that have accepted mp is EDs joke get tired of running circuits and get low themselves looking for merges, AIM-9 kills and some fun.

[Coyote Duster]

Mp will take another step back in the same way that botched missile AFM ruined BVR, everything bar the Tomcat is going to be in the weeds even the best F-15 pilots will be joining the kids down low. Many Tomcats will die from pushing in too deep and getting ambushed. Eventually there will be two kind of TC pilots, those that want to prune themselves with a something to zero k/d staying out of reach desperately trying to make those long range 54s hit without killing any friendlies kidding themselves that this sort of boredom is fun, and those that have accepted mp is EDs joke get tired of running circuits and get low themselves looking for merges, AIM-9 kills and some fun.

 

map makers gotta take the fight away from the mountains, but they know in doing that they will doom the russians.

[lunaticfringe]

And now we're back to Phoenix being a death ray.

 

More than anything, the AIM-54 may be the factor that forces EDs hand to stop talking about the missile process and start fixing it, if Leatherneck's representation can match up reasonably with RL performance figures.

 

Consider it the equivalent of air to ground radar implementation with the Viggen having gotten them to start pressing on the Hornet in that vein. The development of that type, as far as anyone should be concerned, was stagnant until LN came in and pressured an area ED has never touched.

 

Between carrier operations on the Ranger, and the AWG-9/Phoenix combination, there are a lot of parallel aspects Leatherneck is reaching to fulfill that Eagle has been promising for years. It's going to be time for them to put up and take the lead with Nimitz, the Hornet, and finally start fixing a host of issues that have long plagued the system that tie these together.

[The Black Swan]

I know that there was a time when missiles were turning way too hard to intercept, but I don't really notice amraams doing that much anymore.

Can someone please explain to me what is so wrong with AAMs a the moment?

Are these concerns actually based in facts and figures?

[OnlyforDCS]

I know that there was a time when missiles were turning way too hard to intercept, but I don't really notice amraams doing that much anymore.

Can someone please explain to me what is so wrong with AAMs a the moment?

Are these concerns actually based in facts and figures?

 

That is basically a discussion for another topic. A can of worms that should probably remain closed. It's best to accept the missile modeling as it is for now, maybe it changes with the arrival of the AIM54, that will depend on the modeling of the missile and it's radar.

[Sweep]

I know that there was a time when missiles were turning way too hard to intercept, but I don't really notice amraams doing that much anymore.

Can someone please explain to me what is so wrong with AAMs a the moment?

Are these concerns actually based in facts and figures?

 

Reply in the spoiler...Didn't want to OT-wall the thread. :)

 

 

Guidance is one thing, PN in all channels with some simplified lofting logic (that was made for older missiles, at that, I think?). Aerodynamics is another...This is where GG/Scat/etc. and the guys from ED disagreed:

 

What does an Rmax indication mean on a DLZ chart? Is it medium-high Pk range or missile is basically struggling to maintain 1g flight? ED believes something like the latter, I think, so while our AMRAAMs can get out to 25nmi (or whatever range at a given set of parameters), they'll get there on their last breath, so to speak.

 

Tharos made a pretty good point a while ago, though...There's a HUD tape of an Eagle killing a Foxbat in Desert Storm with a Sparrow...Look at the speeds, altitudes, range, and TTI indications...Create them in the sim with the missile mod and it's a pretty reasonable match. IIRC that doesn't work anymore because of some ED modeling change with how maneuvering affects drag.

 

The Rmax discussion is just one thing, too...There's a LOT more stuff to it, lot of aero stuff that is slightly beyond me, and other crap I'm sure.

 

The facts and figures are hundreds of pages of documentation. There's a lot of background for this stuff on these boards as well, from the Missile Mod thread to various bug report threads and others. TLDR of that, though, is that there are very valid questions and remarks about missile modeling in the sim.

 

All of that is just what I remember, anyway...Busy dealing with the reality of the game and not what it could/should be. ;)

 

 

I hope that LN will model older Sparrows, just to show what a "normal" BVR missile is capable of. If my imagination and my hopes align, you might see a lot of Tomcats with six Sparrows. :joystick:

 

And as for the thread's favorite missile...It's a threat, respect it. You may have to respect it a bit more than an AMRAAM or any other current missile, but keep in mind the capabilities of the launching platform, as well. Honestly, if I can maneuver in a somewhat unrestricted manner, I don't think the AIM-54 is an overpowering threat. Bigger threat than a Slammer on average, but not quite an instant killing death ray game breaking weapon. The real threat to MP PVP stuff is the client slot list and the way it supports the lonewolf with no mission mentality.

[lunaticfringe]

The real threat to MP PVP stuff is the client slot list and the way it supports the lonewolf with no mission mentality.

 

Part of this stems from MP PvP servers being set up essentially with balanced numeric sides, for the most part. If one were to actually design a mission using some of the outside scripting methods such as MOOSE, using the ability to toss in autopilot aircraft to increase volume on one side or the other based in response to player preferences, and structure those into the scenario itself appropriately, you'd fix a healthy portion of that; reason being that once you start putting random packs of AI MiG-23s, MiG-29s, and F-5s and F-16s in the landscape in response to whichever side has a higher number of players, you force the issue of cohesion and support for survivability.

[Sweep]

Part of this stems from MP PvP servers being set up essentially with balanced numeric sides, for the most part. If one were to actually design a mission using some of the outside scripting methods such as MOOSE, using the ability to toss in autopilot aircraft to increase volume on one side or the other based in response to player preferences, and structure those into the scenario itself appropriately, you'd fix a healthy portion of that; reason being that once you start putting random packs of AI MiG-23s, MiG-29s, and F-5s and F-16s in the landscape in response to whichever side has a higher number of players, you force the issue of cohesion and support for survivability.

 

Yup, mission design is also (or, "can be") as lethal as the Forum Phoenix. :thumbup:

[The Black Swan]

Reply in the spoiler....

 

Ok thanks, I was just wondering what all that was about.

 

As far as the Phoenix goes, I think it will be simple.

Some people will be scared of it, and when it is released they will be relieved to see it's not as bad as they thought.

Other people will think it's only good for bombers and, with no respect for the missile, will get blown out of the sky over 60 nm away.

[BlackLion213]

As far as the Phoenix goes, I think it will be simple.

Some people will be scared of it, and when it is released they will be relieved to see it's not as bad as they thought.

Other people will think it's only good for bombers and, with no respect for the missile, will get blown out of the sky over 60 nm away.

 

That sounds right to me. :)

 

-Nick