Modelled AIM-54 effect on a typical DCS PvP server

[Madbrood]

Anti-ship missiles has been mentioned once here... I for one look forward to hunting Viggens (and eventually Hornets?) trying to take out my carrier!

 

Beyond that, I can perhaps see the merit in lobbing a Phoenix at 40 miles, press, Phoenix at 20 miles, press, switch to Sparrow for the kill? Would keep the target defensive as much as possible.

[probad]

if you want to use 54s as a closing tool for sparrow, launch inside their mrm range. foxing too far is meaningless, ex. at 40nm and they go full defensive, you have like 35nm tail chase and if then you keep them cold to you, unless it's a cessna you're not going to be anywhere close for a 3nm sparrow tailshot.

one of you will simply run out of gas first, usually the f-14.

and if you let them turn around too far out, you can close again but they're also getting their chance to pit mrm against sparrow envelope again, so what was the point of that first 54 shot?

 

i personally don't like the whole intimidation shot tactic, seems to me there's always a less wasteful method to gain the upper hand in an engagement.

Edited January 27, 2017 by probad

[nogano00]

It's not like at this point people don't do the same on 104th in F-15c, In my opinion those servers are just created for PVP and pleasure in shooting down an enemy and not the true simulation aspect, people who spammraam on 104th and such servers will do it in the F-14 too. That's why i'd rather play on PVP and PVE servers rather than just a PVP server. Because you won't know if it's a player or an AI and therefore won't spam all missiles at it because 6 missiles for one AI is not that rewarding.

 

So it's not the plane that is the problem it seems the immatureness of the community that plays the simulator as a Team Deathmatch in planes.

[Coyote Duster]

I think plenty of Russian fighters will get snuck by the Phoenix since their rwr isn't very informative, the Phoenix has a very different flight pattern from most conventional missiles, and is one of the fastest, also the Phoenix doesn't always have to be fired from a stand off range, they're more than capable of tracking and maneuvering at close to medium ranges. Russians will have to tread a tad bit more carefully.

[Pikey]

So from the OP and despite some chat around the topics, the issues cited for PvP are;

- Players not wishing to relinquish control to another mystery back seat driver

- SPAM-RTB/EJECT-T/O-SPAM cycles

- Long range inneffective jousting because no one commits close enough to lethal ranges.

 

The background to this is that I do put up MP servers and I need to try to design around this.

 

On the face of it, it looks like to have an effective and well played F14 Phoenix server I'll need to enforce simple radio and a lives system, then give the F-14's something to attack to force their push and quit the "stalemate" of long arms reach.

 

Anything else worth considering?

[Reflected]

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

 

I stand corrected, then, thanks for the info. By the way Dave Baranek is writing his 3rd book and there will be a lot about this subject as far as I understood. I'm looking forward to reading it.

 

Still, I'm a little skeptical when it comes to missile performance in DCS, so I won't keep my hopes too high. I hope I will be happily surprised.

[captain_dalan]

 

when tomcats are forced to use aim-7s they become 'just another fighter.'

Indeed they are. Even with the Buffaloes they are not really an overwhelming threat in a modern (not period restricted) environment. But more on that later. As Nick said:

 

 

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.

 

For all the players fearing the AIM-54, well guys, if you can defend against an AIM-120 you can surely defend against an AIM-54. True, the later has more reach, a larger warhead, CAN be faster and maybe follow a less intuitive trajectory, but it is also easier to spot, larger, heavier and less nimble and even more importantly, because of their weight and drag penalty, there will always be less of them in the air at any given time, then there would be AMRAAMs.

 

- Players not wishing to relinquish control to another mystery back seat driver

- SPAM-RTB/EJECT-T/O-SPAM cycles

- Long range inneffective jousting because no one commits close enough to lethal ranges.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Extremely insecure drivers might resort to 6 on 1 launches, but i think people more experienced would rely more on diverse loads. IMO, the 54 is best used as a roman legionary uses their pilum. You have 2 or 1 on your belly, and toss them at your enemy before engaging at close range. At the very best, you may get a lucky kill. In some cases (i have no clue as to how the missile is modeled in the sim and therefor its best launch parameters) you may force the enemy in a very bad position. At the very least you buy your self some time and hope the enemy makes an opening you can explore. This is all for jousting mind you. In jousting matches you (and the enemy) have a perfect situational awareness. If there is a blip on the radar, you know it's a foe. Same counts for him. If his RWR flashes and he knows it's an F-14 he is up against, he will be expecting a launch and also be ready to defend. There is also no priority targets, no home to defend and no mission objective. So absolutely no incentive as to be restrictive on how, when and with what to engage.

 

On the other hand, in more "operational" scenarios the 54's could pose a much larger threat, even if the Cat drivers might be more hesitant to use them (because of the safety of the boat back home). In a large, multi bogie environment you can never be sure as to where and what is actually at you. And with proper AWACS guidance and SA you could actually get a sneak launch in TWS against targets further away and more importantly targets that aren't really sure of your intent. Yes, in such environments getting a shot will be more difficult, but the probability for that shot being lethal is higher. The missile could actually exploit its ballistic trajectory and large velocity to its advantage. While it is nearly impossible to catch someone off guard in 1 on 1, 2 or 2 (or any combination of those) in a jousting match, it is quite possible in a large enough op.

[Buzzles]

I'm seriously not going to worry about the AIM-54.

I think it's going to be great for MP as it's interesting and its useage is also a trade off, unlike the AMRAAM where it's more the merrier.

 

In the F-14, realistically you're going to only carry one or two if you actually want to mix it up, and you're probably still going to want to lose them before even thinking about merging. Taking 4 or 6? No dogfighting for you.

 

VS the F-14: Just stay low and onshore if you know F-14's are in the air. The great range of the AIM-54 is useless if the F-14 can't actually lock you in the first place. Mountains do have their uses :)

 

About the only effect on PvP servers is that it might force more people onto the deck...which isn't exactly a big change anyway.

[BlackLion213]

By the way Dave Baranek is writing his 3rd book and there will be a lot about this subject as far as I understood. I'm looking forward to reading it.

 

I'm excited about his third book too. It will also include some interesting details concerning his time with VF-2 operating over the Strait of Hormuz during the Tanker Wars. That info could be quite salient in the near future! :)

 

I am also skeptical of missile performance in DCS, so I agree that the AIM-54 will add relatively little additional threat over what we have with the AMRAAM. Though it will diversify things a bit, nice to have another Fox 3 missile available.

 

 

About the only effect on PvP servers is that it might force more people onto the deck...which isn't exactly a big change anyway.

 

That would be perfect! The F-14A is not underpowered below 5000'. :D

 

-Nick

 

PS - Nice to see you back Captain Dalan. :)

[59th_LeFty]

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?

 

Hi!

 

All what can be said about this topic has been said in this few pages above. The reason I am still adding to it is that I fly on the receiving end of the AIM54/120/7/9 now for more than 10 years with mostly Fulcrum, and Flanker. In my own missions, friends, airquake servers, big events, you name it.

 

TLDR: yes.

 

Long version: Are we talking about organised or disorganised event? The more organised, the more fun will be flying against a Tomcat. Period. A carrier defense breach scenario would be the most challanging, or intercepting a strike package far from home who'll think twice before lighting afterburner.

 

AIM54 on servers: Tough question, but I'd like to slightly disagree with all the above, that 'nah, aim54 is not OP'. My reason: The range and behaviour of the 120B/C compared to ER/ET/77 combo is not that far from each other that it can not be overcome with tactics. The reason you see both russian and american fighters fall down the sky is 1. pilot skill 2. all these missiles are within -comparable- parameters. What if I add the 54 into the game? That little edge (that everyone try to state unimportant), the russian side can gain by maneouvering perfectly against an aim-120 to get a shot is completely lost if you add a few miles to the no escape zone. From that on, your attack on a superior shooter is merely a bold try not to die in the process. On my perspective, if I want to live, I stay out of the Cats' sight. In a Fulcrum-C, killing a Tomcat (or worse, multiple bogeys including at least one Tomcat) is coming down to numbers. 2-3 maybe 4 Fulcrums. You won't see that in airquake servers.

 

Killing an F-15? Everyday at work. If he is good, he'll live. I may also, but we prevented each other from gaining superiority. We both did the job, We go RTB, rest is up for the other guys.

 

Oh, there CAN be at least 1 Tomcat with those F-15. My chances coming down to slim to none. I suddenly have inferior ammunition. Two things come from this:

I have to switch to defensive ONLY tactics, most probably low alt profile and I will need a lot of friendlies to match let's say an F-15/18 paired up with an F-14. Those who just want a kill no matter if they die, will to EXACTLY the same they did before against spamraams, with the only difference that they'll die more often, resulting in decreased mood -> not coming back to the server.

 

Another thing is all vs all where tomcats can engage other tomcats. Same thing like an everyday 104th evening, with the exception of resulting less aggressive tactics from the simple fact that you have to turn your ass 5-10 miles sooner if you spot a tomcat. But again, it is enough for me not to get a firing solution.

 

Bottom line: If you give an unresctricted server, unrestricted use of AIM54, everyone will hate if a single tomcat enters the server. That aircraft keeps you at bay, which of course is perfectly fine, but will destroy the turkey shoot game you have on servers.

However, If you organise an event, where both sides know what and WHEN they are up against, its not even OP to fly against F-14 that have 6 phoenixes until I know my chances. Especially if you give thee F.14 the role its intended to play, fleet defender. All in all, I can't wait to get my sights on a Tomcat, in which I know that two guys are trying do the same as me :)

[captain_dalan]

That would be perfect! The F-14A is not underpowered below 5000'. :D

 

Or even below 15000'.....at least not against certain big birds with sharp talons and curved beaks.... :smilewink:

But that is way too high for terrain masking anyways.....

 

PS - Nice to see you back Captain Dalan.

It's good to be back. I'm always around lurking actually, but way too much RL on my hands to actively participate :(

[Coyote Duster]

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.

[probad]

a few seconds is an eternity in aerial combat, in that span of time you can displace an awful lot of space in a modern combat jet, especially against dcs hi-drag missile standard :)

[tekrc]

I was always a believer in the 2x2x2 package. 2 aim-54s for standoff work. 2 aim 7s for mid range.. and the 2 aim-9s and the cannon for the dogfights which this cat is surprisingly good at playing in for its size and weight. I plan to use this a fair bit myself and its a common real loadout. sure you dont have a huge number of missiles. but the weight savings will help your turning and less drag means better speed also improving range. seems well balanced and effective enough to me. though I think we all know there is no perfect tactic for everything. there will always be a counter. just look at what the current issue is on the battlefield and plan accordingly but the 2x2x2 is a good rounded patrol setup for me especially if you consider having a wingman

Edited January 29, 2017 by tekrc

[captain_dalan]

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.

 

a few seconds is an eternity in aerial combat, in that span of time you can displace an awful lot of space in a modern combat jet, especially against dcs hi-drag missile standard

 

Plus, in a jousting match, you'll always know it's coming your way, even if you don't get a missile warning. If the 14's are up there, what are they going to use? Spit balls? They may vary their launch parameters, but they are not likely to take the 54's with them at the merge. So you'll just be extra careful and watch the skies for any suspicious trails that might indicate the government is spraying the civilians :doh:

 

 

I was always a believer in the 2x2x2 package. 2 aim-54s for standoff work. 2 aim 7s for mid range.. and the 2 aim-9s and the cannon for the dogfights which this cat is surprisingly good at playing in for its size and weight. I plan to use this a fair bit myself and its a common real loadout. sure you dont have a huge number of missiles. but the weight savings will help your turning and less drag means better speed also improving range. seems well balanced and effective enough to me. though I think we all know there is no perfect tactic for everything. there will always be a counter. just look at what the current issue is on the battlefield and plan accordingly but the 2x2x2 is a good rounded patrol setup for me especially if you consider having a wingman

 

Or my personal CAP favorite, 2x3x2 :thumbup:

[addde]

Im prolly gona go either 2x4x2 or 3x3x2 most of the time :P

[tekrc]

Or my personal CAP favorite, 2x3x2 :thumbup:

 

not a bad idea either. for me thats going to depend on how much range I need

[1stBEAST]

my personal favorite is also

2x AIM-54

3x AIM-7

2x AIM-9

plus the external fueltanks

 

this is for me the payload with the most sense.

 

 

 

i think the Phoenix wont change much on the normal Dogfight servers.

the most interessting servers for me will be DACT servers....

 

or missions a lá kill the carrier would also be nice, but the russians in DCS doesnt have really anything that could challenge the carrier group

 

there is no fighter that a player could fly with mulitple antiship missiles.

for the russians. only viggen and later the F/A-18

[dekiplav]

I have always wondered why the the most common F-14 payload was:

 

2 x Aim-54's under the fuselage stations,

2 or 3 x Aim-7's and

2 x Aim-9's.

 

instead of:

 

2 x Aim-54's under the pylon stations,

2 x Aim-9's,

4 x Aim-7's under the fuselage.

 

I can't figure out why the first payload configuration was more common. The first thing that comes in my mind is not having to mount the phoenix pallets anytime F-14 is needed for intercept missions (4 x Aim-54's) etc... The later payload on the first look gives the F-14 two more sparrows and doesn't rob the Tomcat from the extra fuselage lift that F-14 is dependent to perform well in dogfights.

[addde]

I have always wondered why the the most common F-14 payload was:

 

2 x Aim-54's under the fuselage stations,

2 or 3 x Aim-7's and

2 x Aim-9's.

 

instead of:

 

2 x Aim-54's under the pylon stations,

2 x Aim-9's,

4 x Aim-7's under the fuselage.

 

I can't figure out why the first payload configuration was more common. The first thing that comes in my mind is not having to mount the phoenix pallets anytime F-14 is needed for intercept missions (4 x Aim-54's) etc... The later payload on the first look gives the F-14 two more sparrows and doesn't rob the Tomcat from the extra fuselage lift that F-14 is dependent to perform well in dogfights.

 

From what i understand the aim 54s are very draggy when mounted on the wing pylons, so thats probably why they usually only go under the belly

[dekiplav]

From what i understand the aim 54s are very draggy when mounted on the wing pylons, so thats probably why they usually only go under the belly

If true it makes sense :).

[addde]

If true it makes sense :).

 

I have seen many pics of aim 54s on the wing pylons tho. But in most of those cases i think its because the "belly" stations were occupied by A/G weapons.

[ESAc_matador]

I heard/read the drag is massive so your Time of Flight/range is considsrably reduced. That missile was designed for big bombers like Tu22... And the cost of each... How many where manufactured?

[The Black Swan]

 

. What if I add the 54 into the game? That little edge (that everyone try to state unimportant), the russian side can gain by maneouvering perfectly against an aim-120 to get a shot is completely lost if you add a few miles to the no escape zone. From that on, your attack on a superior shooter is merely a bold try not to die in the process. On my perspective, if I want to live, I stay out of the Cats' sight. In a Fulcrum-C, killing a Tomcat (or worse, multiple bogeys including at least one Tomcat) is coming down to numbers. 2-3 maybe 4 Fulcrums. You won't see that in airquake servers.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking....

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

[BlackLion213]

2 x Aim-54's under the pylon stations,

2 x Aim-9's,

4 x Aim-7's under the fuselage.

 

I can't figure out why the first payload configuration was more common. The first thing that comes in my mind is not having to mount the phoenix pallets anytime F-14 is needed for intercept missions (4 x Aim-54's) etc... The later payload on the first look gives the F-14 two more sparrows and doesn't rob the Tomcat from the extra fuselage lift that F-14 is dependent to perform well in dogfights.

 

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.

 

Also, we tend to think of what kind of load-out a DCS user would choose for a mission where they would likely fire everything. In real life, aircraft may be armed with live ordnance, but there is an expectation of not using it and even if launch is necessary, pilots/RIOs should only use what they absolutely need. Especially with the AIM-54's high cost (~$1,000,000 in the 1980s) and low-ish production numbers (5000 total production by the 1990s), use of the AIM-54 had to be carefully justified. Use of other missiles was expected if they were tactically viable. As such, there were many instances where F-14s would fly in hostile areas with just one AIM-54 ( the "just in case mentality"). In those cases, flying with just one phoenix on the shoulder pylon would make the entire flight less pleasant for the reasons above.

 

 

Here is VF-2 during Earnest Will (the threat was real) in 1987 and VF-2 chose a 1x2x3 load-out:

 

 

But even when F-14s were loaded to the gills with missiles, such as Desert Storm:

 

 

 

Mission planners still had to consider flying properties when only a fraction of the ordnance was fired. They wanted to maximize available weapons, but knew that firing multiple shots was not that likely. Even if a phoenix was fired, multiples was not too likely and using the sparrows first (especially with ROE) or sidewinders was quite possible. So most probably chose a configuration that would give better cruise performance and better handling after firing a couple missiles - this won out over a configuration that allowed for one more sparrow.

 

-Nick