Modelled AIM-54 effect on a typical DCS PvP server

[*Rage*]

I think its effect on MP depends entirely on the view LN take of the missile.

 

If they see it as basically a 120C with twice the NEZ then its gonna be beast.

 

If they see it primarily as a heavy anti-bomber standoff weapon with limited end game manueverability and limited TWS capability/compromised ECCM then it will be much less beastly.

[OnlyforDCS]

Well there is this thread by Cobra, dedicated specifically to explaining their modeling methods and motivation.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=172708

 

They are striving for max, historical accuracy based on accurate CAD modeling and SME reports. I don't think Leatherneck "sees" the missile as anything.

[*Rage*]

There will always be interpretations and guestimates. See above.

[OnlyforDCS]

There will always be interpretations and guestimates. See above.

 

I agree, of course there will be. What I'm trying to say though is that Leatherneck is not starting out with an attitude of: "Let's make the AIM54 a really good AA missile", or "Let's make the AIM54 a really long range missile only good against bombers".

 

They are hopefully starting out without any preconceptions of what the missile should be at all.

[Buzzles]

This thread tells me the first few weeks after the F14 comes out are going to be very fun in MP :)

[captain_dalan]

I agree, of course there will be. What I'm trying to say though is that Leatherneck is not starting out with an attitude of: "Let's make the AIM54 a really good AA missile", or "Let's make the AIM54 a really long range missile only good against bombers".

 

They are hopefully starting out without any preconceptions of what the missile should be at all.

Amen to that :thumbup:

[The Black Swan]

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'll just bump this quote by black lion up to the forefront again, since people still seem to want to say that this missile was only for shooting down bombers.

What I said earlier still stands, but I see more people dismissing this missile... :huh:

[Drag0nWIng]

dude, usn has no air victory by aim-54, and all of the f14/15/16 ace is at middle east country.

pity.

lol

[The Black Swan]

dude, usn has no air victory by aim-54, and all of the f14/15/16 ace is at middle east country.

pity.

lol

 

Because the USN only used it like 3 times in combat...

as opposed to the 15 or more times the AMRAAM has been used...

And if you want to talk about middle eastern countries, Iran has claimed success with the AIM-54

[1stBEAST]

yup, according to a documentary and various claims. the iranian airforce shot down quite a lot fighters with the 54a´s

at one occasion they even shot down 3 planes with one missile, but accodring to this the fighter didnt maneuvered a lot. if i remember correctly it was a issue with the build in RWR of the Iraqi planes it doesnt recognized the launch of the Aim54´s

[Drag0nWIng]

and usaf still has no ace for their f15 and f16,

the jewish boy own the medal.

[*Rage*]

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.

 

Does that mean its less capable against a capable fighter (disregarding faulty RWRs, untrained pilots etc)? Genuine question...Is there a similar quote saying it is capable as such?

[Reflected]

dude, usn has no air victory by aim-54, and all of the f14/15/16 ace is at middle east country.

pity.

lol

 

"dude"

 

Highlighting facts that are true, but only a small part of the whole picture while not mentioning other important details, in order to prove your point by making people jump to false conclusions about the whole picture...that’s plain manipulation in my book.

[OnlyforDCS]

Does that mean its less capable against a capable fighter (disregarding faulty RWRs, untrained pilots etc)? Genuine question...Is there a similar quote saying it is capable as such?

 

Your original quote doesn't say anything about the missile's ability once it goes pitbul. In fact it doesn't even mention the fact that it's an active missile. From just that quote, it seems as if the author isn't even aware that the missile has an active radar seeker. Also he seems to be talking about notching, which works pretty good against all radars, however 30 degrees won't help you in a notch, isn't it supposed to be 45 degrees?

 

I've read a lot of Osprey books, some of them are quite good. Some are pretty terrible. This particular one is not even about the F14. I don't know the answer to your question, but I would take that author's word with a grain of salt.

Edited February 17, 2017 by OnlyforDCS
corrections

[BlackLion213]

Is there a similar quote saying it is capable as such?

 

Yes there is, from several USN authors. I'll dig one up once I'm off this commercial flight. :)

 

The quote you mentioned is effectively a USAF quote concerning a USN weapon system. Probably better to ask those who used the weapon. Also, the guidance issues mentioned are true of missiles guided by TWS in general including the AIM-120. Older systems (like the AWG-9) are more susceptible, but notching is still an effective technique against even modern radars. As far as I know, losing a TWS track will still compromise fox 3 guidance irrespective of the specific weapon.

 

-Nick

[OnlyforDCS]

To answer Rage's question, managed to find this quote, it concernes the C which is the most capable version of the missile. its parphrased in an article I've found online, but the sources listed seem pretty respectable:

 

In 1977, development of the significantly improved AIM-54C began. The AIM-54C features completely new digital WGU-11/B guidance and WCU-7/B control sections. The missile incorporates a programmable digital signal processor, and the autopilot now uses a strap-down inertial navigation system. One very important feature of the AIM-54C is its vastly improved ECCM capability. Improvements in the rocket motor increase speed and range, and the new DSU-28/B target detection device improves fuzing accuracy in high-clutter environments and for small and low-altitude targets. The first XAIM-54C prototypes were delivered in August 1979, and after tests with YAIM-54C missiles, production of the Phoenix switched to the AIM-54C in 1982. Initial Operational Capability of the AIM-54C was reached in 1986. Non-tactical variants include the ATM-54C for firing exercises, the CATM-54C captive (non-launching) version for target acquisition practice, and the AEM-54C with special telemetry electronics for test and evaluation purposes. There is no DATM-54C, because the DATM-54A is also suitable for AIM-54C ground handling training.

The AIM-54C was continually upgraded during production. Early in the production run, the MK 82 warhead was replaced by a new WDU-29/B warhead in a WAU-16/B or WAU-20/B warhead section. The WDU-29/B offers a 20 to 25 percent increase in effectiveness. Another improvement was the addition of internal temperature compensation, which eliminated the need for the F-14 to provide temperature compensation liquid during captive flight. Missiles with this feature, first delivered in 1986, are called "sealed", and are sometimes referred to as AIM-54C+. During the production, the ECCM capabilities were still further improved, and "sealed" AIM-54C missiles with improved ECCM are known in the U.S. Navy as AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed. This variant reached IOC in 1988. The guidance and control sections of the ECCM/Sealed missile are the WGU-17/B and WCU-12/B, respectively, and the available warhead sections are the WAU-19/B and WAU-21/B. Other improvements, which can be retrofitted to older AIM-54C rounds, include a reprogrammable memory, and new software for the signal processor.

 

In the interest of full disclosure the sources also state this:

The AIM-54 was primarily designed for long-range fleet defense against incoming bomber streams, a threat which has dimished nowadays. Although it can theoretically also be used against low-flying high-speed anti-ship missiles, there are more effective weapons for this role

 

It's not a direct answer, since it deals only with dry specs, but it gives us some idea of its capability. These are the sources:

 

[1] Norman Friedman: "US Naval Weapons", Conway Maritime Press, 1983

[2] Norman Friedman: "World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997/98", Naval Institute Press, 1997

[3] Bill Gunston: "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rockets and Missiles", Salamander Books Ltd, 1979

[4] Christopher Chant: "World Encyclopaedia of Modern Air Weapons", Patrick Stephens Ltd., 1988

[5] Hajime Ozu: "Missile 2000 - Reference Guide to World Missile Systems", Shinkigensha, 2000

[6] Bernard Blake (ed.): "Jane's Weapon Systems 1987-88", Jane's, 1988

Edited February 17, 2017 by OnlyforDCS
additional info

[OnlyforDCS]

Also found this. Lists all the tests of the missile. Some very scary long distance records on there too. Very interesting read, not too long:

 

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.PrintNewsStory&id=2943

Edited February 17, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[Coxy_99]

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?

 

To OP i would actually enjoy the challenge of defeating any missile if i can ill do anything to get a kill, Flying the hawk and the L39ZA i have now managed to kill without been killed using my own tactics whatever that maybe, Im pretty sure once learnt defeating it will not be a problem, With FC3 going against an F-15 once your within 15nm I already expected hes fired in TWS mode, So when i know that im in the F14 range i bet my bottom dollar he would get excited and fire an aim-54, Plan ahead i think is key, I also look at the M-2000 how hard is that to pick up on any radar its a pain, Ill enjoy giving it ago, I dont think multiplayer will change much wise, Ive been in situations (Already said) That some will even launch everything at you, By which point ill turn around to a plane that has no missiles, Any game including dcs we all try tricks to get that kill, Would you think the F-14 will be a high workload? Is an A.I RIO able to mess up?

[lunaticfringe]

Your original quote doesn't say anything about the missile's ability once it goes pitbul. In fact it doesn't even mention the fact that it's an active missile. From just that quote, it seems as if the author isn't even aware that the missile has an active radar seeker. Also he seems to be talking about notching, which works pretty good against all radars, however 30 degrees won't help you in a notch, isn't it supposed to be 45 degrees?

 

The Doppler "notch" is 90 degrees. Relative impact when nearing or "in" the notch is dependent on the weapon and its signal processing capability to determine what speed of targets are rejected as they near 0 relative velocity to the radar.

 

Re: "bomber killer":

 

A missile doesn't care what the target is; it cares that it can see the target, and whether or not it can achieve an intercept within parameters for a direct collision or kinetic impact within lethal miss distance and warhead detonation.

 

This is an AIM-54C+ engaging a 6G maneuvering drone within the heart of the Sparrow/AMRAAM envelope.

 

 

It doesn't care. It sees the target. It navigates to a probable intercept point. And it maintains enough energy to complete a direct collision.

 

As to the AWG-9 functioning as a pure spotlight, and shifting only to targets, the description is wholly incorrect. While the radar used a phase lock while in the TWS pattern to direct an individual missile's attention to a target, pure spotlighting would grant no target rejection or re-acquisition in the event of a momentary target loss, of which the combination was able to perform. Simple spotlighting would also entail the loss of all other tracks within the selected TWS region, which did not occur, either. To do so would essentially mean that any AIM-54 that was not programmed to launch at the immediate initiation of the first would be unavailable until the spotlight sequence ended, and that is in no way the case.

 

At the same time, the AIM-54 was able to go to active state, maintaining the original guidance state, after a substantial period of lost guidance, allowing for the potential of intercept- or, more interestingly, the acquisition of another return in the event of a target being downed by another missile.

 

Which is to say, the origin of "maddog" functionality.

[Pikey]

Yeah Coxy tough times when you need to quote the OP, thread went real world too much, i wanted to know about design perspectives for servers.

 

Honestly, I was interested in how player versus player would look at using one plane with enormous attraction and a longer reach than the others and wonder what it would do to the people that currently love their F15 or SU27 contest on primarily PvP servers. It's not got a similar equalised matchup so it would end up on both sides as per 104th normal server. Which then begs the questions of what do the current FC3 crowd think about a module that potentially creates a new problem for them to the existing "status quo" (note i did not use the word balance, it's a dirty and disgusting word).

 

I'm implying in the thread that I wondered if it would split communities or cause difficulties for server admins to create matchups that are closer, despite all the possible limitations of an AIM-54. Would the Phoenix be simply removed from loadouts for example, rendering a big part of the plane's interest to some as out of scope on some servers? Or, which is more likely, the phoenix is on both sides and eagle and flanker drivers then have this "other thing to consider" Right now the approach of reducing altitude as a defensive measure does bring in some equalisation.

 

I can't see it being more than a constant annoyance over terrain with hiding places, even with a possibility it can hit manouvering fighters. It's likely to force more low valley running than before. If it's forced out to sea it's a decent defensive range, over mountains I can't see it, in even overpowered modelling, that its going to be much worry. Perhaps it will make no difference at all!

To OP i would actually enjoy the challenge of defeating any missile if i can ill do anything to get a kill, Flying the hawk and the L39ZA i have now managed to kill without been killed using my own tactics whatever that maybe, Im pretty sure once learnt defeating it will not be a problem, With FC3 going against an F-15 once your within 15nm I already expected hes fired in TWS mode, So when i know that im in the F14 range i bet my bottom dollar he would get excited and fire an aim-54, Plan ahead i think is key, I also look at the M-2000 how hard is that to pick up on any radar its a pain, Ill enjoy giving it ago, I dont think multiplayer will change much wise, Ive been in situations (Already said) That some will even launch everything at you, By which point ill turn around to a plane that has no missiles, Any game including dcs we all try tricks to get that kill, Would you think the F-14 will be a high workload? Is an A.I RIO able to mess up?

[Coxy_99]

Perfect example would be 104th east vs west with weapon restriction, So the F-14 would carry per aim-7 and aim-9, Same as the other aircraft, You could also look at how the F-14 would use its fuel and how quick you could deplete it, I dont think the F-14 ever used center line? You could place them further away from the bullseye of air to air action? The SU-27 used properly can also notch off the radar and flank and pop up on your 9 o clock.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Coxy_99

[OnlyforDCS]

The Doppler "notch" is 90 degrees.

 

You are quite right. Brainfart on my part there, of course it's 90 degrees :thumbup:

[*Rage*]

Yes there is, from several USN authors. I'll dig one up once I'm off this commercial flight. :)

 

The quote you mentioned is effectively a USAF quote concerning a USN weapon system. Probably better to ask those who used the weapon. Also, the guidance issues mentioned are true of missiles guided by TWS in general including the AIM-120. Older systems (like the AWG-9) are more susceptible, but notching is still an effective technique against even modern radars. As far as I know, losing a TWS track will still compromise fox 3 guidance irrespective of the specific weapon.

 

-Nick

 

Look forward to it. But ill still accept a USAF quote over most other armchair generals.

 

Excert

 

Im not sure thats specifcally talking about a role vs other capable fighters..

 

Re: "bomber killer":

 

A missile doesn't care what the target is; it cares that it can see the target, and whether or not it can achieve an intercept within parameters for a direct collision or kinetic impact within lethal miss distance and warhead detonation.

 

This is an AIM-54C+ engaging a 6G maneuvering drone within the heart of the Sparrow/AMRAAM envelope.

 

 

Of course it doesnt care. But can it is the question? The video is interesting and its certainly pulling some Gs within a relatively short range but to the viewer it doesnt help answer the question all that much.

[BlackLion213]

Look forward to it. But ill still accept a USAF quote over most other armchair generals.

 

Yeah I agree, which is why I largely reject the quote you posted, which is written by an armchair general. :)

 

The best source I can think of that specifically addresses this is a book by RADM Paul Gillcrist (former USN pilot and Miramar base commander during the 1980s). He discusses the original concept for the AIM-54 which was to improve on the AIM-7s weaknesses with a primary focus on improved range, fire and forget capability, and better end game performance. End game performance focused on improving performance against maneuvering targets, which was one of the early and pivotal tests of the system. I think I posted a page from his book a bit ago, but need to use my computer (currently using my phone). I can also scan a couple pages from his book, but I'm not going to shorten my Maui vacation to do that (not a joke, it's nice here). :)

 

This article is written by a former Tomcat RIO and also discusses the topic:

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279

 

But since so much is written by the arm chairs (and then repeated ad nauseum), there isn't a lot that can be easily found on the web.

 

However, I'm compelled to ask: if the AIM-54 was designed to shootdown bombers, would that diminish its capabilities? As an ARH missile with a big warhead, powerful rocket motor, and demonstrated ability to hit fighter sized targets in direct testing - does someone's original conception change the final outcome?

 

Since it laid the groundwork for the AIM-120 (guidance system was taken from the AIM-54C and plugged into the amraam program), I think you can guess as to how the missile will function.

 

-Nick

[lunaticfringe]

Look forward to it. But ill still accept a USAF quote over most other armchair generals.

 

Steve Davies isn't a member, and has never been a member, of the USAF. I would not expect Dildy, a former F-15 pilot with no direct experience in either seat of the F-14, or with the AIM-54, to be classified as an SME. And having reviewed volumes of data from the USN, substantial amounts having been directed to LN on the matter, as well as direct conversations of numerous pilots and RIOs, I'm going with them.

 

And the nature of the answer to that question is exactly as stated in my response.

 

Of course it doesnt care. But can it is the question? The video is interesting and its certainly pulling some Gs within a relatively short range but to the viewer it doesnt help answer the question all that much.

 

It does an excellent job of answering your question.

 

You asked if the AIM-54 is effective against fighters. It is. It's effectiveness is directly related to energy state at the endgame- the same as it is for every other missile on the planet. In the same respect that an AIM-9M is only able to snag a non-maneuvering target out head on at 7 miles, or an AIM-120C the same at 35+, an AIM-54 is going to only hit big stuff with consistent relative closure at 100 nm.

 

Shorten the range, and its ability goes up. Halve those respective values based on specific starting impulse and guidance, and they become dangerous.

 

Now, if you want to redefine your question, rather than leaving it open-ended, we can review data and come up with a more specific answer. Otherwise, what you see is what you get until you're in the environment based on LN's aerodynamic model and testing.