Taking off with a full complement of Phoenix missiles?

[Dino Might]

The starting point was, that the current(!) DCS AIM-54 is pretty overpowered, it seems, as it can acquire targets at 50° and low against ground clutter instantly while turning into the target like an IRIS-T...

 

So I was interested to see how good these evasion tactics will work against Heatblurs more realistic AIM-54 and I suggested it would be possible with a good timed jink or notching and turning to dodge it, as according to the turn radius calculation the missiles bubble is pretty big.

 

The rest needs to be tested, once the Heatblur AIM-54 is released.

 

I don't get the point of the whole argument here, as we seem to basically tell the same thing?

 

Bottomline: The AIM-54 is a fast missile, which makes it crucial to judge the timing extremely well, but you should be able to dodge it like any other BVR missile coming at you, if you time it right?

 

It depends. In some geometries and speeds, you won't be able to evade it no matter what you do. In other geometries and velocities, it will be quite easy. In many, the potential for evasion will lie somewhere between those extremes.

 

The current DCS AIM54 underperforms in many aspects and overperforms in some as well. Are your questions about semi-active guidance capabilities, terminal active seeker capabilities, missile kinematics? You keep conflating the issue.

[OnlyforDCS]

No, I did not. That was maybe what you anticipated/expected, but not what I said or meant.

 

The whole reason we got into this argument was your claim that the AIM54 would be easier to dodge compared to the other missiles in DCS due to it's high speed and large turn radius. This statement is wrong, which is what the last 4 pages of this completely derailed thread are about :)

 

Flaming squirrel, Dino and myself tried to illustrate why this statement was wrong, hopefuly to you and maybe to others reading this and I hope have been clear enough.

 

Let me ask you one question shagrat, is it easier to dodge an AMRAAM going at Mach 1 or an AMRAAM at Mach 2.5 at say 1nm from target intercept? Assuming the exact target intercept conditions (or geometries) in both cases, which do you think would be easier to dodge?

Edited December 20, 2018 by OnlyforDCS

[shagrat]

It depends. In some geometries and speeds, you won't be able to evade it no matter what you do. In other geometries and velocities, it will be quite easy. In many, the potential for evasion will lie somewhere between those extremes.

 

The current DCS AIM54 underperforms in many aspects and overperforms in some as well. Are your questions about semi-active guidance capabilities, terminal active seeker capabilities, missile kinematics? You keep conflating the issue.

I was curious if, when Heatblurs AIM-54 Phoenix comes out and is "more realistic", the defensive moves against a BVR missile coming at you will work when the missile is going 3-4 Mach.

When I used his calculation to assume the turn radius I took some 40 G like the AIM-120 which leads to a rough turn radius of over 10km. That sounds to me, like it should be very much possible to evade a AIM-54 if you manage to pull a 7 G turn inside its 10km bubble. Still this needs to be well timed.

 

The guy tells basically, people are afraid to evade fast missiles because they can pull much more G than you. So they believe they cannot be evaded, but he shows why it is indeed possible to dodge a missile, even if it goes Mach 4 and what are your best chances to do it.

[shagrat]

The whole reason we got into this argument was your claim that the AIM54 would be easier to dodge compared to the other missiles in DCS due to it's high speed and large turn radius. This statement is wrong, which is what the last 4 pages of this completely derailed thread are about :)

 

Flaming squirrel, Dino and myself tried to illustrate why this statement was wrong, (...)

Can you please quote where I EVER made the claim "the AIM-54 will be easier to dodge”?????

 

So this whole lecturing was intended to proof me wrong on a statement I never made?

 

God, I love forum discussions... :doh:

[OnlyforDCS]

Can you answer my question please?

 

Is it easier to dodge an AMRAAM going at Mach 1 or an AMRAAM at Mach 2.5 at say 1nm from target intercept? Assuming the exact target intercept conditions (or geometries) in both cases, which do you think would be easier to dodge?

[OnlyforDCS]

So I guess you are correct and the guy on defense net is totally wrong and dies immediately when he goes defensive the first time against a fast missile in his Rafale...

 

.

 

Oh and this is where you claimed that we were wrong and the guy on defense net is right. Or rather you used sarcasm to claim so, and got into this whole argument.

[shagrat]

Oh and this is where you claimed that we were wrong and the guy on defense net is right. Or rather you used sarcasm to claim so, and got into this whole argument.

Was that when you claimed "the math is wrong" without having read what he has written and actually calculates? ...and yes I made a sarcastic comment, exactly because it seemed you have not even read what the "math was about".

 

There was no point of "easier to dodge than X". The whole thing started with the assumption a more realistic AIM-54 will be similar prone to evasive actions, than any other missile going Mach 4 and to match a fighters turn performance it needs to pull far more G than it can generate. 40 or 60 G sounds intimidating, compared to the 7-9 G of an aircraft, but in relation to the turn performance (radius) it does not mean it is impossible to evade a fast closing missile. No more no less...

 

I can tell you that an AIM-120 at 2.5 Mach would need to pull 175 G to match the 0.5 Mach @ 7 G turn of the fighter, whereas the AIM-120 at 1 Mach would need only 28 G, still 4 times the turn circle of the fighter, but far more likely to get in proximity when the fighter manages to turn inside its bubble... the crucial part is the timing and I doubt it is "easy" to time it perfectly in both scenarios, but it is a better chance to die trying than to only notch, throw chaff and pray it does lose lock.

[captain_dalan]

Ok, in need some clarification from the missile mafia here on the forums. I'm a total "noob" as far as missile performance, guidance, propulsion and other things related are at stake, and i'm probably the absolutely worst BVR jock on this side of the milky way.

 

So here is my example (look at the picture bellow). A simple head on intercept, outside the turning bubble. At 15000ft, a mach 4 missile crosses around 1300m/s (roughly 4265ft/s). Say that missile has at this mach, a maximum turn performance of 46g. At this speed that equates to about 20 degrees per second. Now let's say the target is 1300m away. That means the missile needs 1s to reach it. This would translate into an intercept cone with a radius of l=445m (1460ft). Won't that translate into the missile hitting any target that's inside that radius? And if so, wouldn't a slow tight turn be counterproductive to evading the missile? Shouldn't we want to maximize our angular delta, as in displacing our jet further from this cone, not inside it? Coincidentally, a jet trying to turn inside this radius, would need to pull around 14+g at 350kts (true air speed). Am i getting something wrong?

[shagrat]

Ok, in need some clarification from the missile mafia here on the forums. I'm a total "noob" as far as missile performance, guidance, propulsion and other things related are at stake, and i'm probably the absolutely worst BVR jock on this side of the milky way.

 

So here is my example (look at the picture bellow). A simple head on intercept, outside the turning bubble. At 15000ft, a mach 4 missile crosses around 1300m/s (roughly 4265ft/s). Say that missile has at this mach, a maximum turn performance of 46g. At this speed that equates to about 20 degrees per second. Now let's say the target is 1300m away. That means the missile needs 1s to reach it. This would translate into an intercept cone with a radius of l=445m (1460ft). Won't that translate into the missile hitting any target that's inside that radius? And if so, wouldn't a slow tight turn be counterproductive to evading the missile? Shouldn't we want to maximize our angular delta, as in displacing our jet further from this cone, not inside it? Coincidentally, a jet trying to turn inside this radius, would need to pull around 14+g at 350kts (true air speed). Am i getting something wrong?

That would be correct if the missile would not need to lead the target and anticipate where in the 3D 20° cone the plane will be the next second. Though I am sure at 1,300 m it won't matter anyway...

 

if you adjust that to 5 km, though and about 5 seconds it needs to lead to a point where the plane is 5 seconds into the future, so if you fly 90° to the missile (notch) and it points at an intercept 5 seconds from now and can turn 20° per second it can turn a maximum of 100° in 5 seconds. If you can turn 110-120° in 5 seconds you could dodge it... if you can time it right.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

A missile will (generally) not point directly at where the target is now, it will aim for where the target will be. The former (which I think you were trying to draw) is an inefficient way to intercept, because if the target has any kind of crossing speed, the missile will constantly have to change course which uses up energy and results in a longer flight path. Instead, a missile will try to aim for where the target will be by maintaining a constant angle to the target.

 

 

Having a crossing speed is, on its own, is therefore not enough to avoid a missile. You have to change the direction, vector if you will, of your crossing, to get the missile to turn. One of the most simple ways of doing this is flying perpendicular to the path of the missile at corner speed, then rolling inverted and pull back hard at the right time.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Flamin_Squirrel

[turkeydriver]

The AIM-54 isn't Mach 5 for the entire intercept. It touches that for a bit as peak velocity and starts slowing down. Don't expect you shots to intercept the Target at more than 1.5 Mach if the shot had any legs on it. If you fire that big moose below 20,000, atmospheric drag is gonna really start to do a number with that fat 3ft cross section.

[OnlyforDCS]

I can tell you that an AIM-120 at 2.5 Mach would need to pull 175 G to match the 0.5 Mach @ 7 G turn of the fighter, whereas the AIM-120 at 1 Mach would need only 28 G, still 4 times the turn circle of the fighter, but far more likely to get in proximity when the fighter manages to turn inside its bubble... the crucial part is the timing and I doubt it is "easy" to time it perfectly in both scenarios, but it is a better chance to die trying than to only notch, throw chaff and pray it does lose lock.

 

So your answer is that it would be easier to avoid the faster missile in the above scenario than the slower one. Ok got it. Thanks. :thumbup:

[shagrat]

So your answer is that it would be easier to avoid the faster missile in the above scenario than the slower one. Ok got it. Thanks.

No, because the faster missile gives you only a fraction of a second to initiate the turn, so your chances should be more or less the same in both scenarios... one kills you when messing up timing the other, because the missile likely gets close enough to blast you shrapnel.

[Dino Might]

Your turn radius discussion does not make sense. Saying that the missile having a larger turn radius means it cannot effect an intercept makes no sense.

 

Turn rate and turn radius are not the same thing. Turn rate is only part of the equation. You are finding one metric that is easy to calculate and trying to draw unrelated conclusions across an entire spectrum of situations. In short, Shag, there's nothing to argue with because you haven't presented anything of substance.

[OnlyforDCS]

No, because the faster missile gives you only a fraction of a second to initiate the turn, so your chances should be more or less the same in both scenarios... one kills you when messing up timing the other, because the missile likely gets close enough to blast you shrapnel.

 

Well now we are getting somewhere, it was a bit of a trick question because the answer is basically "it depends". However, a faster missile will usually always be at an advantage over a slower one even if we don't know all the other parameters because it will have a higher energy state and because it will require a much faster and more accurate response from the pilot. In every case!

 

Now replace that Mach 2.5 Amraam with a Phoenix fired from 10nm away storming in at Mach4 and still burning! Sure it's massive and not nearly as agile as an Amraam but at what point exactly are you going to start that 7G turn for it to miss? Im still not saying it's impossible, of course you are going to maneuver as hard as you can, but at that kind of range that missile is much, much more deadly precisely because of its speed. It's going so damn fast that it only needs to turn a few degrees to keep on it's intercept course for any maneouver that you do. And the closer it is less of a lead it needs to pull to stay on intercept. So for your maneuver to be effective you are going to have to wait as long as possible and execute it as late as possible for it to miss but with each second your window of opportunity shrinks to miliseconds.

Edited December 20, 2018 by OnlyforDCS

[shagrat]

Well now we are getting somewhere, it was a bit of a trick question because the answer is basically "it depends". However, a faster missile will usually always be at an advantage over a slower one even if we don't know all the other parameters because it will have a higher energy state and because it will require a much faster and more accurate response from the pilot. In every case!

 

Now replace that Mach 2.5 Amraam with a Phoenix fired from 10nm away storming in at Mach4 and still burning! Sure it's massive and not nearly as agile as an Amraam but at what point exactly are you going to start that 7G turn for it to miss? Im still not saying it's impossible, of course you are going to maneuver as hard as you can, but at that kind of range that missile is much, much more deadly because of it's speed, not instead of it.

...but that is what I meant. It was never about one or the other being easier. It was more "it can be done" as speed means turn radius is a malus for the missile exchanging it for an advantage in reaction time and energy a available to turn.

 

That's why I did not understand the whole fuzz.

 

I simply found it interesting to get some facts and numbers on "why" it is technically possible to evade even a Mach 4 missile despite its 40 G compared to your mere 7-9 G maximum.

If you can judge the timing right, higher speed creates the same problem for the missile, you have in a dogfight. The faster you go, the bigger your bubble.

 

Unfortunately you would be dead when pulling 40 G at Mach 3-4, so it is a bit apples and oranges. ;)

[turkeydriver]

The pK for a WVR AIM-54 may exceed that of a WVR AMRAAM...in that scenario only......just what I've heard and obviously haven't seen charts on.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

...as speed means turn radius is a malus for the missile exchanging it for an advantage in reaction time and energy a available to turn...

 

You keep focusing on turn radius when it's only part of the equation. A faster missile has a wider turn radius, but it also has to make smaller course corrections to succeed in hitting its target. It doesn't NEED to turn as tight.

[captain_dalan]

That would be correct if the missile would not need to lead the target and anticipate where in the 3D 20° cone the plane will be the next second. Though I am sure at 1,300 m it won't matter anyway...

 

if you adjust that to 5 km, though and about 5 seconds it needs to lead to a point where the plane is 5 seconds into the future, so if you fly 90° to the missile (notch) and it points at an intercept 5 seconds from now and can turn 20° per second it can turn a maximum of 100° in 5 seconds. If you can turn 110-120° in 5 seconds you could dodge it... if you can time it right.

 

So, in order to maximize one's chances of avoiding the missile, one should:

1. turn 90 degrees away from the missile (notch)

2. gain as much airspeed in the process

3. drag the missile down into thicker atmosphere and force it to slow down

This should result in the missile pulling the most lead, and aside from losing the most energy in the turn, also maybe going outside radar LOS?

 

A missile will (generally) not point directly at where the target is now, it will aim for where the target will be. The former (which I think you were trying to draw) ......

I was actually only drawing a simple head on intercept, when both the missile and the targeted plane were heading right at each other and trying to establish the parameters of success for the intercept.

 

The AIM-54 isn't Mach 5 for the entire intercept. It touches that for a bit as peak velocity and starts slowing down. Don't expect you shots to intercept the Target at more than 1.5 Mach if the shot had any legs on it. If you fire that big moose below 20,000, atmospheric drag is gonna really start to do a number with that fat 3ft cross section.

In my case, i wasn't going for the Phoenix in particular, but any hypothetical missile. I made the altitude 15000ft, as i don't think any missile could reach mach 4 (even in a ballistic trajectory) lower then that. And even then, this would probably be the best case scenario, where the missile airspeed peaks just before the intercept.

 

So to summarize, the parameters that influence the intercept probability are (ideal cases):

1. Missile airspeed - the higher the speed, the less lead the missile needs to pull, the less time pilot has to react

2. missile maneuverability (duh) - the more g the missile can pull at a given mach number, the more angular speed it has, the harder for the target the lose the missile by displacing or changing aspect angle

3. angle off - the lower the angle, the higher the chance for the intercept.

4. target airspeed - the faster the target, the lower the chance for intercept, as target can either escape the missile by turning away, or force the missile into pulling to much lead to bleed away its airspeed or lose lock.

5 distance - the higher the distance, the lower the chance for intercept, as the pilot has most time to react (if situationally aware).

 

Did i miss something?

 

If you can judge the timing right, higher speed creates the same problem for the missile, you have in a dogfight. The faster you go, the bigger your bubble.

 

 

But doesn't this require you to know the exact position, vector and airspeed of the missile? Most rwr in DCS, give your just the relative heading to the missile.

 

EDIT (just because i'm in the mood for drawing tonight)

In the example above, if the target plane starts notching at mach 1.4, the missile will not be able to make the intercept, right?

Edited December 20, 2018 by captain_dalan

[BlackLion213]

Irrespective of the math presented (not sure I agree with it, but I'm not a PhD in physics like some of our coders); I'll give you the practical perspective from using the new AIM-54.

 

Truth be told, the Heatblur AIM-54 is less capable than the real missile. While it performs very close to benchmarks, it has an artificially low G-limiter to improve loft performance. This is spelled out in the Phoenix "white paper" that Cobra posted a while back.

 

In spite of this modest handicap, the AIM-54 is perhaps the most effective anti-fighter missiles in DCS. Inside of 10 nm, it will hit PvP players about 90% of the time during testing (when the targeted player actually knows exactly where the Tomcat is and is trying to evade). One of our testers is a highly experienced 104th player and is yet to find an effective or consistent counter for it. He still ascribes most misses to luck.

 

Here is a general breakdown of what you can expect when employing it against fighters:

 

Against fighter AI (MiG-29s and Su-27s), you can expect that launches around 30 nm distance will destroy the opponent about 75% of the time. You can expect similar against player opponents with less than optimal SA or not much experience. Against those aware of the missile and familiar with tactics, kill rates probably drop to about 25%.

 

At 15 nm, expect that about 50% of proficient players will be able to evade if aware.

 

At 10 nm, evading is quite difficult and the vast majority of missiles will score hits against even experienced players with good SA. Between the rocket's power and warhead, it is simply deadly!

 

So the idea of shooting down a reasonably aware player at 60 nm is fiction imho. But you can reliably hit fighter targets by 30 nm and the odds steadily rise as the distance closes.

 

Also, there is a very handy ACM mode for the missile. Once selected, the missile can simply be boresighted against targets at closer than 10 nm and the missile comes off the rail within a second of pressing the trigger (vs 3 seconds for a conventional launch). You don't need a radar lock, just pull the trigger and it finds the target quite reliably. The motor will also still be burning when it finds its target, so it has plenty of energy to chase and torment.

 

So the AIM-54 will bring a lot of value to the fight and complement the Tomcat's outstanding overall capabilities. Make no mistake, the F-14 is simply a A-A killer that can stand up to anything in DCS at either BVR or WVR.

 

You'll see soon.....

 

-Nick

[captain_dalan]

 

Truth be told, the Heatblur AIM-54 is less capable than the real missile. While it performs very close to benchmarks, it has an artificially low G-limiter to improve loft performance. This is spelled out in the Phoenix "white paper" that Cobra posted a while back.

I think that can't be helped until the missile guidance logic is significantly changed by ED (IIRC).

 

Thanks for the write up, informative as usual! :thumbup:

[shagrat]

Irrespective of the math presented (not sure I agree with it, but I'm not a PhD in physics like some of our coders); I'll give you the practical perspective from using the new AIM-54.

 

Truth be told, the Heatblur AIM-54 is less capable than the real missile. While it performs very close to benchmarks, it has an artificially low G-limiter to improve loft performance. This is spelled out in the Phoenix "white paper" that Cobra posted a while back.

 

In spite of this modest handicap, the AIM-54 is perhaps the most effective anti-fighter missiles in DCS. Inside of 10 nm, it will hit PvP players about 90% of the time during testing (when the targeted player actually knows exactly where the Tomcat is and is trying to evade). One of our testers is a highly experienced 104th player and is yet to find an effective or consistent counter for it. He still ascribes most misses to luck.

 

Here is a general breakdown of what you can expect when employing it against fighters:

 

Against fighter AI (MiG-29s and Su-27s), you can expect that launches around 30 nm distance will destroy the opponent about 75% of the time. You can expect similar against player opponents with less than optimal SA or not much experience. Against those aware of the missile and familiar with tactics, kill rates probably drop to about 25%.

 

At 15 nm, expect that about 50% of proficient players will be able to evade if aware.

 

At 10 nm, evading is quite difficult and the vast majority of missiles will score hits against even experienced players with good SA. Between the rocket's power and warhead, it is simply deadly!

 

So the idea of shooting down a reasonably aware player at 60 nm is fiction imho. But you can reliably hit fighter targets by 30 nm and the odds steadily rise as the distance closes.

 

Also, there is a very handy ACM mode for the missile. Once selected, the missile can simply be boresighted against targets at closer than 10 nm and the missile comes off the rail within a second of pressing the trigger (vs 3 seconds for a conventional launch). You don't need a radar lock, just pull the trigger and it finds the target quite reliably. The motor will also still be burning when it finds its target, so it has plenty of energy to chase and torment.

 

So the AIM-54 will bring a lot of value to the fight and complement the Tomcat's outstanding overall capabilities. Make no mistake, the F-14 is simply a A-A killer that can stand up to anything in DCS at either BVR or WVR.

 

You'll see soon.....

 

-Nick

Thank you! That's something we can work with.

[Bad Idea Hat]

Irrespective of the math presented (not sure I agree with it, but I'm not a PhD in physics like some of our coders); I'll give you the practical perspective from using the new AIM-54.

 

Truth be told, the Heatblur AIM-54 is less capable than the real missile. While it performs very close to benchmarks, it has an artificially low G-limiter to improve loft performance. This is spelled out in the Phoenix "white paper" that Cobra posted a while back.

 

In spite of this modest handicap, the AIM-54 is perhaps the most effective anti-fighter missiles in DCS. Inside of 10 nm, it will hit PvP players about 90% of the time during testing (when the targeted player actually knows exactly where the Tomcat is and is trying to evade). One of our testers is a highly experienced 104th player and is yet to find an effective or consistent counter for it. He still ascribes most misses to luck.

 

Here is a general breakdown of what you can expect when employing it against fighters:

 

Against fighter AI (MiG-29s and Su-27s), you can expect that launches around 30 nm distance will destroy the opponent about 75% of the time. You can expect similar against player opponents with less than optimal SA or not much experience. Against those aware of the missile and familiar with tactics, kill rates probably drop to about 25%.

 

At 15 nm, expect that about 50% of proficient players will be able to evade if aware.

 

At 10 nm, evading is quite difficult and the vast majority of missiles will score hits against even experienced players with good SA. Between the rocket's power and warhead, it is simply deadly!

 

So the idea of shooting down a reasonably aware player at 60 nm is fiction imho. But you can reliably hit fighter targets by 30 nm and the odds steadily rise as the distance closes.

 

Also, there is a very handy ACM mode for the missile. Once selected, the missile can simply be boresighted against targets at closer than 10 nm and the missile comes off the rail within a second of pressing the trigger (vs 3 seconds for a conventional launch). You don't need a radar lock, just pull the trigger and it finds the target quite reliably. The motor will also still be burning when it finds its target, so it has plenty of energy to chase and torment.

 

So the AIM-54 will bring a lot of value to the fight and complement the Tomcat's outstanding overall capabilities. Make no mistake, the F-14 is simply a A-A killer that can stand up to anything in DCS at either BVR or WVR.

 

You'll see soon.....

 

-Nick

 

 

My very, very quick and shoddy math says the engine should burn out around the 20nmi range. Is that roughly correct?

 

 

edit - Okay, I have some rough figures using the HB paper. They're less shoddy and quick than the previous, as I'm relying on the internet to science! this for me.

All at M1.1

500m - 7.8nmi engine burnout

6km - 10.4nmi engine burnout

12km - 13.4nmi engine burnout

 

 

So, you said that 10nmi seems to be the magical range, and the math makes sense. I'm working on a few other calculations to see what distance the missile is downrange at mach 1.5 (which seems to be the distance at which the missile very roughly stops being dangerous against an evading opponents, AI or human).

Edited December 21, 2018 by Bad Idea Hat

[Victory205]

They are treating this as if the missile was dogfighting the target. It isn’t.

 

Same with visual and timing, please take a moment to consider the dynamics here. Have you ever tried to see an object that is in lead collision on you, meaning that it doesn’t exhibit relative motion, not to mention that the threat sector is huge and the time window to see is minimal?

 

I don’t know if DCS allows for automatic padlock of inbound missiles, but the geometry of an intercept and visual limitations are very different than two aircraft attempting to out maneuver each other.

 

Think deeply on what is going on here...

[Victory205]

Irrespective of the math presented (not sure I agree with it, but I'm not a PhD in physics like some of our coders); I'll give you the practical perspective from using the new AIM-54.

 

Truth be told, the Heatblur AIM-54 is less capable than the real missile. While it performs very close to benchmarks, it has an artificially low G-limiter to improve loft performance. This is spelled out in the Phoenix "white paper" that Cobra posted a while back.

 

In spite of this modest handicap, the AIM-54 is perhaps the most effective anti-fighter missiles in DCS. Inside of 10 nm, it will hit PvP players about 90% of the time during testing (when the targeted player actually knows exactly where the Tomcat is and is trying to evade). One of our testers is a highly experienced 104th player and is yet to find an effective or consistent counter for it. He still ascribes most misses to luck.

 

Here is a general breakdown of what you can expect when employing it against fighters:

 

Against fighter AI (MiG-29s and Su-27s), you can expect that launches around 30 nm distance will destroy the opponent about 75% of the time. You can expect similar against player opponents with less than optimal SA or not much experience. Against those aware of the missile and familiar with tactics, kill rates probably drop to about 25%.

 

At 15 nm, expect that about 50% of proficient players will be able to evade if aware.

 

At 10 nm, evading is quite difficult and the vast majority of missiles will score hits against even experienced players with good SA. Between the rocket's power and warhead, it is simply deadly!

 

So the idea of shooting down a reasonably aware player at 60 nm is fiction imho. But you can reliably hit fighter targets by 30 nm and the odds steadily rise as the distance closes.

 

Also, there is a very handy ACM mode for the missile. Once selected, the missile can simply be boresighted against targets at closer than 10 nm and the missile comes off the rail within a second of pressing the trigger (vs 3 seconds for a conventional launch). You don't need a radar lock, just pull the trigger and it finds the target quite reliably. The motor will also still be burning when it finds its target, so it has plenty of energy to chase and torment.

 

So the AIM-54 will bring a lot of value to the fight and complement the Tomcat's outstanding overall capabilities. Make no mistake, the F-14 is simply a A-A killer that can stand up to anything in DCS at either BVR or WVR.

 

You'll see soon.....

 

-Nick

 

^^^^ This

 

The size of the radar emitter in the 15 inch diameter missile is similar to the size of the air to air radar in the F5E. Most of what you have read about AIM54C maneuverability and Pk is wrong, even when stated by fighter pukes that haven’t flown the F14 a d really don’t have depth to their knowledge of the weapon. That is common by the way, the weapons are too complex for outsiders to have a comprehensive picture.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Victory205