AIM-54 - super weapon?

[FSKRipper]

What exactly so you want to do about it?

 

Remembering the older discussions I would say:

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by FSKRipper

[solus]

This is why commenting is useless. The perceptions are wrong, and the people commenting and making decisions will never have the data, and also have competing agendas. Performance deltas are all artificial. They pretty much have to be.

 

Just enjoy the game in this arena.

Agree.

 

But this is funny how DCS which claims to be super realistic simulator is in fact less realistic then the Lord of Rings.

 

At least, LOTR is coherent. While DCS is a fractured mess.

 

I don't blame or criticise anyone, developers do their best and it's appreciated. It's not their fault that they don't have reliable data. At the same time all those "realism claims" should be properly addressed. In the end, we must accept that AIM-54 performance in DCS (as the rest of missiles) is no more than someone's fantasy.

[metzger]

Agree.

 

 

 

But this is funny how DCS which claims to be super realistic simulator is in fact less realistic then the Lord of Rings.

 

 

 

At least, LOTR is coherent. While DCS is a fractured mess.

 

 

 

I don't blame or criticise anyone, developers do their best and it's appreciated. It's not their fault that they don't have reliable data. At the same time all those "realism claims" should be properly addressed. In the end, we must accept that AIM-54 performance in DCS (as the rest of missiles) is no more than someone's fantasy.

No one forces you to play DCS, of you don't like it you can always go and play ace combat or other more "realistic" simulators on the market.

I don't understand this crying about missiles, how on Earth you or some other kid playing computer games knows how a missile will behave ?

Reality is different and will always be, there are countless of variables which can't be simulated even by NASA let a side a home based pc flight sim.

 

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

[Mike Busutil]

Some Aim-54 info from last year.

 

[Gunslinger22]

Oh boy this thread is a doozy, like most that involve information 90% of people will never have access to, yet claim to have some superior knowledge on it.

[Cobra847]

I don't think our AIM-54 is unrealistic. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite, and we've done our due diligence in conducting the necessary CFD and other simulation. We've had to fit it's performance into the way DCS models missile physics in general, but that doesn't dramatically change the performance of the missile in a way that significantly distorts reality. Feel free to re-read our whitepaper here: http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

 

If someone has data to disprove our conclusions, we'd love to see it and adjust accordingly of course.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Cobra847

[Airhunter]

I really do think the HB AIM-54 isn't some magic bullet like people make it seem to be. Any competent oponent who knows basic evasion tactics can defeat it. Same goes for you if you get fired upon. At around 20 to maybe 30nm it does have the edge over anything else right now but come closer than that and the AMRAAM wins every time. If anything I would argue that the AIM-120C and AIM-9X are some kind of magic bullets, not the Phoenix.

[cercata]

In real life the Phoenix is a fox 1 SARH missile until it becomes active approximately 15 seconds to impact, requiring the crew to maintain lock.

It's not so different from the AMRAAM, once shoot it follows a fixed path to the point where it has to become pitbull. Optionally, it has the option to be updated by datalink, but it needs the plane to mantain the radar lock to send those updates.

Edited March 28, 2019 by cercata

[GGTharos]

I think the notch gates and CM rejection might be a bit too optimistic on the A model (even the C), but it's hard to say from MP trials given the desync.

 

I don't think our AIM-54 is unrealistic. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite, and we've done our due diligence in conducting the necessary CFD and other simulation. We've had to fit it's performance into the way DCS models missile physics in general, but that doesn't dramatically change the performance of the missile in a way that significantly distorts reality. Feel free to re-read our whitepaper here: http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

 

If someone has data to disprove our conclusions, we'd love to see it and adjust accordingly of course.

[Victory205]

Oh boy this thread is a doozy, like most that involve information 90% of people will never have access to, yet claim to have some superior knowledge on it.

 

99%. ;)

 

The AIM54C was a much better weapon in all regimes then those 99% will ever know (or admit).

 

ACM mode, hooah!

[1Shot1KiLL]

Oh boy this thread is a doozy, like most that involve information 90% of people will never have access to, yet claim to have some superior knowledge on it.

 

+1 what thay realy want is not to get shot in multiplayer and get a 10-0 kill streak if possible. balance ? war isnt a game and war is not balanced.

 

some get killed in MP and come here to cry :)

Edited March 28, 2019 by 1Shot1KiLL

[CAmastersgt]

99%. ;)

 

The AIM54C was a much better weapon in all regimes then those 99% will ever know (or admit).

 

ACM mode, hooah!

 

I'll stick to the real world combat use data from the US Navy. 2/3rd launch failure rate and 1 complete miss. Easy to program the launch failure rate in the game and make it more realistic. The miss obviously underscores the fact the missile doesn't hit as much as it is portrayed in-game. Heatblur and DCS moves us a NOTCH closer to Ace Combat. NOW THAT'S NOTCHING!!! LOL

 

Quoting Iranian combat use claims marks anyone as an idiot.

[Victory205]

Right. It takes about 100,000 rounds of 5.56 fired to kill a bad guy too.

 

Leo the RIO Enwright launched two AIM7's at a Libyan Flogger in 1989, both missed. Munster got a kill with his. 66% kill ratio, right?

 

Why did the missiles miss?

[Tirak]

Right. It takes about 100,000 rounds of 5.56 fired to kill a bad guy too.

 

Leo the RIO Enwright launched two AIM7's at a Libyan Flogger in 1989, both missed. Munster got a kill with his. 66% kill ratio, right?

 

Why did the missiles miss?

 

Well you know but given his tone he sure as hell doesn't, so I'll try to give him a hand.

 

IIRC the first two the ordnance techs forgot to remove the arming pins and the third was fired at a Mig...23? that was on the deck at max burner running away after they had already lobbed a Sparrow and an AMRAAM at it and figured why the **** not and lobbed the Phoenix too.

[cercata]

The miss obviously underscores the fact the missile doesn't hit as much as it is portrayed in-game.

Maybe because real pilots and who planned their missions, didn't have a button to get a new life and a free plane, and didn't take too much risk.

And I'm also talking of the guys launching the missiles, maybe their goal many times is just to scare the other one and make them turn away, and avoid a conflict ... even if you win, it can be a political incident.

 

 

Heatblur and DCS moves us a NOTCH closer to Ace Combat. NOW THAT'S NOTCHING!!! LOL

Yes, we all believe you know more than ED and Heatblur about misilles and how to model then in a simulation !!! :megalol::megalol:

Edited March 28, 2019 by cercata

[GGTharos]

I'd go back to the button and forget about the risk etc - instead, that 'button' represents a big maintenance chain which in our case makes no mistakes and delivers a factory perfect aircraft at all times; your weapons are always perfectly maintained and correctly armed etc.

 

Some people say they wish things were more realistic, from experience most people don't have the time to deal with something like this when it's not their real job - and I'd say even for those who do it RL, there's probably no need or desire to waste time on fake maintenance issues when spending time on entertainment.

 

Likewise, the RL combat simulators probably won't be simulating things breaking on you (unless the purpose of the simulation is to deal with those specific issues) because your sim time is better spent practicing whatever it is you're learning.

 

That's how I see it anyway.

 

Maybe because real pilots and who planned their missions, didn't have a button to get a new live and a free plane, and didn't take too much risk.

And I'm also talking of the guys launching the missiles, maybe their goal many times is just to scare the other one and make them turn away, and avoid a conflict ... even if you win, it can be a political incident.

[jojo]

I'll stick to the real world combat use data from the US Navy. 2/3rd launch failure rate and 1 complete miss. Easy to program the launch failure rate in the game and make it more realistic. The miss obviously underscores the fact the missile doesn't hit as much as it is portrayed in-game. Heatblur and DCS moves us a NOTCH closer to Ace Combat. NOW THAT'S NOTCHING!!! LOL

 

Quoting Iranian combat use claims marks anyone as an idiot.

 

3 launches aren't enough to make statistics. If you don't want to understand that, I'll let anyone draw his own conclusion about your position.

 

About missiles and statistics:

It is very bad to introduce a statistic failure rate into a simulator.

IRL missile may fail because of various reasons not simulated in game.

The missile may fail because of

- its service life (too old, degraded propellant or battery, bad storage practice)

- target evasive measure. I do think that real life pilots are more cautious about their own life, and they have less risky tactics than in sim.

- launch parameters: in sim the kill is the end goal. IRL making the bandit turning away may be enough. So a missile launch that doesn't kill isn't necessarily a failure IRL. Counting these launches into failure rate is a mistake.

[TLTeo]

Oh yea clearly the Phoenix sucks because of those three misses. On a related note, the AIM-9X is a worse missile than the AIM-4 Falcon because it has a lower Pk in real warfare situations!

[jojo]

The calculation and implementation fo A-A missiles must be made by ED. This is the best example developers should not make the missiles flight model.

 

If this wanna be a serious simulator someone outside headblur must get on charge this missile rework

 

ED has a track record of doing some poor job on some missiles.

Super 530D and Magic 2 were worthless before Razbam took care of tit, Mica is still bad, I'm not sure MiG-31's R-33 is up to the task.

RIM-7 Sea Sparrow has different propulsion data (or used to) that AIM-7 Sparrow despite having the same engine.

ED did update their own AIM-7 and AIM-120 to give better teeth to the Hornet.

 

AIM-54 is the core of Tomcat weapon system, I don't think it's unfair that HB take care of it as long as they are able to justify what they simulated, and they did. ED agreed to it.

 

If I understood correctly the AIM-54 work in long range mode:

it can be launched in TWS, it will update on target path in kind of SARH mode rather than by uplink like AMRAAM.

But the own seeker is activated by uplink command from the Tomcat. (no up link command and the missile will never go active). That specific feature isn't available yet, and the missile behave more like a big AMRAAM (will go active on its own)

 

But the kinematic performance isn't the issue here.

[GGTharos]

It has a Pk of 0.5 in real combat situations which places it far above the AIM-4.

 

Oh yea clearly the Phoenix sucks because of those three misses. On a related note, the AIM-9X is a worse missile than the AIM-4 Falcon because it has a lower Pk in real warfare situations!

[TLTeo]

It has a Pk of 0.5 in real combat situations which places it far above the AIM-4.

 

 

The AIM-4 is at ~9% per Wikipedia (let's say 5% as a pessimistic estimate?), so still better than the -9X according to some of the so very sensible posters in this thread, which is obviously absurd.

Edited March 28, 2019 by TLTeo

[GGTharos]

Pk 0.5 = 50%

 

The AIM-4 is at ~9% per Wikipedia (let's say 5% as a pessimistic estimate?), so still better than the -9X according to some of the so very sensible posters in this thread, which is obviously absurd.

[TLTeo]

Ah my bad, I thought you meant 0.5%.

[GGTharos]

No problem, stats can be a bit of a pain when it comes to interpretation.

 

There are two known AIM-9X combat shots. One hit, one missed. Pk is 1/2=0.5 :)

[jojo]

No problem, stats can be a bit of a pain when it comes to interpretation.

 

There are two known AIM-9X combat shots. One hit, one missed. Pk is 1/2=0.5 :)

 

Out of topic, but when/ what was the kill with AIM-9X ?