AIM-54 - super weapon?

[Airhunter]

This is how you defeat 3 Phoenixes.

[RShackleford]

Please realize that not all missiles are launched to down an enemy aircraft. An AIM-120, AIM-54, etc. isn't always launched for the exact purpose of hitting the enemy. a .5pk for a missile means literally nothing. If the aircraft shooting the missile has the duty of defending a strike asset and that missile loses due to kinematics (enemy aircraft running away) but the strike asset puts bombs on target, it is still a victory. Air to air is still ultimately for air to ground jets to support the ground assets. Even a defensive counter air flight over ground units protecting those guys, if they launch all their AMRAAMs and nothing hits due to enemy turning away to defeat the missiles, it is still a success because the enemy jets turned away and didn't bomb the friendlies.

 

Basically, there's really no "Pk" of a missile unless you tag it with every single variable. No missile has had that much testing. The air force "shot kill" pub divides everything into a high Pk table and medium Pk table for training and separates the two on jamming and kinematic related things, and uses excel to randomize spreadsheets for the training. Still, in the end, if you are flying a defensive counter air sortie and the hostiles turn away, you are winning.

[solus]

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.

Please, don't get me wrong. If anything, I don't accuse developers of inaccurate modeling. IMHO, you guys made a fantastic job, and F-14 is one the best, if not the best DCS module. I guess, 99% here appreciate what you've done.

 

Whitepaper looks good and serious, though I wouldn't pretend that I understand it, or that it proves anything)

 

I merely pointed out that in present conditions in DCS there is no way to properly simulate missile behavior, because there are not nearly enough data available. Most probably, even US, Chinese or Russian military can't predict what modern air combat would look like, because - fortunately - no large scale conflict between equal parties happened.

 

Speaking about my personal impressions - not the objective and last truth - it seems doubtful that the best missile in DCS for now is long time ago scrapped rocket from 70s.

[TLTeo]

"I don't understand this carefully explained scientific document so instead I'm going to just trust my own arbitrary and (by my own admission) insufficiently informed set of internal beliefs".

 

 

 

Can you at least see how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

[solus]

"I don't understand this carefully explained scientific document so instead I'm going to just trust my own arbitrary and (by my own admission) insufficiently informed set of internal beliefs".

 

 

 

Can you at least see how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

I've forseen that this obvious and dull in its vulgarity commentary would appear:megalol:I guess, you are not the one of those who understand that predictable and banal behaviour diminish the value of the arguments.

 

 

 

I doubt that you studied this document better then I did, though you want to signal the opposite. Did you test the calculations? Did you verify the facts? Did you compare this research to others? Maybe you at least found some peer review of this doc? :smartass:

 

 

 

 

 

It's great that they tried to make a physical model of the missile based on its shape, but to properly simulate the missile performance you must have tons of RELIABLE data on radar performance, electronics, battery, engine, material used and so on and so on. Plus you need a hell of a good super computer to simulate it. And even then you can be mistaken.

 

 

I'm not criticizing the work made by Heatblur. The guys put a lot of effort and probably made the best what they could do, or even more. But it doesn't turn this AIM-54.pdf into magical text that opens the doors to the secrets of the Cold War. If you want to be the memeber of the invincible AIM-54 Phoenix cult - let it be, but don't invite me to your church.

[DD_Fenrir]

Please, don't get me wrong. If anything, I don't accuse developers of inaccurate modeling. IMHO, you guys made a fantastic job, and F-14 is one the best, if not the best DCS module. I guess, 99% here appreciate what you've done.

 

Whitepaper looks good and serious, though I wouldn't pretend that I understand it, or that it proves anything)

 

I merely pointed out that in present conditions in DCS there is no way to properly simulate missile behavior, because there are not nearly enough data available. Most probably, even US, Chinese or Russian military can't predict what modern air combat would look like, because - fortunately - no large scale conflict between equal parties happened.

 

Speaking about my personal impressions - not the objective and last truth - it seems doubtful that the best missile in DCS for now is long time ago scrapped rocket from 70s.

 

This is the daftest single anti-scientific argument that sums up the post-truth era ethos I've evr seen.

[solus]

This is the daftest single anti-scientific argument that sums up the post-truth era ethos I've evr seen.

I don't want to disappint you, but 1) PC games are not science, 2) you didn't make any "scientific" arguments, just post your invaluable opinion here that doesn't add anything besides personal attacks.

[Tiger-II]

Pk = Probability (kill).

 

In stats, the scale is 0 to 1, with 1 being certainty.

[TLTeo]

Did you test the calculations? Did you verify the facts? Did you compare this research to others?

 

 

They literally compare their model to real world shots and data in the document. That includes all the variables you brought up - it all features in the missile. HB's document is obviously not peer reviewed because it's not meant for publication, but it's a far, far more reasonable accurate comparison than your vague "well it's a complex system and I feel like it's wrong!" Did YOU compare what YOU think the Phoenix should do against NASA data and real world shots by chance? Because until you do, the burden of proof is on you buddy, not HB.

 

I don't want to disappint you, but 1) PC games are not science, 2) you didn't make any "scientific" arguments, just post your invaluable opinion here that doesn't add anything besides personal attacks.

 

Hate it break it on you but hydrodynamics simulations like those in the document, which then got translated into the AIM54 model, are indeed science. Besides if they are not, why bring up peer review?

[solus]

They literally compare their model to real world shots and data in the document. That includes all the variables you brought up - it all features in the missile. HB's document is obviously not peer reviewed because it's not meant for publication, but it's a far, far more reasonable accurate comparison than your vague "well it's a complex system and I feel like it's wrong!" Did YOU compare what YOU think the Phoenix should do against NASA data and real world shots by chance? Because until you do, the burden of proof is on you buddy, not HB.

 

 

 

Hate it break it on you but hydrodynamics simulations like those in the document, which then got translated into the AIM54 model, are indeed science. Besides if they are not, why bring up peer review?

I'm not fond of the discussions that run in circles.

 

I've made clear arguments and to my knowledge they can't be refuted: basically we don't have any reliable data that can turn "DCS game" into "DCS simulation". And the fact that long forgotten missile from 70-s is one of the best missiles in the game only proves it.

 

Hate to bring it to you, but the missile is not only the empty can that flies into the sky. What makes missile a missile it's what INSIDE: computer chips, radars, fuel, materials used etc. etc. Did they have reliable data on those?

 

Even if Hetablur managed to make proper hydrodynamics simulations - let for the spimlicity agree that they did, though it requires much more work than software test - it still be like 10% of what needs to be done to evaluate AIM-54 performance.

 

Guys, just accept it, DCS is not the super simulator, it's only a game.

Edited March 29, 2019 by solus

[GGTharos]

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

2015: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown

[DD_Fenrir]

I'm not fond of the discussions that run in circles.

 

I've made clear arguments and to my knowledge they can't be refuted: basically we don't have any reliable data that can turn "DCS game" into "DCS simulation". And the fact that long forgotten missile from 70-s is one of the best missiles in the game only proves it.

 

Hate to bring it to you, but the missile is not only the empty can that flies into the sky. What makes missile a missile it's what INSIDE: computer chips, radars, fuel, materials used etc. etc. Did they have reliable data on those?

 

Even if Hetablur managed to make proper hydrodynamics simulations - let for the spimlicity agree that they did, though it requires much more work than software test - it still be like 10% of what needs to be done to evaluate AIM-54 performance.

 

Guys, just accept it, DCS is not the super simulator, it's only a game

 

Your self-assurance without any verifiable data to support your arguments is all the data I need.

[GGTharos]

I'm not fond of the discussions that run in circles.

 

I've made clear arguments and to my knowledge they can't be refuted: basically we don't have any reliable data that can turn "DCS game" into "DCS simulation". And the fact that long forgotten missile from 70-s is one of the best missiles in the game only proves it.

 

The only thing it proves is that the simulation itself is limited. Certain wargames used by real militaries use even simpler weapon mechanics than we are, here.

 

Hate to bring it to you, but the missile is not only the empty can that flies into the sky. What makes missile a missile it's what INSIDE: computer chips, radars, fuel, materials used etc. etc. Did they have reliable data on those?

 

Hate to bring it to you, but we know that. While we're veeeeeery unlikely to get the most detailed data for any missile (the newer, the less data usually, but it doesn't mean you can get data for old missiles either), but we know enough to make some very educated guesses on what we don't know.

 

Even if Hetablur managed to make proper hydrodynamics simulations - let for the spimlicity agree that they did, though it requires much more work than software test - it still be like 10% of what needs to be done to evaluate AIM-54 performance.

 

That's basically an irrelevant statement. Can you prove it's 10%? Can you prove anything at all, or even just show it? Same thing with people 'in the know' - they sit saying 'how much these guys don't know' ... their opinion is irrelevant because that's about the only thing they can say, and we're not interested in that sort of opinion because it is completely useless.

If you have knowledge you can bring, bring it, if not, you basically have nothing to say - if you can't say 'ok you're going in the wrong direction and try this instead', you've nothing useful to offer - especially in the face of good work done by people trying to inject as much realism as possible.

 

Guys, just accept it, DCS is not the super simulator, it's only a game.

 

We know it's a game, thanks. It's also a simulator; simulators have limitations. We know that, too.

[OnlyforDCS]

If you want to be the memeber of the invincible AIM-54 Phoenix cult - let it be, but don't invite me to your church.

 

Are you serious? This is just pure trolling at this point.

[SgtPappy]

Does anyone have good tacview tracks of defeating well-fired AIM-54s?

 

My friends and I have been doing a lot of F-14 and F-15 DACT recently and we've got to the point where we can notch AIM-54A mk60s launched from ~6000' and 15 nm, another launched at 6-8 nm from a similar altitude but the third one always seems to be the killer if fired between 3-5 nm.

 

It is close enough that it has lots of energy but also far away enough that unless you're beaming going Mach 0.9, it can still turn and hit. Maybe there's a way of maneuvering I am missing that could shake this large missile at that range?

 

I cannot upload my own tacviews now as I am at work. But if needed, I can do so on the weekend.

[GGTharos]

You're not missing anything; be ready for a good last ditch. Another option is that could attempt to rmin from that range. Always try to have a slammer on the way to help yourself.

[Airhunter]

Does anyone have good tacview tracks of defeating well-fired AIM-54s?

 

My friends and I have been doing a lot of F-14 and F-15 DACT recently and we've got to the point where we can notch AIM-54A mk60s launched from ~6000' and 15 nm, another launched at 6-8 nm from a similar altitude but the third one always seems to be the killer if fired between 3-5 nm.

 

It is close enough that it has lots of energy but also far away enough that unless you're beaming going Mach 0.9, it can still turn and hit. Maybe there's a way of maneuvering I am missing that could shake this large missile at that range?

 

I cannot upload my own tacviews now as I am at work. But if needed, I can do so on the weekend.

 

Yeah between 20nm and higher you can usually either turn cold or notch and bleed their energy pretty easily. I have a track but it's very long and I don't know how to cut it lol.

[CAmastersgt]

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.

 

Still quite relevant. :) I'm sure you understand that, common sense really.

[CAmastersgt]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

You don't have to believe me, but from all the evidence about missiles in the "game" at this point there is a problem. That moves it farther from simulation and more into the game realm.

 

Still a huge fan of DCS but everyone is beginning to agree there are problems.

 

Thanks for your input.:megalol::megalol:

[jojo]

Still quite relevant. :) I'm sure you understand that, common sense really.

 

 

That's not an AIM-54 specific problem. There has never been a flight simulator that simulate the missiles' service life or failure rate. Or there would be a lot to say about R-27 family actual combat record.

 

 

We get fresh out of the factory planes and missiles for everyone in the game.

 

 

The AIM-54 has a some specific features. It was withdrawn because:

- it was at the end of its service life (needing engine and avionic overhaul which cost a lot of $$$)

- it was a huge missile (1000lbs class) needing a huge aircraft to carry it effectively

- the main threat it was supposed to face wasn't a priority anymore (Russian bombers carrying supersonic cruise missile).

 

It doesn't mean that newer missiles are supposed to match or exceed all of AIM-54 characteristics.

The point: "it isn't realistic because it's better than newer missiles" in game doesn't stand.

[ThorHammer]

I have launched at 86 miles and scored a hit at 70+ miles...

 

It's possible. What's the secret? practice, practice, practice. Use your head.

[CAmastersgt]

That's not an AIM-54 specific problem. There has never been a flight simulator that simulate the missiles' service life or failure rate. Or there would be a lot to say about R-27 family actual combat record.

 

 

We get fresh out of the factory planes and missiles for everyone in the game.

 

 

The AIM-54 has a some specific features. It was withdrawn because:

- it was at the end of its service life (needing engine and avionic overhaul which cost a lot of $$$)

- it was a huge missile (1000lbs class) needing a huge aircraft to carry it effectively

- the main threat it was supposed to face wasn't a priority anymore (Russian bombers carrying supersonic cruise missile).

 

It doesn't mean that newer missiles are supposed to match or exceed all of AIM-54 characteristics.

The point: "it isn't realistic because it's better than newer missiles" in game doesn't stand.

 

I agree with that. :)

[j-tk]

The secret is either having a human RIO or pull up the display up front so you can keep an eye on what Jesters doing if your in single player.

[AeriaGloria]

There is a certain window if they launch late enough you can out maneuver it 17gs accelerating to Mach 3 is going to have a small turn radius. I had one miss me the other day that was so close if the proximity fuse was more sophisticated I might not have survived but orthogonal roll into it gave it a hard time

 

And notching notching notching, the SPO-15 is perfect for this, seeing exactly how close the missile is if it’s active. I think the F-18 has a similar capability?

 

Also it seems almost everyone is allowing Charlie models with the powerful motor. I’m sure some reall competive time frames with old models could be a lot of fun.

 

But I think the dysyc issue is most important as greatly explained in this thread before. One we can fix client to client lofting and going active on the on the opposing client all times, I’ll lbe a whole different game

[metzger]

Let me put a few points to all the crying eastern Aircraft fanboys around, I really don't want to jump into this "war" but I will write it. You guys complain about being shot down by aim54 as you believe it is unrealistic. Now let's consider the advantages of the FC3 russian fighters you like to fly(I do as well):

 

1. IRST -> In FC3 this is very simplified to balance the FC3 module, In real live, this is very unreliable system at that period of time, one of the reasons why western aircraft doesn't have it as irl there is no point of it. The detection range is low and depends a lot on atmospheric conditions like clouds, humidity, sun etc... in real life situation would be different as you would fly in very cluterred airspace, many assets, aircrafts, awacses, civil etc... you can't just lock some object and lunch on it, and the iff with a flick of the radar like in FC3 will not work, more on iff later. AWACS, GCI and AD is also much more complex IRL so fly low to stay hidden will not work as in dcs, so again, you wont be hidden just because you have turned of your radar.

 

 

2. Datalink - Just think about it, what was the Soviet wireless data transmit technology during late 80s ? It is likely extremely limited in range and refresh rate for sure. IFF again will not be so simple as in FC3 datalink. Number of targets are limited to just a few, exchange between assets and the way it is presented is also limited. All this is very simplified in FC3. Needless to say they didn't put F-15 datalink to balance FC3 even tho in the late 80s US already had early GPS and internet already developed so 99% f-15 datalink is way ahead of the su27. Take ka-50 --> Late 90s bird and the data link is veeery primitive

 

3. IFF.. well not much to say here for FC3. Very simplified.

 

 

4. CPU power. Now all radar, datalink, weapon control systems etc... requires computation power be able to calculate and present target/navigation information accurately, and this is where Soviets was (and still are, good that nowaday technology is not so secret anymore so they can import) a lot behind. Just compare a Russian CPU to a US one... same goes to all electronics and digital tech.

 

 

There is much more to be said, but I will stop here. Don't get me wrong, I also fly Su27/J11 and have fun with them in 104th or other servers. But I realize that if those get modeled correctly aka like the Hornet/F-14 or other full fidelity modules, they would be much more inferior than they currently are. So complaining for aim54 characteristics which you probably have no idea about, just because "it doesn't look realistic to you as irl they missed a few times" is just... nonsense.