AIM-54 - super weapon?

[1Shot1KiLL]

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.

 

its ''mostly'' the F15 nad F18 boys that are crying as thay dont have the standoff thay you use to have with there 120s as the f-14 is mostly on red teams :)

[metzger]

its ''mostly'' the F15 nad F18 boys that are crying as thay dont have the standoff thay you use to have with there 120s as the f-14 is mostly on red teams :)

 

Yeah probably right, the red guys should be already used to that feeling ;)

[Auditor]

Bwahaha... Notching?

 

After some reading of the RIO toys in the manual, and about 2-3 hours playing around in the RIO pit, I can confidently say, you may well be able to notch Jester, but you will not notch a human RIO that has spent some time with the AWG-9. If a good RIO has you on scope, in any mode, and their pilots follow to their direction, you are dead anywhere within 25nmi.

I know you probably feel pretty confident or made it in jest on some level, but the truth is; The notching isn't meant for you. it's meant for the missile. At some point that Phoenix goes pitbull, and that's a very gracious window of opportunity the enemy gets to jump into the notch and stay there until the threat goes away.

 

 

 

If you're as confident with the pulse mode as you claim to be; you should really not bother with Phoenix's at all and instead pack a full sparrow loadout, since, in your words, you'll never lose them in the RIO seat.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Auditor

[Auditor]

its ''mostly'' the F15 nad F18 boys that are crying as thay dont have the standoff thay you use to have with there 120s as the f-14 is mostly on red teams :)

mostly this. I think redfor guys are just happy that their side in all of the major servers finally have a clicky plane that works

[jojo]

mostly this. I think redfor guys are just happy that their side in all of the major servers finally have a clicky plane that works

 

Then nothing prevents them to put F-15C on the Red side, it would be just as realistic :D

[Frostie]

 

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

F/A-18 Hornet, Mirage and F-14 have a very low heat signature in DCS, much, much lower than any FC fighter,EOS is really poor at picking these aircraft up.

IFF is performed by an interrogator/transponder.

 

Su27 is missing peer to peer datalink in multiplayer, this is a invaluable tool that it has to do without in DCS mp and pretty crucial for the Flanker.

F-15C didn't start wholesale upgrade to datalink until the 21st century, JTIDS developed in the 80s was cancelled.

Ka50 doesn't have a radar.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Frostie

[Auditor]

Then nothing prevents them to put F-15C on the Red side, it would be just as realistic :D

I'll give them credit, there is one; exactly one use case of it being a redfor plane.

 

Which is probably more precedence than some of the other traditional redfor staples on these servers

[dailey123]

The AIM-54C missile has just so much energy i like it :D

[pepin1234]

I actually give up for all missions with Aim-54. The Fighter Collection Company should remove the rights for Heatblur to make missiles or just ask them to seriously change this superior behavior for this particular missile.

 

1-The missile is launched at inverted.

2-Can track everything from above like a ballistic missile even when the target is maneuvering and low.

3-it is absolutely ignoring weight-to-power ratio and behave like a light missile even when is decreasing speed.

4-at low altitude does minimum change for drag calculation even when this missile is huge.

5-have better rate to kill in the best ratio to kill distance than R-77 one.

 

in few words. it behave well in every BVR situation.

 

it is the most unrealistic you can have in a mission at this moment. by heatblur it is the best missile ever build unrealistically speaking.

 

The Fighter collection company should look on this. this is not simulation. it is cheating.

Edited July 26, 2019 by pepin1234

[Buckeye]

Learn how to notch.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QuiGon]

I actually give up for all missions with Aim-54. The Fighter Collection Company should remove the rights for Heatblur to make missiles or just ask them to seriously change this superior behavior for this particular missile.

Uhm, Heatblur would like to change the missile behaviour (especially the guidance behaviour), but they can't as this is something only ED can change. You're blaming the wrong guys!

A couple of quick notes:

[...]

-We have very little control over missiles once they leave the aircraft. We've been hoping to get more direct control over ordinance to no avail. I'll see if this bug is on our end or somewhere in the DCS missile code.

[HWasp]

I actually give up for all missions with Aim-54. The Fighter Collection Company should remove the rights for Heatblur to make missiles or just ask them to seriously change this superior behavior for this particular missile.

 

1-The missile is launched at inverted.

2-Can track everything from above like a ballistic missile even when the target is maneuvering and low.

3-it is absolutely ignoring weight-to-power ratio and behave like a light missile even when is decreasing speed.

4-at low altitude does minimum change for drag calculation even when this missile is huge.

5-have better rate to kill in the best ratio to kill distance than R-77 one.

 

in few words. it behave well in every BVR situation.

 

it is the most unrealistic you can have in a mission at this moment. by heatblur it is the best missile ever build unrealistically speaking.

 

The Fighter collection company should look on this. this is not simulation. it is cheating.

 

The situation is the exact opposite afaik: Heatblur does not have enough control over the missile behaviour (seeker logic) and that is the main reason the missile may overperform in certain situations... You should read up on the subject before trying to bash Heatblur for something that is not really their fault.

 

Also, 1-5 points are pretty weak arguments.

[GumidekCZ]

Uhm, Heatblur would like to change the missile behaviour (especially the guidance behaviour), but they can't as this is something only ED can change. You're blaming the wrong guys!

 

Ed know from many forum post (and not only from there), that have a mess among many things flying in the air (drag, lift, aerodynamic stability, weapon guidance,...) I know that these things are very complicated and even more if you want to implement these in sim correctly. But good dammed, ED! do something. I want to be a virtual fighter pilot! not to throw up every the missile do something ridiculous. And don’t tell us you don’t have any good paper with missile guidance, aerodynamic equations. Particular missiles abilities are known and unclassified, only the data are classified.

I swear, if you make some good progress with drag, guidance, aerodynamics,… I will never post such biting post like this one.:angel:

Edit: Interesting reading here, which describe (for instance) how complex calculations are needed. And these not involving guidance equations.

LINK

Edited July 26, 2019 by GumidekCZ

[sLYFa]

in few words. it behave well in every BVR situation.

 

it is the most unrealistic you can have in a mission at this moment. by heatblur it is the best missile ever build unrealistically speaking.

 

The Fighter collection company should look on this. this is not simulation. it is cheating.

 

I'm not sure where you got that experience but from my experience its very far from perfect or being a "cheat". I've had AI's defeating 20nm shots, both kinematically and through notching. It is nowhere near unbeatable, even when launched in STT. Maybe your missile defense skills need imrpoving...

[GGTharos]

1-The missile is launched at inverted.

 

 

??? You can launch anything as long as there's positive g.

 

 

 

2-Can track everything from above like a ballistic missile even when the target is maneuvering and low.

 

 

Yes, it's a look-down missile. The pseudo-dlink is an ED thing.

 

 

 

3-it is absolutely ignoring weight-to-power ratio and behave like a light missile even when is decreasing speed.

 

 

Not at all. In fact, what are you even basing that argument on? Show numbers.

 

 

 

4-at low altitude does minimum change for drag calculation even when this missile is huge.

 

 

And heavy. Inertia resists change. But it's definitely quite draggy down low.

 

 

 

5-have better rate to kill in the best ratio to kill distance than R-77 one.

 

 

The 54 is a long range missile...what's the problem?

[GGTharos]

... then maybe you should just stop posting, because you obviously don't know what DCS does or doesn't do :)

 

 

 

I swear, if you make some good progress with drag, guidance, aerodynamics,… I will never post such biting post like this one.:angel:

[pepin1234]

look for info.. Weeks after the F-14 launch. Heatblur announced the fighter Collection made an agreement to pass the Aim-54 physic to heatblur team. Just take a look in some info posted by Cobra.

 

@GGtharois Bro... since you were for years in this forum affirming the R-77 was a ghost missile and should not be in this simulator... every time we find you in discussion is in Aim-120 threads or now your new task is cover Aim-54. for you all the rest are potatoes on the air.

[GGTharos]

lsince you were for years in this forum affirming the R-77 was a ghost missile and should not be in this simulator...

 

Where? Show it.

 

every time we find you in discussion is in Aim-120 threads or now your new task is cover Aim-54. for you all the rest are potatoes on the air.

 

Every time we find you whining about things you can't be bothered to prove correct or incorrect. I think you shouldn't be pointing fingers.

[almullao]

??? You can launch anything as long as there's positive g.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it's a look-down missile. The pseudo-dlink is an ED thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all. In fact, what are you even basing that argument on? Show numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And heavy. Inertia resists change. But it's definitely quite draggy down low.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 54 is a long range missile...what's the problem?

 

I'll tell you, before, you could beat the aim54 with maneuvering, pulling high g would make it overshoot. Now, it's different, you notch it, then it'll make an unrealistic turn that such a heavy airframe with small control surfaces and large draggy cross section without losing speed or going through high angle of attack, it'll just immitate a small agile r77, then you'll beam and wait for it close, I actually tested pulling up to 10gs with an empty mig29s the missile ignored and turned pulling over 40g and hit me, I tried that like 100 times and was only successful once.

 

Summaring, the missile practically pulls over g with almost no angle of attack, the missile will track you even if you notch it and go out of the seeker site, the missile doesn't lose much speed at low altitude, it actually looks less draggy than an aim120. Otherwise, it's good, they just need to fix the g limit, angel of attack and drag. The off sight tracking is applicable for all missiles.

[riboyster]

I'd say its pretty good as it is. If defending from a long range shot, you just need to notch the tomcat that is guiding it. He'll lose the TWS track and the missile will go ballistic. If it does turn on its radar, you should already be notched and pumping chaff. There's a pretty good chance it goes for the chaff instead.

 

I think the implementation is fine, but that's just my opinion.

 

TL;DR: Get gud.

 

The r77 on the other hand is pure magic, and very horribly implemented.

Edited September 17, 2019 by riboyster

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Yeah ok F14 module owner :)

[jojo]

I'm not sure where you got that experience but from my experience its very far from perfect or being a "cheat". I've had AI's defeating 20nm shots, both kinematically and through notching. It is nowhere near unbeatable, even when launched in STT. Maybe your missile defense skills need imrpoving...

 

Yep, chaff seems to work well too, both AIM-54A and AIM-54C.

 

So far, AI Su-33 at FL350 are evading easily with chaffs is look down, even before being into the notch.

 

Edit: replayed my custom mission a fourth time.

1 F-14B Vs 2 x Su-33 sweep + 2 Tu-22M3 anti-ship. High altitude.

 

Launch 4 Phoenix in TWS.

 

In total, 4 AIM-54A failed to intercept the Su-33, they went for chaff each time.

3 AIM-54C went for chaff, 1 stayed on the Su-33 and killed it.

 

Before purchasing the F-14B module I tried with M-2000C Vs AI F-14B. Ok AI but missile is the same.

I managed to consistently beam and defeat the incoming AIM-54. The hard part was to re-commit.

 

I don’t see how the AIM-54 is OP ?

Edited January 19, 2020 by jojo

[Teknetinium]

I'll tell you, before, you could beat the aim54 with maneuvering, pulling high g would make it overshoot. Now, it's different, you notch it, then it'll make an unrealistic turn that such a heavy airframe with small control surfaces and large draggy cross section without losing speed or going through high angle of attack, it'll just immitate a small agile r77, then you'll beam and wait for it close, I actually tested pulling up to 10gs with an empty mig29s the missile ignored and turned pulling over 40g and hit me, I tried that like 100 times and was only successful once.

 

Summaring, the missile practically pulls over g with almost no angle of attack, the missile will track you even if you notch it and go out of the seeker site, the missile doesn't lose much speed at low altitude, it actually looks less draggy than an aim120. Otherwise, it's good, they just need to fix the g limit, angel of attack and drag. The off sight tracking is applicable for all missiles.

 

UFO missiles

[eatthis]

Er, I don't think that's true. Our AIM-54 goes pitbull (more or less) when it should. There is a MP desync bug that makes it seem like that isn't the case though. :)

 

sorry if this has already been answered, i did try to read the whole thread but god damn its like wading through radioactive treacle! way too toxic to read through it all!

what happens to the missile iff i launch at say 50 miles then instantly turn and run away bravely? iv tested that a few times and it can still nail the target, whats actually happening? is it simply proceeding to the point it was already heading for then go pitbull as normal? if so then it will work against unaware/non manuevering taregets.

is it going pitbull as soon as the mothership loses lock?

whats the effective range of the missiles own radar? and is it purely pd or can it switch to pulse?

[QuiGon]

sorry if this has already been answered, i did try to read the whole thread but god damn its like wading through radioactive treacle! way too toxic to read through it all!

what happens to the missile iff i launch at say 50 miles then instantly turn and run away bravely? iv tested that a few times and it can still nail the target, whats actually happening? is it simply proceeding to the point it was already heading for then go pitbull as normal? if so then it will work against unaware/non manuevering taregets.

is it going pitbull as soon as the mothership loses lock?

whats the effective range of the missiles own radar? and is it purely pd or can it switch to pulse?

The current behaviour is still wrong and should be fixed soon:

AIM-54

We’re pleased to note that we’re finally able to use the new missile API to control the AIM-54 active mode from the F-14!

 

These changes are currently live in our experimental build branches, and we are currently testing to ensure that everything works as it should. Here is a brief summary of what these changes include. We’ll delve into more depth once this feature is ready to ship:

 

 

• TWS with range >10NM:
  LTE 3s, loft, SARH/DL, missile goes active at 16 seconds time-to-impact
  
  
• PDSTT with range >10NM:
  LTE 3s, loft, SARH/DL, missile does not go active (SARH/DL all the way to target)
  
  
• TWS or PDSTT with range <10NM, or PH ACT selected:
  LTE 3s, no loft, active directly after launch
  
  
• PSTT or BRSIT or (ACM cover up with no track or PSTT or PDSTT):
  LTE 1s (unless STT and angle >15deg then 3s), no loft, active immediately
  
  

 

This also means the in-flight missiles with TWS will no longer go active if tracking is lost, the F-14 is destroyed, the radar is disabled (..etc), before 16s TTI. However, the WCS can keep a track file stored for up to 2 minutes (for targets under missile attack) and send an active signal to the Phoenix pointing it into the target’s likely position, if the track has not updated for a certain time.

 

We’ll continue testing the Phoenix and ensuring that it behaves as accurately to the real thing as possible.