[DCS BUG] AIM-54

[captain_dalan]

 

Interesting test case, so from the description, they start Co-alt, and the drone executes a break and dive so a basic evasive maneuver of sorts, and I've never had issues with the kinematic capabilities of the missile. However, that maneuver as described wouldn't have notched the missile IMO, and of course it has a doppler seeker. So missile still tracks because it doesn't filter out the target. Presumably much like the Iranian engagements. But again, exactly how notchable is the missile?

 

Do we know anything of seeker gimbal limits and track/search rates or patterns? The seeker is based on the AN/DPN-53.

 

Can't say really. Even if i did have the source data (which i don't say i do) posting them here would be probably in major violation of several forum rules and possibly worse.

I was replying mostly to this comment though:

 

 

The A as you know was designed to intercept Russian bombers and high velocity cruise missiles right? It was also designed in the 60's much like the AWG-9 radar, and it helps to think of the seeker head as a simplified/more primitive version of that system. So... Based on its mission the use case is as follows:

 

Bomber: Big fat high RCS target, not particularly maneuverable, but can be "fast" depending on which one you mean.

Missile: The AS-4 is a big ass missile, lets call that a fighter sized RCS. It also goes very fast in a straight line.

 

So, the phoenix flight profile is to loft and dive onto the target. So, its looking at the ground when its diving in. That means it needs a doppler shift to track the target.

 

Given that its a 1960s era radar system, it means its not very sophisticated in terms of filtering as we see with the AWG-9 which has way more space and power for that. So ask yourself how well the AWG-9 does versus notching targets that are below it? The answer is quite poorly. So I think its a fair assumption to consider that the missile, with a simpler radar system is going to poorly as well. And this doesn't really bring into question any of the other issues with radars of that era and the "logic" which I'm sure was pretty simple, i.e. could the seeker go from a hi-PRF to a low PRF. I.e. if you go cold to the missile it may miss as well or at least have a harder time of it. And frankly I'd be surprised if it even had a way of changing PRF.

 

........

Which seamed to imply that the missile was designed and tested specifically for use against bombers.

Did that test back in the 70's involve any vertical notching? Can't really say.

[Harlikwin]

 

Can't say really. Even if i did have the source data (which i don't say i do) posting them here would be probably in major violation of several forum rules and possibly worse.

I was replying mostly to this comment though:

 

 

Which seamed to imply that the missile was designed and tested specifically for use against bombers.

Did that test back in the 70's involve any vertical notching? Can't really say.

 

Well forum rules state pre-1980 data... Pretty sure any data on the A model phoenix would be from the 70's or even 60's. I mean its a bit laughable since we have such data for missiles from the 70's and 80's and into the 90s. At any rate I get where you are coming from though.

 

I mean it LITERALLY WAS designed for use against bombers and CM's. It could also be used against fighters, and was tested that way too. Frankly the only people that know how good it is in those scenarios are the Iranians. The US did some tests, but literally never got a single combat kill with the phoenix. And the Iranian data, well it has to be taken in context.

 

At any rate the radar for the phoenix was developed from predecessor systems from the 50's and 60's, so I'm trying to track that data down. Might provide some insights.

 

 

[GGTharos]

Which seamed to imply that the missile was designed and tested specifically for use against bombers.

Did that test back in the 70's involve any vertical notching? Can't really say.

 

Protection against split-S isn't that hard to implement - AIM-7F had it, it's possible that missiles before it had it also. The seeker goes into a search pattern looking to pick up a particular doppler shift that would indicate the aircraft coming out of the dive. Chaff may be a little more effective here than in other cases, though DCS doesn't really model this sort of thing.

[draconus]

Ok, just watched your tacviews, you are NOT notching or defending correctly in most cases.

 

Interesting... last time I used TacView it was like 2 years ago...

[captain_dalan]

 

Well forum rules state pre-1980 data... Pretty sure any data on the A model phoenix would be from the 70's or even 60's. I mean its a bit laughable since we have such data for missiles from the 70's and 80's and into the 90s. At any rate I get where you are coming from though.

.......

At any rate the radar for the phoenix was developed from predecessor systems from the 50's and 60's, so I'm trying to track that data down. Might provide some insights.

 

1-1. I mean it LITERALLY WAS designed for use against bombers and CM's. It could also be used against fighters, and was tested that way too.

1-2. The US did some tests, but literally never got a single combat kill with the phoenix.

 

Well, i don't know of anyone having that data. Though if someone does, it might actually be the guys making the software, so either ED or Heatblur, or both? Have you tried contacting them?

 

1-1. So were virtually all missiles by that point. Even Sidewinders. Fighters and missiles designed in the 50's and 60's were considered to have bombers as their primary targets. Nuclear bombers to be more precise.

1-2. No big surprise, as they hardly ever used it. What was the size of that statistical sample? 5?

 

Chaff may be a little more effective here than in other cases, though DCS doesn't really model this sort of thing.

 

Very true.

[Noctrach]

1-1. So were virtually all missiles by that point. Even Sidewinders. Fighters and missiles designed in the 50's and 60's were considered to have bombers as their primary targets. Nuclear bombers to be more precise.

 

Exactly. But then again, airquake has taught me the AIM-7 is a useless missile so I don't see why they ever employed them.

Regardless, it was always disgusting to me how the navy spent millions in extensively testing Phoenixes against targets they never intented to use them against. Taxpayer millions. :mad:

 

1-2. No big surprise, as they hardly ever used it. What was the size of that statistical sample? 5?

 

3 actually. :smilewink:

 

2 failed to ignite due to human error involving the arming pins.

1 got kinematically defeated by an egressing MiG-25.

 

Yet people keep bringing this shit up, ohwell.

[Harlikwin]

 

Protection against split-S isn't that hard to implement - AIM-7F had it, it's possible that missiles before it had it also. The seeker goes into a search pattern looking to pick up a particular doppler shift that would indicate the aircraft coming out of the dive. Chaff may be a little more effective here than in other cases, though DCS doesn't really model this sort of thing.

 

Where do I read about that?

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

So now apparently due to a 'mistake' the aim54 doesn't give any RWR warning when it goes active. This missile was hilarious from the second the F14 got released , and is becoming a running joke.

I hope servers will disable the PH missiles, at least until this is resolved, yet again.

 

[dundun92]

 

Where do I read about that?

 

I think the F-15 -34 mentions this, havent read that section in a while so I could be wrong.

 

EDIT heres a quote:

With an AIM-7 in flight and the spit-s tracker logic enabled due to target maneuvers, the radar enters a nutating conical scan that rotates the antenna in a 360° circle at a 1 second rate, centered about the 2.5° beam edge and providing a 5° beam width to find the target. The nutating scan starts 6 seconds after the standard split-s logic is enabled. The nutation shows up as a gyration in the TD box and an oscillation in the AZ/EL carets on the VSD. Unless the pilot rejects,

the radar will continue in split-s logic until last missile TOF plus the 15-second pad expires, then return to search.

 

 

 

 

 

[GGTharos]

With an AIM-7 in flight and the spit-s tracker logic enabled due to target maneuvers, the radar enters a nutating conical scan that rotates the antenna in a 360° circle at a 1 second rate, centered about the 2.5° beam edge and providing a 5° beam width to find the target. The nutating scan starts 6 seconds after the standard split-s logic is enabled. The nutation shows up as a gyration in the TD box and an oscillation in the AZ/EL carets on the VSD. Unless the pilot rejects,

the radar will continue in split-s logic until last missile TOF plus the 15-second pad expires, then return to search.

 

Good find, though it's about the APG-63 and not the AIM-7 itself (which does something similar).

[Harlikwin]

So now apparently due to a 'mistake' the aim54 doesn't give any RWR warning when it goes active. This missile was hilarious from the second the F14 got released , and is becoming a running joke.

I hope servers will disable the PH missiles, at least until this is resolved, yet again.

 

Only 2 more weeks.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

2 weeks. Sounds familiar. So it must be true ... -_- :d

[Harlikwin]

 

Exactly. But then again, airquake has taught me the AIM-7 is a useless missile so I don't see why they ever employed them.

Regardless, it was always disgusting to me how the navy spent millions in extensively testing Phoenixes against targets they never intented to use them against. Taxpayer millions. :mad:

 

 

 

3 actually. :smilewink:

 

2 failed to ignite due to human error involving the arming pins.

1 got kinematically defeated by an egressing MiG-25.

 

Yet people keep bringing this shit up, ohwell.

 

The problem with your argument is reality. Yes the missiles might have been tested against those types of targets, but no one really has the actual data aside from "snippets" from books and such and the iranians.

 

The missiles were stupidly expensive as well. And ROE/PID restrictions kept them out of general "yeet" use during the cold war.

 

Also, exactly how many Phoenix missiles did a carrier carry ~100/squadron maybe? It wasn't that many, so even in wartime against lower tier threats (i.e. fighters, they were unlikely to be used)

[TLTeo]

 

The problem with your argument is reality. Yes the missiles might have been tested against those types of targets, but no one really has the actual data aside from "snippets" from books and such and the iranians.

 

The missiles were stupidly expensive as well. And ROE/PID restrictions kept them out of general "yeet" use during the cold war.

 

Also, exactly how many Phoenix missiles did a carrier carry? It wasn't that many, so even in wartime against lower tier threats (i.e. fighters, they were unlikely to be used)

 

If only HB had released a white paper explaining how they modelled the AIM-54, and replicating known shots including references to said shots...OH WAIT

 

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

[Quid]

The problem with your argument is reality. Yes the missiles might have been tested against those types of targets, but no one really has the actual data aside from "snippets" from books and such and the iranians.

 

Not sure where you're going with this; most modern missiles only have range data because so few have been employed in actual combat. The AIM-9X failed on its initial use and is currently at a demonstrated 0%Pk. The R-27 family is more abysmal than the AIM-7E family by actual combat performance, while the late model versions have no combat data, only "snippets from books and such." The R-77 has never been used in combat, nor has the SD-10. The propensity of available combat data relevant to missiles seen in DCS is for the AIM-7F, AIM-7M, AIM-9L, AIM-9M, and early model AMRAAMs. Should we just throw out everything for those other missiles because of a lack of combat data?

 

The missiles were stupidly expensive as well. And ROE/PID restrictions kept them out of general "yeet" use during the cold war.

 

Since when has that mattered in DCS? Everyone on airquake servers loads 10 AMRAAMs on their F/A-18s, 8 on their F-15s, etc., fires them all at one or two targets and/or gets shot down, jumps into another, max load, rinse, repeat. That is insanely expensive and would cut down on stocks of both aircraft and missiles very quickly. Why is this only a problem for the AIM-54? ROEs also changed over time. VID and "do not fire until fired upon" were there in the early 1980s, by the late 1980s BVR shots were allowed.

 

Also, exactly how many Phoenix missiles did a carrier carry ~100/squadron maybe? It wasn't that many, so even in wartime against lower tier threats (i.e. fighters, they were unlikely to be used)

 

Not sure about how many, but see above. Keep either firing or losing 10 AMRAAMs per jet and see how long your stock lasts. As to its use against fighters, as "Bio" Baranek pointed out, they were considered for use against fighters in earnest by the late 1980s due to the Sparrow's inadequacy against threats like the R-27, and there is a reason Hughes was advertising the C model's 25g authority against maneuvering targets even by the mid-1980s.

[Harlikwin]

 

If only HB had released a white paper explaining how they modelled the AIM-54, and replicating known shots including references to said shots...OH WAIT

 

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

 

Yeah I've been pretty clear this entire thread that I'm talking about guidance/seeker performance of the A phoenix in a modern/semi modern environment like DCS. Do try to keep up.

 

Im well aware of the kinematics paper.

[Harlikwin]

 

Not sure where you're going with this; most modern missiles only have range data because so few have been employed in actual combat. The AIM-9X failed on its initial use and is currently at a demonstrated 0%Pk. The R-27 family is more abysmal than the AIM-7E family by actual combat performance, while the late model versions have no combat data, only "snippets from books and such." The R-77 has never been used in combat, nor has the SD-10. The propensity of available combat data relevant to missiles seen in DCS is for the AIM-7F, AIM-7M, AIM-9L, AIM-9M, and early model AMRAAMs. Should we just throw out everything for those other missiles because of a lack of combat data?

 

Actually, I think the actual seeker parameters should be discussed on an apples to apples basis for most DCS missiles due to this fact. This goes back to the whole argument about ED doing some of the modeling on 3rd party missiles. And really its all about context. 54A against fighters that have little to no clue its coming with innefective RWR and no ECM (see first years of Iran Iraq war) sure, in that enviroment it can kill fighters. A few years later in the same war, with fighters with effective tactics and RWR's, efficacy goes waaay down. In a 2000's environment with vastly better RWR's and ECM? Yeah, even less effective.

 

 

Since when has that mattered in DCS? Everyone on airquake servers loads 10 AMRAAMs on their F/A-18s, 8 on their F-15s, etc., fires them all at one or two targets and/or gets shot down, jumps into another, max load, rinse, repeat. That is insanely expensive and would cut down on stocks of both aircraft and missiles very quickly. Why is this only a problem for the AIM-54? ROEs also changed over time. VID and "do not fire until fired upon" were there in the early 1980s, by the late 1980s BVR shots were allowed.

 

 

 

Not sure about how many, but see above. Keep either firing or losing 10 AMRAAMs per jet and see how long your stock lasts. As to its use against fighters, as "Bio" Baranek pointed out, they were considered for use against fighters in earnest by the late 1980s due to the Sparrow's inadequacy against threats like the R-27, and there is a reason Hughes was advertising the C model's 25g authority against maneuvering targets even by the mid-1980s.

 

Meh, the absurdity of the weapon situation in DCS is just a personal pet peeve of mine, perhaps when the dynamic campaign comes it will have some way of realistically modeling missile/weapon stocks like BMS and the whole thing won't be an absurd meme like it is now. I find it laughable that a good portion of the DCS community might know how to use 1 or 2 weapons on a jet because they never use the other 10 it can carry.

 

Sure, the 54C seeker is a totally different animal compared to the A, and really I've never argued that its use case wasn't against fighters.

[Skysurfer]

 

Actually, I think the actual seeker parameters should be discussed on an apples to apples basis for most DCS missiles due to this fact. This goes back to the whole argument about ED doing some of the modeling on 3rd party missiles. And really its all about context. 54A against fighters that have little to no clue its coming with innefective RWR and no ECM (see first years of Iran Iraq war) sure, in that enviroment it can kill fighters. A few years later in the same war, with fighters with effective tactics and RWR's, efficacy goes waaay down. In a 2000's environment with vastly better RWR's and ECM? Yeah, even less effective.

 

 

By what account do you hold this to be true? Is this just an asumption? Or was it just the Iraqis being more careful and trying not to engage / disengaging later in the war whenever Tomcats and Phantoms showed up or adapting their tactics for ambush attacks, as can be seen by the rear aspect missile kills by Floggers on two Tomcats. Not saying the 54A would hold up in a modern environment with ECM but we dont have ECM in DCS and thus no modern environment. RWR's are usually too accurate and distinguish everything perfectly on all non-3rd party jets in DCS. From a kinematics perspective the 54A is just as capable as the C, the difference lies in seeker performance and CCM behaviour in a degraded environment as well as storage and servicing reliability, which was by far the biggest downside of the A's.

[TLTeo]

ECM and ECCM are hardly modelled in DCS, even RCS and chaff are done badly. Once a weapon leaves the rail it's entirely in ED's hands per multiple posts, so that's not going to somehow make the Phoenix overperform, so none of your points make any sense.

[Noctrach]

 

The problem with your argument is reality. Yes the missiles might have been tested against those types of targets, but no one really has the actual data aside from "snippets" from books and such and the iranians.

 

The missiles were stupidly expensive as well. And ROE/PID restrictions kept them out of general "yeet" use during the cold war.

 

Also, exactly how many Phoenix missiles did a carrier carry ~100/squadron maybe? It wasn't that many, so even in wartime against lower tier threats (i.e. fighters, they were unlikely to be used)

 

Hey at least we've moved the goalpost from "The Phoenix Was A Bomber Only Weapon And Never Hit Anything" to something even less substantial or relevant to the DCS situation.

Time to complain about people dropping their tanks when they're empty. They tend to be in shorter supply than missiles on most carriers and forward airbases. Anything else strike your fancy?

 

The only "reality" I see being problematic here, is the one where we pretend any of us are in the know on the actual capabilities of these weapon systems.

 

I'm being facetious but you get my point, the discussion is just nonsensical at this point.

There's so many fallacies and make-believe in DCS that you either come up with hard, substantiated evidence that the currently Phoenix modeling is in some way objectively worse than the auld AIM-120s or SD-10s, or just stop endlessly making these kinds of threads. Hell, half the airplane roster has either under/overperforming FMs in some regions, guesstimated systems behaviour or other flaws.

 

Just learn to accept it's a sim with sim-isms and adapt your tactics to what you're dealing with.

[Harlikwin]

 

Hey at least we've moved the goalpost from "The Phoenix Was A Bomber Only Weapon And Never Hit Anything" to something even less substantial or relevant to the DCS situation.

Time to complain about people dropping their tanks when they're empty. They tend to be in shorter supply than missiles on most carriers and forward airbases. Anything else strike your fancy?

 

The only "reality" I see being problematic here, is the one where we pretend any of us are in the know on the actual capabilities of these weapon systems.

 

I'm being facetious but you get my point, the discussion is just nonsensical at this point.

There's so many fallacies and make-believe in DCS that you either come up with hard, substantiated evidence that the currently Phoenix modeling is in some way objectively worse than the auld AIM-120s or SD-10s, or just stop endlessly making these kinds of threads. Hell, half the airplane roster has either under/overperforming FMs in some regions, guesstimated systems behaviour or other flaws.

 

Just learn to accept it's a sim with sim-isms and adapt your tactics to what you're dealing with.

 

Well

 

A) I was talking about the A model seeker performance vs various target scenarios. (Also, I think based on this thread, we'd likely agree on some of that at least https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/7125646-aim-54-probability-of-kill)

 

B) Yes, I think other missiles have similar issues (I.e. SD10) but thats not the point of this thread

 

C) I certainly didn't start this thread, merely commented in it.

[Harlikwin]

Just came across this and thought it was pertinent to this thread, moreso for the phoenix v fighter sections.

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-Air-Forces-F-15-Eagle-fighter-carry-the-extremely-long-range-and-high-speed-AIM-54-Phoenix

[Quid]

Just came across this and thought it was pertinent to this thread, moreso for the phoenix v fighter sections.

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-Air-Forces-F-15-Eagle-fighter-carry-the-extremely-long-range-and-high-speed-AIM-54-Phoenix

 

So, opinions and RUMINT. Sweet.

[Harlikwin]

 

So, opinions and RUMINT. Sweet.

 

Sweet. Post up some docs. They are gonna be pre 80 so GTG. Please enlighten us peasants oh mighty one.

 

or oh wait, you dont have a clue.

[GGTharos]

 

Sweet. Post up some docs. They are gonna be pre 80 so GTG. Please enlighten us peasants oh mighty one.

 

or oh wait, you dont have a clue.

 

I have docs. I won't share (not because I don't want to). The bits about that radar having twice the power of the Eagle radar are a weird mention given that the detection ranges of the original APG-63 vs targets were quite similar to the tomcat's - as well as the DSR for the sparrow being similar for both aircraft operating their radars on the highest power modes which suggests that they were basically equalish in power.

 

More than that would require technical documentation that we likely won't get our hands on for a long time.

 

The bits about why the USAF specifically decided not to haul the Phoenix around may or may not be correct, who knows? The Phoenix was an expensive, liquid-cooled (IIRC) missile which was basically high-maintenance. Yes, carrying them required turning F-15Cs into missile trucks with somewhat fewer mobility options (Acceleration, top speed) ... and perhaps their target environment simply dictated doing something different.

 

So yes, Quin is basically correct - opinions. But most people wouldn't be able to separate that from a fact given the knowledge that we do have, and even the docs we can get our hands on leave plenty of gaps in specific knowledge.