AIM 54

[steelrfan85]

After I launch on a target when can I break off? I don't want to follow the missile in most of the way because multiple targets and don't want to get fired on my enemy missile.

[steelrfan85]

TWS from pilot seat

 

Do I have to wait for the target on TID to illuminate before firing or can I just launch as soon as there are numbers on them?

[sLYFa]

After I launch on a target when can I break off? I don't want to follow the missile in most of the way because multiple targets and don't want to get fired on my enemy missile.

 

Right now, you can immidiately break away since the Phoenix magically acquires the target as soon as you launch it. This is not realistic behaviour and will be changed at some point.

 

How it should be: You keep the target in your rader cone until the time to impact (the counter to the right of the target symbol) starts flashing. This means that the missile has gone active and does not need radar support from you.

Do I have to wait for the target on TID to illuminate before firing or can I just launch as soon as there are numbers on them?

The target symbol illuminating simply tells you that the RIO has selected it with his hand control unit (for example to assign it hostile/friendly or show some information about its range/altitude etc). This has nothing to do with the ability to launch the missile. As soon as you see a number to the right of the target (which is the launch priority number for that specific target) and "HOT TRIGGER" light illuminating on the ACM panel you can fire a phoenix. It will then go for the target with priority number 1. This number will then change to the time to impact counter.

[captain_dalan]

After I launch on a target when can I break off? I don't want to follow the missile in most of the way because multiple targets and don't want to get fired on my enemy missile.

 

This:

 

Right now, you can immidiately break away since the Phoenix magically acquires the target as soon as you launch it. This is not realistic behaviour and will be changed at some point.

 

Which is probably one of the two main reasons (the other being the way CM and missile guidance works in DCS) why right now the 54's are such poor performers, especially against AI's. Right now it really doesn't matter if you guide the missile or not, it guides itself right from the launch.

 

I tried to calculate PK's based on me firing in TWS, STT (all the way to impact) and Mad Dog (active from launch), against a single active target, co-altitude, above target and below target. It really doesn't matter. The missile will most likely eat chaff, no matter how you launch it.

[PE_Tigar]

How it should be: You keep the target in your rader cone until the time to impact (the counter to the right of the target symbol) starts flashing. This means that the missile has gone active and does not need radar support from you.

 

Not that simple. The missile is not under direct positive control of the launch aircraft radar. It receives mid-course guidance updates that change the way the missile's autopilot flies the missile. When these updates stop (for any reason) the missile will/should continue flying to the last calculated intercept point. If the target maneuvers aggressively (change course, altitude, etc.) so it's out of the missile radar's acquisition cone ("basket") when missile goes active, and there are no other targets in the basket, it will miss. If not, the missile will continue guiding on an acquired target (which may or may not be the intended target).

 

There are two stages of mid-course guidance. First, when the target can maneuver out of the missile's basket, and second, when it can't. If guidance is broken in the first stage, the missile will most likely miss a maneuvering target. If it happens in the second stage, the missile will guide to the target, but will not be as effective as in "mid-course guidance to active" case. I've read in one source that with AMRAAM launch pilot should get indication whether the missile is in the stage 1 or stage 2 of mid-course guidance, no idea whether it's the case with AIM-54A or C.

 

I have analyzed some 30+ PvP AIM-54 shots recently, and certainly the missile guides as if having mid-course guidance all the time even with launching a/c going cold - no doubt about that. What I'm hoping for is more realistic behavior, along the lines described above.

[PE_Tigar]

I tried to calculate PK's based on me firing in TWS, STT (all the way to impact) and Mad Dog (active from launch), against a single active target, co-altitude, above target and below target. It really doesn't matter. The missile will most likely eat chaff, no matter how you launch it.

 

AIM-54 has flawed terminal guidance. See here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=270169. You're guaranteed to miss, unless firing at a very short range, or the target pilot gets confused/overwhelmed. Chaff has no observable effect really.

[captain_dalan]

Not that simple. The missile is not under direct positive control of the launch aircraft radar. It receives mid-course guidance updates that change the way the missile's autopilot flies the missile. When these updates stop (for any reason) the missile will/should continue flying to the last calculated intercept point. If the target maneuvers aggressively (change course, altitude, etc.) so it's out of the missile radar's acquisition cone ("basket") when missile goes active, and there are no other targets in the basket, it will miss. If not, the missile will continue guiding on an acquired target (which may or may not be the intended target).

 

There are two stages of mid-course guidance. First, when the target can maneuver out of the missile's basket, and second, when it can't. If guidance is broken in the first stage, the missile will most likely miss a maneuvering target. If it happens in the second stage, the missile will guide to the target, but will not be as effective as in "mid-course guidance to active" case. I've read in one source that with AMRAAM launch pilot should get indication whether the missile is in the stage 1 or stage 2 of mid-course guidance, no idea whether it's the case with AIM-54A or C.

 

I have analyzed some 30+ PvP AIM-54 shots recently, and certainly the missile guides as if having mid-course guidance all the time even with launching a/c going cold - no doubt about that. What I'm hoping for is more realistic behavior, along the lines described above.

 

AIM-54 has flawed terminal guidance. See here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=270169. You're guaranteed to miss, unless firing at a very short range, or the target pilot gets confused/overwhelmed. Chaff has no observable effect really.

 

That's how the missiles is supposed to work IRL. Unfortunately, in DCS (and this has been confirmed by the devs) the AIM-54 is active on launch.

 

As for chaff, it has quite the effect. It's basically a probabilistic equation. This aggravates the problem, as CM will get you, even if they aren't supposed to, based on your firing profile.

[*Aquila*]

Here's how it should work:

• 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
  
  

 

 

For now, as it's already been explained above, the Phoenix is active as soon as it leaves the rail.

[PE_Tigar]

That's how the missiles is supposed to work IRL. Unfortunately, in DCS (and this has been confirmed by the devs) the AIM-54 is active on launch.

 

It's not active on launch. It flies like it's receiving mid-course updates - those are two different things. If the missile was active on lofted long-range shots you'd start getting missile warnings in target airplane much earlier than is the case now. I understand the effect might look similar, and it should not act like that, but the cause is not what you think it is. Also, even if it was active off the rail, it could never track the target, because the target is not in the basket during the loft phase.

 

As for chaff effectiveness - I have no tracks out of 40+ PvP AIM-54A shots I've viewed since the last update where the missile goes for chaff - it does have two issues with terminal guidance, as outlined in the video I posted and linked. If you have Tacview ACMI files, or tracks where you can positively say the missile started guiding on chaff, please provide some, I'd be genuinely interested to see that.

 

In all misses we've recorded the missile increases the lead until it looses the target from the "basket" (which is a bug) and then turns away from the target to reacquire (which is another bug) - it never goes for chaff.

 

In yesterday's session I viewed, however, there were three cases where the missile either goes through the target with no effect, or passes very close (33ft for example) - that seems like a desync issue, very bad for MP.

[captain_dalan]

It's not active on launch......

 

 

Then break away immediately after launch and see what happens.

 

 

As for chaff effectiveness - I have no tracks out of 40+ PvP AIM-54A shots I've viewed since the last update where the missile goes for chaff - it does have two issues with terminal guidance, as outlined in the video I posted and linked. If you have Tacview ACMI files, or tracks where you can positively say the missile started guiding on chaff, please provide some, I'd be genuinely interested to see that.

Unfortunately i only have SP tracks (i only fly MP in WVR - well, not true, but 90% of my MP is dogfights) , all of which are broken due to.....well, them not working ever. I have recorded a few in Tacview, i'll see if i can fetch them. :thumbup:

 

EDIT: uploaded

Of special interest is the the 2nd missile in the last track

miss at 45 and 23 Tacview-20200420-024502-DCS.zip

missed from 31 miles Tacview-20200420-012013-DCS.zip

kill at 29 miss at 15 Tacview-20200420-030501-DCS.zip

Edited April 22, 2020 by captain_dalan

[Looney]

As stated above, it's not HBs fault for the current AIM54 behaviour. ED is changing its missile parameters (and API most likely) in order to allow the Phoenix to work as it should.

 

Once ED gives the go ahead, I'm pretty sure the HB guys will implement the correct behaviour for the Phoenix ASAP.

[PE_Tigar]

Then break away immediately after launch and see what happens.

 

 

Unfortunately i only have SP tracks (i only fly MP in WVR - well, not true, but 90% of my MP is dogfights) , all of which are broken due to.....well, them not working ever. I have recorded a few in Tacview, i'll see if i can fetch them. :thumbup:

 

EDIT: uploaded

Of special interest is the the 2nd missile in the last track

 

On guidance - I did that many times, and the missile guides to target as if it received mid-course guidance from the launch aircraft. But that doesn't mean it's active, since it doesn't, for example, lock on to targets it encounters along the way... I don't think you know what active guidance really means, but that doesn't matter, devs know and it's up to them to fix it.

 

As for the tracks - I see what you mean, but that's only one of the issues with the missile. Plus, the AI notches the missile perfectly - I've rarely seen humans able to pull that off.

Edited April 22, 2020 by PE_Tigar

[veenee]

...But that doesn't mean it's active...

 

 

If it is not active on launch - why do AI bandits react to it like it was, instantly after it's off the rail?

[Chaogen]

If it is not active on launch - why do AI bandits react to it like it was, instantly after it's off the rail?

 

 

AI don't play by the same rules as human players. Especially when you set the skill level high. They can notch perfectly because they know exactly where the missile is coming from. Their flight model is also different, and they can and do pull unrealistic maneuvers that even a human in the same aircraft can't. You can't use their behavior as a substantiation of your argument.

[veenee]

Why does it work differently for AMRAAMs launched in TWS then?

[PE_Tigar]

Why does it work differently for AMRAAMs launched in TWS then?

 

 

It doesn't. AI somehow "knows" about the launch, every time. And it also knows that you're launching on him, not at his wingman. When launching against AI, make sure they don't have the default (empty) loadout, because they will not have countermeasures loaded either.

[Chaogen]

Why does it work differently for AMRAAMs launched in TWS then?

 

 

There are so many variables, so again your hypothesis is hardly substantiated by saying Aim-120 doesn't do the same. Range? Altitude? If I fired a Phoenix at 20nm the Phoenix would go Active very quickly.

 

Now I do agree that with longer shots the Phoenixes will seemingly track if the Donor A/C has broken away and lost track, which would make it potentially theoretically active off the rail, but that's not the reason why the AI is reacting, because I have been on the receiving end and I did not get the Missile [M] warning on my RWR until the 16 seconds prior to impact. I've also rack up a couple of 60nm shot on Human players, mainly because they didn't get the warning till it was too late.

 

I'll repeat myself. The AI doesn't play by the same rules as Human Players, and you cannot assert an argument by citing AI behavior as proof that the missile is active off the rail in TWS with ACM mode off.

[veenee]

hmm just checked, AI indeed starts chaffing when AMRAAM is launched, so it's the same as AIM-54.

 

Quite dissapointing! Thought it was only Pheonixes problem.

[captain_dalan]

On guidance - I did that many times, and the missile guides to target as if it received mid-course guidance from the launch aircraft. But that doesn't mean it's active, since it doesn't, for example, lock on to targets it encounters along the way...

It's "active" as opposed to active. The 2nd meaning referring to the real world active. A 3rd disclaimer by this point, i'm talking about the way missiles work in DCS, not in real life.

 

... I don't think you know what active guidance really means, but that doesn't matter, devs know and it's up to them to fix it.

 

As for the tracks - I see what you mean, but that's only one of the issues with the missile. Plus, the AI notches the missile perfectly - I've rarely seen humans able to pull that off.

 

 

hmm just checked, AI indeed starts chaffing when AMRAAM is launched, so it's the same as AIM-54.

 

Quite dissapointing! Thought it was only Pheonixes problem.

Yep. The 54 uses the same base code as the 120. All "actives" in DCS do. And they way they are implemented is kinda "fudged" right now, to emulate, but not really simulate real life behavior. And yes, de devs are informed, but until ED releases the new missile API, we are stuck with the way things are.

 

But yes, i agree. The chaff "Eating" is far from the only issue with missiles and is by no means the worst. I just pointed it out to the OP so that he has some idea on how CM deployment might make his missiles ineffective. Even when fired in situations and aspects where CM influence should be negligible :thumbup:

[Karon]

A quick note: if you break lock and leave as you launch, the WCS loses guidance, the AIM-54 stops lofting and you are likely to miss unless the target is quite close and non-manoeuvring.

[TAW_Blaze]

A quick note: if you break lock and leave as you launch, the WCS loses guidance, the AIM-54 stops lofting and you are likely to miss unless the target is quite close and non-manoeuvring.

 

Actually this is often a positive impact on overall pK due to the idiotic terminal phase. Dropping 80-90 degrees vertically on top of target (or even sometimes approaching it from behind his 3/9 line) especially at long range is automatic miss in almost all scenarios. In terms of pK your optimal intercept angles on a high speed bandit are typically somewhere between 30-60 degrees depending on scenario.

[IronMike]

Just to confirm a couple things:

 

Indeed it is active off the rail, that is a bug. However, if lock is kept, the AWG-9 updates still happen, similar in STT. What is additionaly wrong atm is the transition from semi-active to active (although the semi-active part atm also is not as it should, as it is a mix of both atm as mentioned above).

 

ATM it "goes active", and that means additionally to being active anyway, heh, so that it begins its terminal guidance on target 7nm out from the target, hence the excessive hook turn at the end. Also, with AWG-9 updating it in either TWS or STT, it lofts, and when you break lock, it just goes direct for the target.

 

Blaze is correct in the sense that not having it loft (and thus not having the terminal guidance phase with excessive pulls) can be beneficial at times.

 

As for the AI, unfortunately that is completely out of our hands. AI are best attacked close range imo. F-14 crews really like the phoenix close range, around 12nm. Since luckily the AI is not very good in engaging you, luring it into a zero evasability zone usually work best.

 

Unless it is a fatty, like a tanker/transport I try not to fire on AI outside of 20nm. Preferably around 12.

[Airhunter]

You can get 30-40nm TWS AMRAAM kills on DCS AI, so I'd assume 50nm Phoenix kills shouldn't really be a problem either. I've gotten plenty of 70+ nm kills in MP on non-suspecting targets before who only started defending 5s to impact.

[Sam]

Hey IronMike, what do you think about chaff efficiency on the Phoenix atm ?

[IronMike]

You can get 30-40nm TWS AMRAAM kills on DCS AI, so I'd assume 50nm Phoenix kills shouldn't really be a problem either. I've gotten plenty of 70+ nm kills in MP on non-suspecting targets before who only started defending 5s to impact.

 

 

So do I, but if you want to play it safe, the closer, the better. As for the reasons explained above.

 

 

Hey IronMike, what do you think about chaff efficiency on the Phoenix atm ?

 

 

We're currently reviewing it. We have set it initially very close to the value of the aim120, we're not sure why they are different now, they should be very similar. It is possible that the aim120's chaff resistance changed. Or that chaff changed and the aim120 got adjusted accordingly, we don't know yet.