new missile API

[Banzaiib]

I didn't see mention of the AIM-54 & AIM-7 guidance changes in the mini dev update, and just was wondering how ED is coming with the API on their side or if you could give a general time frame for some changes to aim-54 guidance. Their current, 120 guidance logic is... frustrating... to say the least... and being able to guide an AIM-54 and / or AIM-7 via PAL / PSTT would be a huge advantage over the notch-tastic ED guidance we have now. (what i mean is, PSTT should be pretty un-notchable when you're underneath the target and at reasonably close range... but i have su-25 and mig-29 yank back on the stick and notch PSTT tracked 54's and AIM-7s inside 10 miles all the time..)

Edited June 8, 2020 by Banzaiib

[IronMike]

No estimate. We need to give ED the time to finalize their side and then help us implement the necessary changes. Missile guidance is no easy task. But we are working with them, we just implemented their aim7 changes, etc.. We'll get there. A lot of good things are happening at the moment, I am confident it won't take too long till we cross that bridge, too.

[Banzaiib]

thank you for the update / response!

 

<3

[Sam]

I'm not sure if I understand your post correctly. If you are firing an AIM-54 in P-STT, the missile is supposed to be active off the rail (when the new API is implemented), so the target won't be able to notch your radar, but will still be able to notch the missile itself.

 

But I agree with you on the fact that the Phoenix is pretty easy to evade atm. Regarding the new changes on the AIM-120, I feel like it's a lot less sensitive to notching and countermeasures, so hopefully the new Phoenix will be the same in the future.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Panther 976

[Harlikwin]

But I agree with you on the fact that the Phoenix is pretty easy to evade atm. Regarding the new changes on the AIM-120, I feel like it's a lot less sensitive to notching and countermeasures, so hopefully the new Phoenix will be the same in the future.

 

I mean should it really be? The 54A's were 60's era missile tech and really weren't designed to engage fighters, and were upgraded several times over their life for improved ECM resistance, great for their time/job, but they aren't 120C's. The 54C is probably better in that regard, but IF DCS ever actually implements actual SPJ's a lot tomcat drivers are going to be disappointed when facing 20xx era jammers IMO.

[Sam]

I mean should it really be? The 54A's were 60's era missile tech and really weren't designed to engage fighters, and were upgraded several times over their life for improved ECM resistance, great for their time/job, but they aren't 120C's. The 54C is probably better in that regard, but IF DCS ever actually implements actual SPJ's a lot tomcat drivers are going to be disappointed when facing 20xx era jammers IMO.

 

Are we really going to start the whole "the Phoenix wasn't designed to engage fighters" discussion all over again ? :D

 

Btw, do you have any documentation on the performance of the phoenix with its latest upgrades against 20xx era jammers ? I'm always happy to learn :)

[Dino Might]

Are we really going to start the whole "the Phoenix wasn't designed to engage fighters" discussion all over again ? :D

 

 

Almost guaranteed. I dont know if I'll live long enough to see that urban legend resolved. Just like the "only an interceptor" myth. Put big bubble canopies on pure interceptors all the time...

[captain_dalan]

I mean should it really be? The 54A's were 60's era missile tech and really weren't designed to engage fighters, and were upgraded several times over their life for improved ECM resistance, great for their time/job, but they aren't 120C's. The 54C is probably better in that regard, but IF DCS ever actually implements actual SPJ's a lot tomcat drivers are going to be disappointed when facing 20xx era jammers IMO.

 

In the era when the 54 was designed to (as you say) shoot down bombers, fighters didn't really carry counter measures or electronic warfare devices. The bombers however did...... just sayin......

[Chaogen]

Even the video posted a few months ago wasn't enough.. That argument is just absurd at this point..

 

 

The missile definitely needs an update. The pit-bull transition abysmal.

[Harlikwin]

Are we really going to start the whole "the Phoenix wasn't designed to engage fighters" discussion all over again ? :D

 

Btw, do you have any documentation on the performance of the phoenix with its latest upgrades against 20xx era jammers ? I'm always happy to learn :)

 

Well it wasn't. It just turned out it could with reasonable success when piloted by guys with the proper sized mustaches, when engaging inferior A/C that literally had no defense against it. I mean it was what it was, but we need to consider exactly what it was, and why it worked.

 

Based on what I know about 54A seekers they should be pretty jammable by modern DRFM techniques. And the 54C/120B by Cross Pole jamming, or wave front techniques. You know those funny looking pods carried by SU-27's.

 

And just to upend your whole "its Sekrit" defense...

 

Here is your open source patent on the technique. 1.16 and all that.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6486823B1/en

 

 

But to get to your original point about the missiles eating chaff, which is what amounts to "CM" in the broadest terms in DCS, its probably OK that they do IMO, until a better ECM model is introduced.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

In the era when the 54 was designed to (as you say) shoot down bombers, fighters didn't really carry counter measures or electronic warfare devices. The bombers however did...... just sayin......

 

Correct. Which is why the phoenix was effective against Iraqi migs of the era. (They didn't really even have RWR's)

 

And yes, bombers of the era would have used noise jamming, which is why the Phoenix has HOJ modes for just that occasion.

 

But modern jamming techniques aren't noise based...

[Sam]

So in the context of DCS, if jamming was properly modeled, not even the 54C could be used against the most modern fighters like the F/A-18C or the F-16 ?

[Raubritter]

It would not be surprising if the question was about the difference in ECM resistance 54A-54C.

But "The 54A's were 60's era missile tech and really weren't designed to engage fighters"? RLY ?

54А tests were carried out on all types of targets - with/out ECM, maneuvering and not.

As a result, the Navy acknowledged the Phoenix as superior to all other missiles (aim-9, aim-7)

(Department of Defense Appropriations for 1981: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth Congress, Second Session, Part 1, 642p)

It is also nonsense that Iraqi MiG-23MF, ML and Mirage F.1 did not have a RWR.

And what is the same with this patent with the actual implementation in 54A, C and 120?

What improvements for the ECM resistance were 54C knew the Navy and manufacturers, you are not.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Hummel

[Harlikwin]

So in the context of DCS, if jamming was properly modeled, not even the 54C could be used against the most modern fighters like the F/A-18C or the F-16 ?

 

I mean the 54C was end of life when those fighters entered service, and the AAMRAM program used certain design details of the 54C on the AAMRAM. So the 54C was the most effective in terms of guidance. The issue is which version of which missile versus which version of which jammer. Details matter. The 54A was improved at least 2 times in its life for ECM resistance from the docs I can find. So the issue with DCS ECM is granularity, its not as simple as A,B,C etc, there were various improvements that aren't well documented. And its probably worse for ECM pods, that eventually became reprogrammable. So the problem Chiz has is to figure out how effective the 2007 ALQ pod is vs a 1987 missile, vs the upgrade in 199X, and the second upgrade in 199x. And then how effective the 1995 ALQ pod was. Or the SU-27 cross pole jammers were vs whatever, whenever.

 

My .02, given the seeker in the 54C I'd guess by the early 2000's it was fairly long in the tooth vs the jamming techniques available. I mean AEASA and F22's were a thing then.

[TLTeo]

Pretty sure the F-22 entered service one year after the Phoenix retired (2004 vs 2005), so you're kind of comparing apples and oranges there. During the Phoenix's lifetime, AESA were only a thing on the Mistubishi F2 afaik. Even the Hawkeye or the B-2 didn't have an one at the time.

[Harlikwin]

It would not be surprising if the question was about the difference in ECM resistance 54A-54C.

But "The 54A's were 60's era missile tech and really weren't designed to engage fighters"? RLY ?

54А tests were carried out on all types of targets - with/out ECM, maneuvering and not.

As a result, the Navy acknowledged the Phoenix as superior to all other missiles (aim-9, aim-7)

(Department of Defense Appropriations for 1981: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth Congress, Second Session, Part 1, 642p)

It is also nonsense that Iraqi MiG-23MF, ML and Mirage F.1 did not have a RWR.

And what is the same with this patent with the actual implementation in 54A, C and 120?

What improvements for the ECM resistance were 54C knew the Navy and manufacturers, you are not.

 

I mean did you actually read those docs? And its in front of public hearing soo... They literally say nothing about the effectiveness of the phoenix, just that the earlier sidewinders and sparrow pk's sucked and were likely overestimated based on previous VN era experience with Missiles. I mean lying to congress by defense contractors is a time honored tradition in the US. I mean it likely was even worse in the Soviet Union based on the picture history paints.

 

Or maybe your point it is that the in-game phoenixes should have 25% fail rate? Per your documents, or should it 50% per the navy's actual operational rate? Though I doubt HB wants to actually make the missile worse. Or maybe for MP scenario designers that carriers carried maybe 96 phoenix missiles in their magazines to "balance" online play?

 

At the end of the day the 54A was long in the tooth in the 80's. Which is why it was replaced by the C.

 

And which RWR did Iraqi migs23s have? A SPO10? I mean they were the famous Russian export versions after all. I'd have a bit more faith in the F1C's having a better RWR in that era, but the Iranians shot them down too. Maybe a training problem or a larger EW environment problem. IDK, maybe the radar frequency the RWR's could detect was wrong, I'd have to look it up, but I doubt that's it. But RWRs can easily be overloaded by other stuff, especially early models like the SPO-10.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

Pretty sure the F-22 entered service one year after the Phoenix retired (2004 vs 2005), so you're kind of comparing apples and oranges there. During the Phoenix's lifetime, AESA were only a thing on the Mistubishi F2 afaik. Even the Hawkeye or the B-2 didn't have an one at the time.

 

I mean fair. But AESA radar tech and assorted jamming techniques would have been implemented in the early stages years prior to actual "operational status"

 

And I was mostly addressing the post of first guy who complained that 54A's went for "chaff" too much. Which well, given that "chaff" in DCS is some made up thing to account for pK's of missiles combined with ECM isn't really all that realistic.

 

I do think 54A's should be more effective against say 60-s through 70's threats, and then less and less effective as better and better jammers become available. I mean did Iraq have highly effective DFRM jammers in the 80's capable of deceiving the 54A? LOFL Nope. Does china in the year 2017? You bet. To translate that into DCS, mig21 should eat it vs the 54a (which they mostly do), while planes like the JF17 probably should not (and IMO do too much at least when fitted with a SPJ). But since ED doesn't actually model jamming...

 

The same holds true for any missile in any era. I mean that patent basically says Aim-7's or other monopulse seekers should be more or less useless against those jammers, even if it doesn't actually say that in the fine print. Patent Lawyers call that being "conversant in the art". But those techniques probably didn't exist prior to the late 1980's when you first started seeing those jammers on SU-27's (Russia wins there).

 

The larger and broader problem is how ED actually manages to oversimply this (because IMO they can't realistically model it). Maybe they give each jammer and missile various characteristics and succepibility to various techniques. Like monopole seekers (single or dual plane) versus cross polarization jammers. Or vs DFRM jammers for various seeker types. Not to mention the old school range gate walk off techniques or other "classic" techniques versus various seeker types during the cold war.

 

I mean its the same problem for "flares", I mean its not like its some shitty road flare out of the back of your car. Those things are tuned for various spectral properties based on what various types if IR sensors could detect. And became less and less relevant over time as better imaging seekers were developed.

 

But by all accounts, sidewinders of the 70's were "very hungry" (pardon the gamer derp) for Russian flares of the same era.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Raubritter]

Oh yes, the military always lies at congressional hearings. No other way :)

 

Partial information on the Phoenix is available in parts in many documents from official sources. And then is a general impression, then an understanding appears - where is the lie and where is not. But I would gladly read full reports on the characteristics and all tests. ;)

Find out where in these documents it says about 50% of fail rate?

In this document, “success rate” is not “launch -hurraah, it was able to fly”, but the percentage of successful launches on targets.

I would also really like to see at least excerpts from documents on the tests of R-27ER, R-27ET, the effectiveness of their sensor, pk, ECM stations early SU-27. You have? so what are we going to compare?

 

You have an creative approach :) First "They didn't really even have RWR", then the RWR was but bad or could not be applied. Yes, SPO-10, SPO-15

Аs well as Phoenix were intended to destroy Tu-22(M) w/h ECM stations SPS-141, which MiG-23 could also be used as a pod.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Hummel

[Harlikwin]

Oh yes, the military always lies at congressional hearings. No other way :)

 

Partial information on the Phoenix is available in parts in many documents from official sources. And then is a general impression, then an understanding appears - where is the lie and where is not. But I would gladly read full reports on the characteristics and all tests. ;)

Find out where in these documents it says about 50% of fail rate?

In this document, “success rate” is not “launch -hurraah, it was able to fly”, but the percentage of successful launches on targets.

I would also really like to see at least excerpts from documents on the tests of R-27ER, R-27ET, the effectiveness of their sensor, pk, ECM stations early SU-27. You have? so what are we going to compare?

 

You have an creative approach :) First "They didn't really even have RWR", then the RWR was but bad or could not be applied. Yes, SPO-10, SPO-15

Аs well as Phoenix were intended to destroy Tu-22(M) w/h ECM stations SPS-141, which MiG-23 could also be used as a pod.

 

Yup you're right, some documentation is available. Not all of it at a guess, most of its lying in some filing cabinet somewhere, or maybe digitized and not available. You can happily file a FOIA request to get the aforementioned documents. Have fun with that if you live Ukraine.

 

50% fail rate is pretty well known from the only actual documented USN engagements in wartime conditions.

 

In the congressional report you cite, "success rate" is never actually defined. So it could mean anything from, the engine lit off, to the target was destroyed. Missiles can have any number of failures, from propulsion to guidance, to actually hitting what they are targeting. Which of course can vary greatly on the type of target and its kinematics or its ECM environment. But in that time frame I'm gonna with 25% of missiles probably failed outright in some major way. It would be interesting to see actual reports from Iran and their numbers, but I very much doubt their Pk was 1.0.

 

Regarding the SPS-141 which is more or less something like the ALQ-109/119/131 that the US used in the same time period(s). Again, which specific version the Iraqis had was probably downgraded compared to what the Russians were using at the time. Kind of like the SPO10 vs 15.

 

"No Iraqi aircraft carrying the SPS-141MVG pod was ever shot down by the Iranians, "

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161690

 

So, who knows what that actually means, were those aircraft engaged by phoenix? Or Hawk in the first place? gotta dig a bit deeper. But that export version of the SPS-141 pod seems fairly capable in terms of 1970's threats in terms of what I can find. So the actual Russian version might have been a wee bit better. Then again, I'm gonna bet the Iranians had the original non ECCM upgraded versions of the 54A. But then HB doesn't model these seeker differences.

 

So in the context of DCS, will I buy that the 54A is (chaff hungry)? Sure. And that the 54C is "less so" sure. Because the ED EW system is pretty much a guess anyway. I'd love for it to be more granular, at least in the sense of missile variants, versus SPJ jammers/techniques vs different types of guidance/tracking schemes. Instead of it being these iditotic "notch" and "chaff" memes that it is now. There are a variety of ways they could do a better job at it, but others have pointed those out many times over.

[Raubritter]

....

50% fail rate is pretty well known from the only actual documented USN engagements in wartime conditions.

...

"No Iraqi aircraft carrying the SPS-141MVG pod was ever shot down by the Iranians, "

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161690

 

 

Сan i take a look at these "well known documents" with 50% fail rate for aim-54?

 

About SPS-141(etc) - i asked about documents, not links to forums with links to other forums, but as sources. :)

 

In the congressional report you cite, "success rate" is never actually defined. So it could mean anything from, the engine lit off, to the target was destroyed. Missiles can have any number of failures, from propulsion to guidance, to actually hitting what they are targeting. Which of course can vary greatly on the type of target and its kinematics or its ECM environment. But in that time frame I'm gonna with 25% of missiles probably failed outright in some major way. It would be interesting to see actual reports from Iran and their numbers, but I very much doubt their Pk was 1.0.

 

No need to fantasize :)

"Admiral HAYWARD: The AIM-54A success rate in actual firings is unprecedented for an air to air missile. As of 4 January 1980 there have been 186 firings with a success rate of 78%. I am confident that the AIM-54 can successfully perform the fleet air defense mission" - plain and simple.

 

Would also like a thorough study of the ECM in DCS. I think that's a little unlikely. A lot of very complex work in the non availability documents. And it will cause such wars on the forum that everyone will forget about aim-54 and aim-120 :D

Edited June 10, 2020 by Hummel

[captain_dalan]

Correct. Which is why the phoenix was effective against Iraqi migs of the era. (They didn't really even have RWR's)

 

And yes, bombers of the era would have used noise jamming, which is why the Phoenix has HOJ modes for just that occasion.

 

But modern jamming techniques aren't noise based...

 

There is no EW of any kind simulated in DCS, nor is there going to be anytime soon. So if you think that making the missiles eat CM is the proper way to simulate it, you're in luck, cause that's exactly what they do now. You may not have noticed it on the receiving end of MP (i'm guessing this is where your impressions of the missile performance comes from) as considering the chaotic nature of DCS MP, it's often nearly impossible to always keep track of everything thrown at you, but in SP? The missile is unusable against any AI controlled platform, any aspect, any horizon relation, any altitude, any mach number, unless that AI is set to low difficulty skills and just decides to ignore the launch.

 

As for my own anecdotal experience in MP..... low altitude combat, SL to 10000ft, supporting the missile as long as possible (usually until i am well within bandit's own kill zone of 10-15 NM even though the missile should be active by then), launching platform mach, usually around 1.1 - 1.2.

 

Before TWS Auto, the hit ratio was less then 1 in 8. In other words, i had to make at lest 2 sorties in 4x2x2 Ph, Sp, Sw to even hope for a kill.

 

After the TWS Auto, the hit ratio went up to 1 in 4. I attribute this to the improved ability to maintain soft lock much longer now.

 

In both cases, the kill ratio could spike at times, as the server could be populated with new learning players at times (i have seen scores as high as 40%), but those are my broad averages. Now the interesting part is that those scores are the same for both the A and the C variants. The mk60 A may even be marginally better, or maybe it's just a placebo, but as the C is supposed to be better at CM rejection, i get the feeling that most of the MP 54's launches are defeated by either maneuvering or guidance failure and not by CM.

 

The reason why a person fighting the 14's may perceive the 54's as much higher performing is the way they are employed. Many people in the open servers will just load 6 of them fire them all away and turn tail (a long practiced and honored tradition that harkens to the AMRAAM use). If you have 3 or 4 Tomcats in the area, that can be as much as 18-24 missiles in the air at one time. Even with a 1 in 10 chance to hit (derived from my 1 in 8 when guidance was impossible without a human RIO, pre TWS-A era), that means 2 missiles are very likely to hit. Repeat this a few sorties, and the chance you are gonna get hammered again and again, are very high.

 

But the missile itself is rather bad. It's equivalent or worse to a Vietnam era Sparrow right now. And this is far from what it should be even by it's worst estimates.

[Harlikwin]

Сan i take a look at these "well known documents" with 50% fail rate for aim-54?

 

 

U.S. combat experience[edit]

 

On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target.[9][10]

On September 9, 1999, another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the no-fly zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north.[11]

 

 

An AIM-54 Phoenix being attached to an F-14 wing pylon before the forward fins were installed (2003).

The AIM-54 Phoenix was retired from USN service on September 30, 2004. F-14 Tomcats were retired on September 22, 2006. They were replaced by shorter-range AIM-120 AMRAAMs, employed on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Despite the much-vaunted capabilities, the Phoenix was rarely used in combat, with only two confirmed launches and no confirmed targets destroyed in US Navy service.

 

About SPS-141(etc) - i asked about documents, not links to forums with links to other forums, but as sources. :)

 

Well 1.16 is a thing, so you go ahead and post your sources.

 

No need to fantasize :)

"Admiral HAYWARD: The AIM-54A success rate in actual firings is unprecedented for an air to air missile. As of 4 January 1980 there have been 186 firings with a success rate of 78%. I am confident that the AIM-54 can successfully perform the fleet air defense mission" - plain and simple.

 

Would also like a thorough study of the ECM in DCS. I think that's a little unlikely. A lot of very complex work in the non availability documents. And it will cause such wars on the forum that everyone will forget about aim-54 and aim-120 :D

 

Yeah, what does success rate actually mean? The fine art of wordsmithing is a thing in the US military. Does it actually mean the missile was fired and it hit its target as intended, and really what was the context of those tests? Does it mean, the motor worked? You don't know and the only guy that does is Hayward, who isn't gonna tell congress, yeah we just a wasted a billion dollars on a missile that's so/so.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

There is no EW of any kind simulated in DCS, nor is there going to be anytime soon. So if you think that making the missiles eat CM is the proper way to simulate it, you're in luck, cause that's exactly what they do now.

 

My first reply was entirely to that first poster that was complaining about the Phoneix going for chaff. And given what EW modeling is DCS today I have no issue with that. My point being that the 54A working in a modern EW environment isn't gonna all that good, and its "hunger for chaff" reflects that. Of course it then is probably worse than it was IRL against peer threats in the 70's cuz Chaff is chaff in dcs.

 

 

You may not have noticed it on the receiving end of MP (i'm guessing this is where your impressions of the missile performance comes from) as considering the chaotic nature of DCS MP, it's often nearly impossible to always keep track of everything thrown at you, but in SP? .

 

Nah, I play MP and have used the Cat and been on the receiving end of it. Honestly my complaint tends to be more on how changes in DCS are implemented as spasmodic hodgepodge. One day the amraam works like X, next patch its Y, while the SD10 and phoenix work like Z. I'm all for a single unified missile modling solution so Devs don't just ****ing wing it. I honestly have way more problems with the Magic and 530D than I do the Phoenix. But it would be great if everything was all on one page.

 

And honestly most of the stuff about EW modeling is just a canard from ED. They did just supposedly hire a guy to work on an EW model.

[Raubritter]

U.S. combat experience[edit]

On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target.[9][10]

On September 9, 1999, another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the no-fly zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north.[11]...

 

WIKI.. RLY?? Do you want me to write in this article that the phoenix shot down asteroids and star destroyers? :D

I asked documents :)

OK. What they write on the wiki - - "On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target." Source shown - "Defense.gov Transcript: DoD News Briefing January 5, 1999".

https://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=852

what is written there?

"Two MIG 25s engaged two F-14s flying off the carrier Vinson, and they responded by firing missiles at the Iraqi planes. The Iraqi planes, when they saw that they were engaged and being fired upon, turned sharply and beat a hasty retreat out of the no-fly zone, and the U.S. planes returned safely to their bases."

UPSS. Was an Iraqi pilot writing a wiki article? :)

Second source in WIKI, Osprey.

"On 7 september 1977, following significant Opposition to recent patrols, CVW-2, embarked in USS Constellation (CV-64), launched Operation Gun Smoke. Some 35 of 39 AAA and SAM sites targeted for destruction in the ‘Box’ were eliminated in a series of precision strikes that saw the largest expenditure of ordnance in single day since Desert Storm.

The F-14Ds of VF-2 played a leading role in this campaign, and aside from dropping LGBs and lasing for AGM-65s fired from F/A-18s, the unit also got to fire a single AIM-54C at long range distant an Iraqi MiG23. Again, no hit as registered."

Where does it say about failures?

In both cases, after the launch, the targets turned around and left the zone at high speed. Exact launch distance not known (~long). Missiles eventually fall to the ground, yes :)

 

admit - you do not have documents on the effectiveness of SPS-141 ecm.

And read carefully rule 1.16

 

Bad sources. Bad arguments. Сorrect to say - you really want to make the phoenix worthless.

 

P.S more Osprey

 

"Opposite.

The F-14’s primary air defence weapons share a wing glove pylon on this VF-2 jet in March 2003.

Almost four years earlier, on 9 September 1999, the combination of the AIM-54C and a ‘Bounty Hunters’ F-14D almost gave the US Navy its first kill with the legendary Phoenix missile. VFA-151 Hornet pilot Lt Cdr Ron Candiloro (who subsequently participated in OIF with the unit in 2003) was a witness to the engagement, “This event provided me with the most exciting moment of my whole career, as we committed to engage two Iraqi MiG-23s that were heat south into the No-Fly Zone from Al Taqaddum air base, west of Baghdad. I was on the wing of the VF-2 F-14D that took the Phoenix shot at the Iraqi jets. The missile eventually went into the ground, and was Dash Two to fire a Sparrow round, but the MiGs turned around and headed back north once they detected that a Phoenix had come off the rail. The Tomcat crew were talking on a different frequency to me, and did not hear the pilot make the call that he was firing off a Phoenix. The only cue got was when I looked over and saw the “Buffalo” (missile) go flying off after the target!

 

The F-14D crew had committed to firing the AIM-54C after receiving secure radio and datalink information passed via Link-16 JTIDS (Joint Tactical Information Distribution System).

With his jet lacking JTIDS, Lt Cdr Candiloro had no idea why his Tomcat section leader had turned north and accelerated. He was also unaware that the F-14 crew had received clearance to fire until the Phoenix came off the rail. The missile would almost certainly have guided to a ill if the Iraqi fighters had not turned tail and sped back north. The AIM-54C was regularly carried by F-14s throughout OSW, and also featured on Tomeats tasked with DCA in the first few days of OIF However, it soon disappeared when it was realised that the Iraqi Air Force posed no threat to the outcome of the campaign. Indeed, for much of the war F-14 crews relied on one or two AIM-9Ms for their self-protect (PH2 Dan McLain)"

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Hummel

[TLTeo]

The problem with your "50% fail rate" argument is that the sample size is way, way too small to draw any meaningful conclusion (regardless of how you define failure vs success).