Aim54c, ACM cover, and going pitbull

[Delta59R]

Hey Guys got a few questions, I'm doing some testing with the aim54 and its pitbull function and am getting some head scratching results so I just want to brush up on the functions before I go too far down the rabbit hole. What I am doing is going head on with a bandit and launching a PH at 30nm and turning 180deg immediately to break lock to see how the PH behaves on its own.

 

- I currently think that If the ACM cover is up the PH should go pitbull immediately after launch no matter what, is that correct?

 

- Does it matter what mode you are in when you launch? stt/tws/rws/plm/pal?

 

- Also just to be sure, what is default mode Jester is in when you are seeing the launch priority for targets but not locked? TWS?

 

- What I am noticing is if I leave jester alone and launch with ACM cover up while he has the radar showing launch priority on the target (but not locked in stt) the PH behaves how I expect it to (tracking the target in Pitbull) in the above described situation.

 

- But as soon at I tell Jester to do anything (like lock in stt or switch to tws) I can not get the PH to track in pitbull, they just go stupid as soon as I break lock. It also seems to effect it in PAL mode too.. What am I doing wrong guys? Thanks!

[eatthis]

with acm switch up the phoenix are active ON the rail, also time to launch drops fro 3 seconds to 1 and they wont loft

[near_blind]

- I currently think that If the ACM cover is up the PH should go pitbull immediately after launch no matter what, is that correct?

 

Correct. Raising the ACM cover in the F-14 is a shortcut to configure the aircraft for dog fighting, and will effect each missile differently. For the AIM-54 it means "get this freaking thing off my jet, now!".

 

- Does it matter what mode you are in when you launch? stt/tws/rws/plm/pal?

It'll subtly effect things in different radar modes. For RWS (and probably TWS), the missile will be bore sighted to the aircraft datum line and go active as it launches. In STT or any P-STT mode (which includes PAL/PLM/VSL assuming you have lock), the system will align the AIM-54's seeker with where the AWG-9 is currently looking, giving the missile a better chance of acquisition, but is otherwise still active on launch and unsupported thereafter. You'll still get guidance cues and shoot orders from the radar in TWS, but the system is explicitly ignoring all of that in service off getting the missile of the jet as quickly as possible.

 

- Also just to be sure, what is default mode Jester is in when you are seeing the launch priority for targets but not locked? TWS?

 

By default Jester uses two radar modes. RWS and TWS. For long range search he will start in RWS. Once he has found something, he'll switch to TWS to build information. The easiest way to tell the difference at a glance is jester uses a +- 40 degree 8 bar scan in RWS, and a +-20 degree 4 bar scan in TWS. A fatter cone means Jester's in RWS. A narrower cone + iff + velocity vectors means he's in TWS. If you have the AIM-54 selected, then in TWS the radar will also start generating the shoot order for each target.

 

- What I am noticing is if I leave jester alone and launch with ACM cover up while he has the radar showing launch priority on the target (but not locked in stt) the PH behaves how I expect it to (tracking the target in Pitbull) in the above described situation.

 

- But as soon at I tell Jester to do anything (like lock in stt or switch to tws) I can not get the PH to track in pitbull, they just go stupid as soon as I break lock. It also seems to effect it in PAL mode too.. What am I doing wrong guys? Thanks!

 

Take what I'm going to say with a grain of salt, because I haven't reached my coffee quota this morning and I'm struggling to remember the nuanced differences of how DCS used to work, currently works, and is supposed to work compared to how the F-14 is supposed to work in reality.

 

As it is now, when you shoot in TWS or PD-STT the AIM-54 is supposed to work like a giant AMRAAM. It guides towards the target using the F-14's radar until it gets within 7NM, at which point the missile's radar pops on and it will guide itself towards whatever its radar has picked up. If you're seeing the missile fail to acquire after you immediately turn cold with a 30 mile launch, that sounds to me like expected behavior. The missile is not receiving guidance updates from the radar, so it never gets close enough to turn on it's own radar. When you're shooting with the ACM cover up, you're essentially tossing a big javelin down range with "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" written on the side. The missile will go after anything that blunders within 7NM of the pointy end due to DCS seekers having a ridiculous field of view.

 

My question is what are you expecting to see?

 

(Full disclosure: There was debate whether ARH missiles using the old missile guidance code were always active off the rail, that is the missile is always on, it just happens to receive updates from the radar while outside of the magic 7NM acquisition zone. I don't remember what was proved or disproved. There is also a bug with the same API that effects the Phoenix where in the missile will receive spooky scary magic guidance to the target even if the radar is off or pointed cold. I think(?) this only shows up in multiplayer. In either case(?) chaff should also effect the missile, and due to a separate issue, the will start chaffing heavily when launched on, even in TWS. This could also be effecting your missile).

[Bearfoot]

Thanks for this info. Very useful to have it compiled in one place!

 

 

Correct. Raising the ACM cover in the F-14 is a shortcut to configure the aircraft for dog fighting, and will effect each missile differently. For the AIM-54 it means "get this freaking thing off my jet, now!".

 

 

It'll subtly effect things in different radar modes. For RWS (and probably TWS), the missile will be bore sighted to the aircraft datum line and go active as it launches. In STT or any P-STT mode (which includes PAL/PLM/VSL assuming you have lock), the system will align the AIM-54's seeker with where the AWG-9 is currently looking, giving the missile a better chance of acquisition, but is otherwise still active on launch and unsupported thereafter. You'll still get guidance cues and shoot orders from the radar in TWS, but the system is explicitly ignoring all of that in service off getting the missile of the jet as quickly as possible.

 

 

 

By default Jester uses two radar modes. RWS and TWS. For long range search he will start in RWS. Once he has found something, he'll switch to TWS to build information. The easiest way to tell the difference at a glance is jester uses a +- 40 degree 8 bar scan in RWS, and a +-20 degree 4 bar scan in TWS. A fatter cone means Jester's in RWS. A narrower cone + iff + velocity vectors means he's in TWS. If you have the AIM-54 selected, then in TWS the radar will also start generating the shoot order for each target.

 

 

 

Take what I'm going to say with a grain of salt, because I haven't reached my coffee quota this morning and I'm struggling to remember the nuanced differences of how DCS used to work, currently works, and is supposed to work compared to how the F-14 is supposed to work in reality.

 

As it is now, when you shoot in TWS or PD-STT the AIM-54 is supposed to work like a giant AMRAAM. It guides towards the target using the F-14's radar until it gets within 7NM, at which point the missile's radar pops on and it will guide itself towards whatever its radar has picked up. If you're seeing the missile fail to acquire after you immediately turn cold with a 30 mile launch, that sounds to me like expected behavior. The missile is not receiving guidance updates from the radar, so it never gets close enough to turn on it's own radar. When you're shooting with the ACM cover up, you're essentially tossing a big javelin down range with "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" written on the side. The missile will go after anything that blunders within 7NM of the pointy end due to DCS seekers having a ridiculous field of view.

 

My question is what are you expecting to see?

 

(Full disclosure: There was debate whether ARH missiles using the old missile guidance code were always active off the rail, that is the missile is always on, it just happens to receive updates from the radar while outside of the magic 7NM acquisition zone. I don't remember what was proved or disproved. There is also a bug with the same API that effects the Phoenix where in the missile will receive spooky scary magic guidance to the target even if the radar is off or pointed cold. I think(?) this only shows up in multiplayer. In either case(?) chaff should also effect the missile, and due to a separate issue, the will start chaffing heavily when launched on, even in TWS. This could also be effecting your missile).

[Bearfoot]

The easiest way to tell the difference at a glance is jester uses a +- 40 degree 8 bar scan in RWS, and a +-20 degree 4 bar scan in TWS. A fatter cone means Jester's in RWS. A narrower cone + iff + velocity vectors means he's in TWS. If you have the AIM-54 selected, then in TWS the radar will also start generating the shoot order for each target.

.

 

Two questions regarding this:

 

(1) I've noticed that sometimes, with multiple missiles in the air tracking, for e.g., diverging targets, Jester switches to a fatter cone, presumably to keep both targets in view. I used to think that I have lost the missiles due to this being RWS, but then I noticed I still had threat numbers and missile TTI countdowns on the TID, so thought maybe it was still TWS? Do you know if this might be the case?

 

(2) If you can indeed, get "fat cones" in TWS, do you know then how to tell whether Jester is TWS or RWS mode reliably from the TID? Is there any other indicator?

[near_blind]

Two questions regarding this:

 

(1) I've noticed that sometimes, with multiple missiles in the air tracking, for e.g., diverging targets, Jester switches to a fatter cone, presumably to keep both targets in view. I used to think that I have lost the missiles due to this being RWS, but then I noticed I still had threat numbers and missile TTI countdowns on the TID, so thought maybe it was still TWS? Do you know if this might be the case?

 

(2) If you can indeed, get "fat cones" in TWS, do you know then how to tell whether Jester is TWS or RWS mode reliably from the TID? Is there any other indicator?

 

1) This is functionality that came with TWS-A. Auto is constantly attempting to keep as many contacts within its scan volume as possible at any given time, prioritizing tracks that have been shot on. If your targets begin diverging in azimuth by have a similar altitude, then TWS-A will automatically switch from the +- 20 degree / 4 Bar scan to a +- 40 degree / 2 Bar scan. Or back if need be.

 

The radar will stay in TWS-A while tracks with non-timed out missiles exist. I'm not even sure the RIO can override this, but jester certainly won't unless he's bugging out.

 

2). RWS only displays ambiguous "hits" on the TID, so they won't be IFF'd. Because they are not tracks, they won't have a radar generated velocity vector (be careful, as a correlated datalink target will), nor will it have a shoot order number when the AIM-54 is selected. RWS is a 8 Bar scan compared to a 2 Bar scan in TWS, so the altitude limits will be higher and lower in the former than the latter. Finally jester doesn't play with the azimuth knob, so if the scan volume is following targets around dynamically, it's TWS-A.

[Delta59R]

 

My question is what are you expecting to see?

 

 

First off THANK YOU!, awesome reply. So like I said;

 

"What I am doing is going head on with a bandit and launching a PH at 30nm and turning 180deg immediately to break lock to see how the PH behaves on its own."

 

and

 

"the PH behaves how I expect it to (tracking the target in Pitbull) in the above described situation."

 

To clarify, I expect it to track to the target all on its own (because I've turned a 180 headed the other direction) or at least attempt to.. and it appears to do just that so long as I don't interact with Jester.. (He's screwing up all the fun). I didn't know about this 7nm spec with the PH seeker. I guess I have more testing to do. My next thing to try is making sure I cycle the ACM cover down and back up each time I change anything like switching to PAL or asking Jester to switch to STT for example. Ill post back with my findings.

 

One more note, you can tell when the PH is seeking bc the AI bandit will go bonkers evasive but many times when its not seeking I watch the PH fly right by the bandit.. they would pass each other as if on a 2 way street and wave hello at each other not reacting what so ever lol.

[Fri13]

Correct. Raising the ACM cover in the F-14 is a shortcut to configure the aircraft for dog fighting, and will effect each missile differently. For the AIM-54 it means "get this freaking thing off my jet, now!".

 

I think that is one of these "doesn't make sense" features in the western fighters. You have a safety cover thats purpose is to avoid person accidentally (confused etc) trigger something below it, by requiring them to first perform "remove safety" until they get access to functionality.

 

But then someone got an idea to mix these safety features with required functions. So under a ACM switch that you need to flip to activate ACM mode, is a ACM Jettison button. That enables jettison of selected stores RIO's panel.

 

Then the similar on the right side of it, the Master Arm switch has similar cover, that denies switching it to ON for powering release circuitry. So you need to first flip the cover UP, before you get the set Master Arm ON.

 

These are interesting design choices that makes western fighters far more complex and dangerous, as they don't follow logical design. And in high stress situation the person operating these systems are far more likely to perform mistakes because they need to remember more of a unique and specific functionalities that does not share logic.

 

So when someone needs to learn these things, it takes time and effort as there is no logic. It is not so simple thing as "You can't enable that function before you flip the cover up". And the cover only function is to protect the function under it. But when some covers has extra features that you need to use at some point, and are not related to function below that safety cover, it becomes challenge. And so on requires more training just to get a simpler task performed (why arguments like "X are better because they have more training" is false as things could have been done simpler and "require less training as it is simpler").

[Chaogen]

I think that is one of these "doesn't make sense" features in the western fighters. You have a safety cover thats purpose is to avoid person accidentally (confused etc) trigger something below it, by requiring them to first perform "remove safety" until they get access to functionality.

 

But then someone got an idea to mix these safety features with required functions. So under a ACM switch that you need to flip to activate ACM mode, is a ACM Jettison button. That enables jettison of selected stores RIO's panel.

 

Then the similar on the right side of it, the Master Arm switch has similar cover, that denies switching it to ON for powering release circuitry. So you need to first flip the cover UP, before you get the set Master Arm ON.

 

These are interesting design choices that makes western fighters far more complex and dangerous, as they don't follow logical design. And in high stress situation the person operating these systems are far more likely to perform mistakes because they need to remember more of a unique and specific functionalities that does not share logic.

 

So when someone needs to learn these things, it takes time and effort as there is no logic. It is not so simple thing as "You can't enable that function before you flip the cover up". And the cover only function is to protect the function under it. But when some covers has extra features that you need to use at some point, and are not related to function below that safety cover, it becomes challenge. And so on requires more training just to get a simpler task performed (why arguments like "X are better because they have more training" is false as things could have been done simpler and "require less training as it is simpler").

 

 

I think you are extrapolating a lot from this one design quirk. Which really isn't a quirk. As said before the "cover" which is really a switch just configures the aircraft in an ACM configuration so you do not have to set everything individually with the push buttons i.e. Gun Rate High and Missile Mode/STP (Which this topic is really about). It doubles as a safety cover to jettison ordinance which you obviously dont want to happen accidentally but you do want quick access to in a dogfight. The rest of the safety covers work all as advertised and no different than the eastern designs.

 

Consider the L-39.. Firing a pyro charge to cycle my gun.. That's something I still struggle to wrap my head around. Surely that could be done automatically. Besides the gun has its own safety cover. Oh and another safety cover on the stick which has to in the down position to fire. Not up mind you, which is how every other "safety cover" works.. Not to mention Launch Authorization of some of the more advanced jets. I highly doubt someone under-stress is going to be able to get through all those "safety features" without messing something up along the way, and being left unable to fire because they did. I know I have in DCS, more than a couple of times.

[near_blind]

...

 

1) No one has ever held the F-14 up to be the outstanding fusion of men and machine by which all others are judged. It was an iterative improvement over the F-4, but lacked the obvious inspiration that would go into the LFWs later in the decade. That said Grumman didn't design the F-14 to a user base of people who casually fly it on nights and weekends, flight crew spent the better part of a year reading the manuals, going to instruction, and becoming familiar with the aircraft before being sent to an operational squadron.

 

2) once people get over the mental roadblock that it's the cover affecting the action rather than the button, what it's actually doing isn't anything overly complicated or strange. It gets BVR missiles off the jet faster, it configures the Sparrow to be more useful within 10 miles, it preps the heat seekers if they weren't prepped already, and it increases the gun's ROF. These are all things a pilot would generally want to be doing anyways. It's a novel actuator, but the actual functionality is sound. Later, more digital aircraft would automatically configure these these things contextually rather then rely on discrete pilot input.

 

3) Having spent a considerable amount of time in a contemporary eastern cockpit, I will take an F-14's office over the haphazardly placed switch bukkake that is the MiG-21Bis cockpit every time when given the choice

[Banzaiib]

1) ... the haphazardly placed switch bukkake...

 

 

what a reference! best thing I've read in a while. :megalol: