AIM-54 Changes / new API fixes are live in today's patch

[dundun92]

 

apparantly the rio can manually activate them (ph act button). id love to know exactly how that works though, is the signal embedded in the awg 9 radar transmission? so i need to maintain radar contact for it to work?

if so is that contact with the target or just the missile?? if i lose tws lock the wcs will continue to update the target position via dead reckoning, does this mean the missile will still go to the postion the wcs thinks it is and then go active??

 

No that's not what PH/ACT is for. That tells the missiles on the rail to go active off the rail. It shouldn't have any effect on missiles in flight.

[Harlikwin]

 

apparantly the rio can manually activate them (ph act button). id love to know exactly how that works though, is the signal embedded in the awg 9 radar transmission? so i need to maintain radar contact for it to work?

if so is that contact with the target or just the missile?? if i lose tws lock the wcs will continue to update the target position via dead reckoning, does this mean the missile will still go to the postion the wcs thinks it is and then go active??

 

So, as I understand this it varies depending on which version of the phoenix, A or C.

 

When launched in TWS, the missile gets updates from the WCS on target position for both missiles. And then in the case of the A, its dumb it flies to whatever intercept point the WCS tells it to, and it is manually commanded to go active at the pre-set TTI, at which point it tries to acquire the target on its own (not sure if that separate acquisition is modeled in DCS). In the case of the A, as I understand it if you loose the TWS track at any point the missile goes stupid, and may not be able to re-acq

(not sure on how effective that is). With the C, its different since it will update its own nav based on WCS input and just fly to the last pre-planned intercept point and go active on its own if the track is lost (basically like an AAMRAM).

[eatthis]

 

So, as I understand this it varies depending on which version of the phoenix, A or C.

 

When launched in TWS, the missile gets updates from the WCS on target position for both missiles. And then in the case of the A, its dumb it flies to whatever intercept point the WCS tells it to, and it is manually commanded to go active at the pre-set TTI, at which point it tries to acquire the target on its own (not sure if that separate acquisition is modeled in DCS). In the case of the A, as I understand it if you loose the TWS track at any point the missile goes stupid, and may not be able to re-acq

(not sure on how effective that is). With the C, its different since it will update its own nav based on WCS input and just fly to the last pre-planned intercept point and go active on its own if the track is lost (basically like an AAMRAM).

 

if thats the case il be swapping to the c lol

 

[GGTharos]

With the C, its different since it will update its own nav based on WCS input and just fly to the last pre-planned intercept point and go active on its own if the track is lost (basically like an AAMRAM).

 

Is this documented somewhere? :)

 

[Harlikwin]

 

Is this documented somewhere? :)

 

You'd know better than me if it is. But thats what I've "heard" since alot of the aim54C tech was used to de-risk the aim120 project which IIRC at a high level is documented. But not which specific technologies.

[captain_dalan]

 

So, as I understand this it varies depending on which version of the phoenix, A or C.

 

When launched in TWS, the missile gets updates from the WCS on target position for both missiles. And then in the case of the A, its dumb it flies to whatever intercept point the WCS tells it to, and it is manually commanded to go active at the pre-set TTI, at which point it tries to acquire the target on its own (not sure if that separate acquisition is modeled in DCS). In the case of the A, as I understand it if you loose the TWS track at any point the missile goes stupid, and may not be able to re-acq

(not sure on how effective that is). With the C, its different since it will update its own nav based on WCS input and just fly to the last pre-planned intercept point and go active on its own if the track is lost (basically like an AAMRAM).

 

I always thought both A and C will go stupid unless the go-active signal was sent by the WCS.

[Harlikwin]

 

I always thought both A and C will go stupid unless the go-active signal was sent by the WCS.

 

Well the aamram doesn't, and it was developed from the C. Is that proof, nope, but its possible.

 

[captain_dalan]

 

Well the aamram doesn't, and it was developed from the C. Is that proof, nope, but its possible.

 

Yeah. I guess we won't find out anytime soon though. :(

[dundun92]

 

Well the aamram doesn't, and it was developed from the C. Is that proof, nope, but its possible.

 

HB has stated that the F-14 has to tell the AIM-54 to go active for all variants, the manual states this and makes no distinction between the A and C

[HAAUK]

the recent patch just breaks the phoenix for me... it is simply not as useful as before (mind you i keep my targets painted till target impact , i dont trust the 16 seconds tti).... the hit rate is significantly less than pre-patch..

 

my question is, is this actually realistic? or did HB/ed over did the nerf again?

 

 

[jojo]

 

HB has stated that the F-14 has to tell the AIM-54 to go active for all variants, the manual states this and makes no distinction between the A and C

 

Yes, and someone correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understood, the AIM-54 in flight updates its flight path from target’s echo in TWS (kind of SARH) rather than up link from Tomcat.

[jojo]

apparantly the rio can manually activate them (ph act button). id love to know exactly how that works though, is the signal embedded in the awg 9 radar transmission? so i need to maintain radar contact for it to work?

 

Yes, you need to maintain radar contact, this is what I meant when I said you need to keep targets within radar scan area.

TWS = maintain TWS contact at least until targets blinking at TTI =16.

STT = maintain STT lock until impact.

launched active = mad dog (fire & forget).

 

But please read the manual :smilewink:

[KoN]

 

Yes, you need to maintain radar contact, this is what I meant when I said you need to keep targets within radar scan area.

TWS = maintain TWS contact at least until targets blinking at TTI =16.

STT = maintain STT lock until impact.

launched active = mad dog (fire & forget).

 

But please read the manual :smilewink:

 

That`s all well and good but jester will mostly loose lock or target .

Target locked

lost target . !!

so Aim-54 will fly unguided with no lock . ?

Single player online .

Any help for best lock in single player online .

[Skysurfer]

 

That`s all well and good but jester will mostly loose lock or target .

Target locked

lost target . !!

so Aim-54 will fly unguided with no lock . ?

Single player online .

Any help for best lock in single player online .

 

Get to 20NM and get a PAL Pulse-STT lock.

[jojo]

 

That`s all well and good but jester will mostly loose lock or target .

Target locked

lost target . !!

so Aim-54 will fly unguided with no lock . ?

Single player online .

Any help for best lock in single player online .

 

The last time I tried, TWS AUTO was working well.

If it's broken...we might as well wait for a fix :(

[jojo]

 

Get to 20NM and get a PAL Pulse-STT lock.

 

AIM-54 needs a PD-STT in SARH :smilewink:

 

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/weapons.html#id3

[Skysurfer]

 

AIM-54 needs a PD-STT in SARH :smilewink:

 

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/weapons.html#id3

 

P-STT sends it active off the rail, looking at the target.

[TLTeo]

 

Yes, and someone correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understood, the AIM-54 in flight updates its flight path from target’s echo in TWS (kind of SARH) rather than up link from Tomcat.

 

This makes no sense to me. A TWS track is something that's built by the WCS, but the radar is sweeping over the target in the same fashion (minus fewer bars/smaller azimuth) as in RWS, meaning that the returns are also the same. They are just analyzed differently by the aircraft.

 

If what you were saying was true, it would also be possible to fire Phoenixes (or other ARH missiles) in RWS (because the returns that the missile is supposedly homing on are the same), which is not true. Also, this wouldn't explain why or how Phoenixes are guided by the WCS to the extrapolated location of a track, if that track is lost.

[GGTharos]

A TWS track is something that's built by the WCS, but the radar is sweeping over the target in the same fashion (minus fewer bars/smaller azimuth) as in RWS, meaning that the returns are also the same. They are just analyzed differently by the aircraft.

 

You're correct and he is correct.

 

If what you were saying was true, it would also be possible to fire Phoenixes (or other ARH missiles) in RWS (because the returns that the missile is supposedly homing on are the same), which is not true. Also, this wouldn't explain why or how Phoenixes are guided by the WCS to the extrapolated location of a track, if that track is lost.

 

It does explain it. The WCS sends seeker look angle commands and target speed gate/doppler gate information. So, basically the missile is commanded to look in a specific direction for a 'flash' with a specific doppler shift. The information from this return is then used by the missile to both shape the trajectory and go active after the active command is sent by the WCS (the missile will revert to SARH and try to look for the target again if it doesn't pick it up, then try to go active again once it sees a target).

 

Unlike what we're used to with missiles like AMRAAM, the missile is not told the target position and left to decide what to do about it by itself. Instead it is told in which direction to look and for what doppler shift, it samples any returns and figures things out from there.

[Harlikwin]

 

You're correct and he is correct.

 

 

 

It does explain it. The WCS sends seeker look angle commands and target speed gate/doppler gate information. So, basically the missile is commanded to look in a specific direction for a 'flash' with a specific doppler shift. The information from this return is then used by the missile to both shape the trajectory and go active after the active command is sent by the WCS (the missile will revert to SARH and try to look for the target again if it doesn't pick it up, then try to go active again once it sees a target).

 

Unlike what we're used to with missiles like AMRAAM, the missile is not told the target position and left to decide what to do about it by itself. Instead it is told in which direction to look and for what doppler shift, it samples any returns and figures things out from there.

 

So I'm curious as to what the actual difference is between the 54A and C is if this is the case. Given that it was designed with improved anti fighter capability as the context. I'm sure it has a better seeker, but the engagement "logic" being the same seems a bit weird to me.

[Harlikwin]

 

HB has stated that the F-14 has to tell the AIM-54 to go active for all variants, the manual states this and makes no distinction between the A and C

 

I stand corrected then.

[GGTharos]

So I'm curious as to what the actual difference is between the 54A and C is if this is the case. Given that it was designed with improved anti fighter capability as the context. I'm sure it has a better seeker, but the engagement "logic" being the same seems a bit weird to me.

 

Good question - maybe we;ll see some docs pop up in another decade.

[UWBuRn]

There were sevaral sub-versions of the C, i should look again after some interesting read i found somewhere (maybe Quora, so, not 100% reliable but was well argumented): IIRC only the latest one (that was field reprogrammable) had sensible improvement for fighter engagements. Some source states that as the explosive charge was big, on some version this was exploited (fragmentation?) obtaining some kind of "shotgun" effect for targets within 200 feets (but it seems exaggerated to me).

[Lurker]

Seems like this could have been a good thread to explain a key point, how and more importantly why a RWR knows that there is a SARH missile in-flight. Or in other words why a radar emits a different type of energy when hard-locked on to a target, compared to when guiding a SARH missile on that same hard locked target. Seems like this point has been missed because people have been arguing, from a piloting perspective, relatively unimportant finer engineering points without going into the basics, which is why we still have people who think that they know "better" and argue really nonsensical stuff.

 

Oh well....

[eatthis]

are the changes live now? threads too cluttered to find out.

and lurker iv often wondered the same thing. my guess is the radar emissions do indeed change and rwrs can pick up those changes