AIM-54 long range guidance

[BonerCat]

The new AIM-120 guidance gives it really good energy retention during manouvers, which allows for massive range shots (40ish nm compared to the 10nm max range from a year ago)
However, the phoenix does not currently enjoy such guidance (yet)

Long range phoenix shots have the missile cruise at high altitude and high mach, until some 20nm from the target, at which point they nose down aggresively, loosing a lot of speed and kinetic energy

I did a quick test firing an AIM-54A Mk60 from angels 40 mach 1, on a hot AI Tu-95 85 miles away, and this was the result

The AWG-9 was operated by jester. in TWS-A, no other settings changed. It illuminated the target all the way until impact.
The missile lofted high, like it's suppose to, but it waited with pulling down to the target for a long time, and had to nose down aggresively (3 to 4g for a few seconds) loosing 1 mach of speed (mach 4 to mach 3)
There is a 2nd shot in the tacview (not recorded on the vid above), where the missile pulls 11 G on a 45 mile shot, again roughly 20nm from the target


I find it hard to belive that a missile is suppose to pull such a manouver so far from the target and loose a fourth of it's speed, instead of anticipating having to nose down earlier, and doing just that
The Tu-95's were just set to go to a waypoint somwhere around sukhumi, with default difficulty and settings.
Tacview was played at 5x speed
I've attached it here, in case anyone wants to take a closer lookTacview-20210119-184547-DCS-F-14 Testing.zip.acmi

Would appreciate some info on this issue!

Note: I originally brought it up on the F-14 forums section, but was informed that this part of missile guidance is out of HB's hands. Therefore this post

[Fri13]

About the pulled G's, I would like to know that what is that missile reported values. As missiles are capable to pull tens of G's and just pulling few G's or like 9-11 G is like nothing to them. As rule of thumb that to missile intercept target pulling G's, it needs to pull 3-4 times more. So if target pulls 6 G's then missile needs to be around 18-24 G's.

 

I think the Tacview doesn't report the proper G's but somewhat convert them to similar values as the target. As you can see missiles pulling just 2-3 G's can miss a easy target.

[nighthawk2174]

14 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 it needs to pull 3-4 times more. So if target pulls 6 G's then missile needs to be around 18-24 G's.

In the worst case scenario maybe 2-2.5x not 3x-4x.  Often though it'll be much less

 

Also the AIM-54 doesn't have the new guidance yet and as such exiting the loft it pulls a lot and like the old amraams and excessively high lift induced drag makes it worse.  As such it results what your seeing.

Edited January 26, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

In the worst case scenario maybe 2-2.5x not 3x-4x.  Often though it'll be much less

 

Simply put, 3-4 is still low one, where 5x or even more is as well possible. Often more than less.
 

Quote

 

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=28234

https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599

 

This is a quote from the author of Fighter Combat: Robert L Shaw.

the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.

 

 

Quote

 

Ballistic Missile Defense Guidance and Control Issues

A 6 g target maneuver requires a missile with at least an 18 g capability in order to ensure a hit. Usually a 3 to 1 acceleration advantage over the target does not present a problem for the endoatmospheric interceptor when the target is an aircraft since the missile is usually traveling at a much faster speed and does not have the physiological constraints of the pilot to consider

 

Quote

 

21ST CENTURY AIR-TO-AIR SHORT RANGE WEAPON REQUIREMENTS by Stuart O. Nichols, Major, USAF

If the enemy is turning, the minimum range expands because the missile must perform a high-g turn in order to hit the target. Modern missiles can pull over 30 g’s, or turn with over 30 times the force of gravity. This maneuverability is required at close ranges, so missiles can perform tight turns, thereby completing an intercept of a fast moving target. However this can be a severe limitation if the enemy has generated a high rate of turn. If too high, the g-limited missile will not maintain track throughout the intercept

 

 

https://world-defense.com/threads/evading-air-to-air-missile.7206/

 

 

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Also the AIM-54 doesn't have the new guidance yet and as such exiting the loft it pulls a lot and like the old amraams and excessively high lift induced drag makes it worse.  As such it results what your seeing.

 

It is with all missiles. Their maximum turns are very low G values, not something that various sources says would be enough at all, and doesn't even match the official capabilities.

There is something odd with the Tacview as missiles pulling just 2-3 G can miss a steady flying target because they can't pull enough G's even at high speed.

 

[BonerCat]

Could you not hijack this thread please?
The issue isnt that the missile G-pull is not small/big enough, the issue is that sudden pull some 20nm from target
I had no intention of bringing up if the missile G pull in general is correct, just the sudden G in this specific circumstance, causing speed loss

[nighthawk2174]

Yeah its been an issue for quite some time -since it was released- and won't get fixed until the 54 gets the new guidance implemented.  IIRC the latest news was its still not working in MP and not even really in SP so it will probably still be a while (unless it gets fixed this next patch).

[TLTeo]

No, the new guidance has been implemented (link), but per HB it only affects the interaction with the AWG-9 and what the pilot needs to do to guide the missile, not how it lofts (link), which instead is on ED.

[nighthawk2174]

1 minute ago, TLTeo said:

No, the new guidance has been implemented (link), but per HB it only affects the interaction with the AWG-9 and what the pilot needs to do to guide the missile, not how it lofts (link), which instead is on ED.

New guidance would be a new loft and APN, the interaction between the AWG-9 and missile doesn't really fall into that realm.  Also I thought it was reported that it was intermittent in it working.  I myself tested this and noticed that the missile would still go active even if you did break away.  Now that was a while ago tbf so maybe it got fixed in the meantime.

[TLTeo]

1 minute ago, nighthawk2174 said:

New guidance would be a new loft and APN, the interaction between the AWG-9 and missile doesn't really fall into that realm.  Also I thought it was reported that it was intermittent in it working.  I myself tested this and noticed that the missile would still go active even if you did break away.  Now that was a while ago tbf so maybe it got fixed in the meantime.

Yeah as far as I understand, the whole going active when it shouldn't thing should be fixed now. And per the second link, the lofting is not on HB's side, which is kind of why this thread was re-opened here after one identical one in the HB section.

[Fri13]

9 hours ago, BonerCat said:

Could you not hijack this thread please?
The issue isnt that the missile G-pull is not small/big enough, the issue is that sudden pull some 20nm from target
I had no intention of bringing up if the missile G pull in general is correct, just the sudden G in this specific circumstance, causing speed loss

 

Not hijacking. Talking directly about the topic you started.

 

1) You posted a video about Tactview of the missile pulling G's.

2) You talk about missile start to pull G's

3) You literally say "at which point they nose down aggresively, loosing a lot of speed and kinetic energy "

 

There are problems in the Tacview that it likely reports missile G incorrectly.

The missiles perform ridiculous maneuvers in DCS and Tacview report them way below the specifications max G's.

 

Lighter the object is, then more G's it can pull, and it needs to pull far more G's to make a tighter turn than heavier object.

If a heavy fighter pulls 9 G, then the missile can't do the same turn with same speed and with same G number but will have far wider turn radius.

 

You can not use Tacview to check that how many G's missile pulls, but you are incorrect to say "That is aggressive pull" as for 4.1 G for that missile is well below it maximum capability.

To understand why missile performs somekind maneuver, you need to understand what the numbers and values means.

As in Tacview (and DCS) the missiles report the same G as target to intercept the target, and not their rated G values (30-40 G but just 8-11 G as target).

 

If the AIM-54 is rated to 18 G in the real life (based to Heatblur whitepaper media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf) and they limited it to 7 G, it means that the missile can not intercept a target that pulls more than 2 G or (with 7 G limit) or 5 G (with 18 G limit). In your video target barely went past 1.1 G

 

Quote

Once we were happy with the curve for level flight, the missile was then tested against known [5] shots performed by the USN in testing. In order to achieve these hits with reliability, the variables that govern missile lofting had to be adjusted. Due to limitations in the engine, this included reducing the missiles maximum g loading to 7; which according to the USN is far below the demonstrated 18g capability of the AIM-54A [5] . This compromise was necessary however in order to ensure the missile made the long range intercepts it is known to achieve.

 

Those are the maximum kinematic capabilities for it to intercept something with 3.5 ratio.

And comparing it to the above sources, it could be as high as 5x of the target G as it is so fast missile, meaning wit 18 G it could only intercept a target pulling 3.6 G.

 

Now compare that to example to
the IRIS-T missile that is rated for 60 G maneuver (intercept 12 G target).

the ASRAAM that is rated for 50 G maneuver (11 G target)

the AIM-9M and L has 40 G maneuver (8-9 G target)

the R-73 with 50 G loading (11 G target)

 

Relative to the AIM-54 capability, the Tacview reported 4.1 G that is likely somewhere around maximum, but it is not past the 7 G limit HB has set for it or maximum rated 18 G. So it was light pull if to trust Tacview.

There is a reason why missiles has very high G turns rated as they need to be able maneuver tighter to intercept fighters.

 

But anyways regardless that, in your video the AIM-54 does pull to more head-on intercept because if it doesn not perform proper intercept angle, it can not intercept the target as it can not pull enough G's to follow the target. It turn radius would be way too wide.

 

And slowing down earlier, the missile doesn't need to pull so many G's to perform tighter turn, but then it becomes as well aerodynamically limited to follow.

So why you think that it is bad thing it goes from Mach 4 to Mach 3 against target that flies at Mach 0.68 and pulls ~ 1.1 G?

And 20 nmi against a bomber with huge RCS it is fairly proper detection range for missile itself too, and not far distance considering you did a over 80 nmi shot.

We can question that in what period should the missile start the maneuver, like should it be a long 10-20 second turn time or 5-7 seconds etc.

 

My point is, the missile kinematic capabilities factors that what guidance logic and mode you are going to use to launch at target. Too early active, too wide turn, too tight turn etc matters as you can not update the missile kinematic capabilities via software but just the guidance laws.

 

[BonerCat]

You are missing the point man
The thread was meant to be about the sudden maneuver, not so much about the max G of the missile itself
My point is, the AMRAAM does not "jink" half way to the target, and only starts onsetting G if the target maneuvers and the missile is already close to the target, while the Phoenix will suddenly loose a whole mach of speed before even getting close to the target, for no apparent reason

The whole "Missile needs to pull so and so G to intercept target onsetting so and so G" is irrelevant here, since i was talking about the long range intercept alone.
The point of having a non maneuvering target was to show the long range guidance, and that sudden jink
The target was not meant to be a factor in the example
Such jink will still happened, regardless of if you're shooting a bomber, an AWACS, a fighter, a missile, or a bird. As long as the missile lofts, it does that pull, which reduces the speed at which it enters terminal stage and turns on it's radar, giving it a lower PK

While 4g may not be a lot compared to the max G it can pull, it does cause the missile to loose a fourth(!) of it's speed way before even entering terminal!
plus, on the second shot, the missile pulls up to 11G! Roughly 2/3 of it's max G according to the 18G figure you brought up

This thread was never meant to be about the missile in terminal stage, pulling G to intercept a maneuvering target
It was meant to bring up the speed loss before the terminal stage

My point is, the missile *should* perform a smooth intercept, much like the new AMRAAM, keeping that speed for the terminal stage
When making this thread i mostly wanted to know if ED is planning to fix this any time soon, and bring it up in case they weren't aware

[Northstar98]

On 1/27/2021 at 9:55 AM, BonerCat said:

The point of having a non maneuvering target was to show the long range guidance, and that sudden jink
The target was not meant to be a factor in the example
Such jink will still happened, regardless of if you're shooting a bomber, an AWACS, a fighter, a missile, or a bird. As long as the missile lofts, it does that pull, which reduces the speed at which it enters terminal stage and turns on it's radar, giving it a lower PK

While 4g may not be a lot compared to the max G it can pull, it does cause the missile to loose a fourth(!) of it's speed way before even entering terminal!
plus, on the second shot, the missile pulls up to 11G! Roughly 2/3 of it's max G according to the 18G figure you brought up

This thread was never meant to be about the missile in terminal stage, pulling G to intercept a maneuvering target
It was meant to bring up the speed loss before the terminal stage

My point is, the missile *should* perform a smooth intercept, much like the new AMRAAM, keeping that speed for the terminal stage
When making this thread i mostly wanted to know if ED is planning to fix this any time soon, and bring it up in case they weren't aware

 

Agreed, I've fired a Phoenix at a long-range, against a high altitude target that wasn't manoeuvring (Tu-22M3) flying head-on to the missile. The missile bled itself dry of energy long before the terminal stage was reached (it didn't even get half way before stalling itself out) and this was against a target that wasn't reacting (again large target, flying in a straight line, at fairly high altitude, straight towards the Phoenix), and the missile definitely had enough energy to reach the target (and most likely still be supersonic), but instead it stalled itself out before it had got anywhere near it.

 

Here it did kinda what your OP described, only it did a hard pitch down then shortly after pitched up, almost looking like a major PIO (like a slightly more rapid and undamped version of this) bleeding itself dry until it stalled. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Northstar98

[nighthawk2174]

Yeah I've noticed that from time to time as well I have no clue what causes it for sure.  But my current working theory is that for some reason its going in and out of the loft profile.  I've seen it happen as many as 6 times the up and down oscillation.  Or as little as once but not going into the loft in the end.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Aren't the 120 and 54 different missiles ? 
Why would the 54 , which should be a lot older and crappier, be exactly as efficient as the 120 ? 
It already has 2x the speed and 2x the range . 

 

Just asking, what makes you think guiding should be identical ? 

[DD_Fenrir]

33 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Aren't the 120 and 54 different missiles ? 
Why would the 54 , which should be a lot older and crappier, be exactly as efficient as the 120 ? 
It already has 2x the speed and 2x the range . 

 

Just asking, what makes you think guiding should be identical ? 

 

Here we go... 

 

It's already been explained to you: 

 

 

Where's your data to prove that it's guidance shouldn't be similar...?

[nighthawk2174]

1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Aren't the 120 and 54 different missiles ? 
Why would the 54 , which should be a lot older and crappier, be exactly as efficient as the 120 ? 
It already has 2x the speed and 2x the range . 

 

Just asking, what makes you think guiding should be identical ? 

They were identical at first in game due to the sheer simplicity of the system and as such were the same minus drag and thrust values.  But in terms of IRL this doesn't mean they are totally dissimilar, fundamentally they should have very similar features guidance wise.  While irl the 120 in all probability uses optimal control irl; in game it uses APN with lofting which is what the 54 uses irl and what it should use in-game as well.  (I do have a suspicion that the 54C was upgraded with optimal control but no firm documentation based evidence of this).  IIRC the 54C guidance system was even used as the foundation for the AIM-120A's system irl.  The difference is that the 54 isn't truly fire and forget as it needs the host radar to tell it when to go active and i'm sure it also has limitations in ECCM compared to the 120 as well.

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[IronMike]

2 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Aren't the 120 and 54 different missiles ? 
Why would the 54 , which should be a lot older and crappier, be exactly as efficient as the 120 ? 
It already has 2x the speed and 2x the range . 

 

Just asking, what makes you think guiding should be identical ? 

 

Common, buddy, we had this exact same discussion already... It is not a lot older and crappier missile, and most importantly no one ever said "it should be". I don't know where you are getting this from. You just put that into your mind firmly, and now it seems to be a truth without challenge for you. The missiles were contemporaries. In fact, the aim54 is the overkill version of the aim120, if you like. The aim120 is an evolutionary step of the aim54, indeed, but in terms of being slimmed down to more appropriate needs, too. Aim54s, if you like, were an overreaction in a time, where fear of the enemy (Russia back then), was real. The aim120 is owed to a time, where everything that was too expensive or overly inflated started being frowned upon. And after the aim120s introduction, the aim54, it's older borther, kept evolving alongside of it.

think of it like that: BMW releases a BMW500 in 1990. In 1992 they then release a slightly better and more comfortable version, the BMW600, and they introduce ABS with it. They keep selling the BMW500 though, afterall, it is only a couple years older. However, the customer now wants ABS in all cars, so they retrofit all BMW500s with ABS... It is the year 1993 now, and both the BMW500 and BMW600 are still being sold, both with ABS, and else minor differences... It was likely similar with Ratheon selling the aim54s and aim120s for another almost 30 years together, and not even to two different customers, but the same customer - the US Navy. Guess what this customer wanted in this missile, if that missile had it, too...

Edited January 30, 2021 by IronMike

[nighthawk2174]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

 

Common, buddy, we had this exact same discussion already... It is not a lot older and crappier missile, and most importantly no one ever said "it should be". I don't know where you are getting this from. You just put that into your mind firmly, and now it seems to be a truth without challenge for you. The missiles were contemporaries. In fact, the aim54 is the overkill version of the aim120, if you like. The aim120 is an evolutionary step of the aim54, indeed, but in terms of being slimmed down to more appropriate needs, too. Aim54s, if you like, were an overreaction in a time, where fear of the enemy (Russia back then), was real. The aim120 is owed to a time, where everything that was too expensive or overly inflated started being frowned upon. And after the aim120s introduction, the aim54, it's older borther, kept evolving alongside of it.

think of it like that: BMW releases a BMW500 in 1990. In 1992 they then release a slightly better and more comfortable version, the BMW600, and they introduce ABS with it. They keep selling the BMW500 though, afterall, it is only a couple years older. However, the customer now wants ABS in all cars, so they retrofit all BMW500s with ABS... It is the year 1993 now, and both the BMW500 and BMW600 are still being sold, both with ABS, and else minor differences... It was likely similar with Ratheon selling the aim54s and aim120s for another almost 30 years together, and not even to two different customers, but the same customer - the US Navy. Guess what this customer wanted in this missile, if that missile had it, too...

 

What is the current status of moving the phoenix to the new missile code as can be seen in the missile_table.lua?  Even if the exact AWG-9 interaction is still iffy i'm just more concerned about it getting APN and the smoothed out loft curve.  

Edited January 31, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

9 hours ago, IronMike said:

 

Common, buddy, we had this exact same discussion already... It is not a lot older and crappier missile, and most importantly no one ever said "it should be". I don't know where you are getting this from. You just put that into your mind firmly, and now it seems to be a truth without challenge for you. The missiles were contemporaries. In fact, the aim54 is the overkill version of the aim120, if you like. The aim120 is an evolutionary step of the aim54, indeed, but in terms of being slimmed down to more appropriate needs, too. Aim54s, if you like, were an overreaction in a time, where fear of the enemy (Russia back then), was real. The aim120 is owed to a time, where everything that was too expensive or overly inflated started being frowned upon. And after the aim120s introduction, the aim54, it's older borther, kept evolving alongside of it.

think of it like that: BMW releases a BMW500 in 1990. In 1992 they then release a slightly better and more comfortable version, the BMW600, and they introduce ABS with it. They keep selling the BMW500 though, afterall, it is only a couple years older. However, the customer now wants ABS in all cars, so they retrofit all BMW500s with ABS... It is the year 1993 now, and both the BMW500 and BMW600 are still being sold, both with ABS, and else minor differences... It was likely similar with Ratheon selling the aim54s and aim120s for another almost 30 years together, and not even to two different customers, but the same customer - the US Navy. Guess what this customer wanted in this missile, if that missile had it, too...

 

Oh dear, the aim9  has been in use for a very long time as well. 
Better make the scud-54 also just as manouverable as the aim 9 . 
But of course keep the longe range and speed capabilities . 

I mean, the 54 only weighs 3x more than the 120 and is only 3x as bulky. So there is no reason it should not behave exactly as the 120, but with 2x more range and 2x more speed. 
That is what i'm sensing from the post above. 

Yesterday i actually got hit by a 54.
I got exactly 1.5 beeps from my RWR. ... beep be- ... dead. 
I got them as well, but that's only because i'm the king of BVR . 

:flips table: 
 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Northstar98]

On 1/31/2021 at 7:59 AM, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Oh dear, the aim9  has been in use for a very long time as well. 
Better make the scud-54 also just as manouverable as the aim 9 . 
But of course keep the longe range and speed capabilities .

 

What the hell are you talking about? Is this just another example of your tin-foil hattery with the AIM-54?

 

We're not talking about its manoeuvrability, we're talking about it's mid-course guidance.

 

Quote

I mean, the 54 only weighs 3x more than the 120 and is only 3x as bulky. So there is no reason it should not behave exactly as the 120, but with 2x more range and 2x more speed.

 

The 5V55R of the SA-10 we have currently is nearly twice as long, is 70mm larger in diameter and has 3x as much as mass as the AIM-54, it can hit cruise missiles and other PGMs and it's definitely capable of hitting manoeuvring targets, and it's a SARH missile; what's your point?

 

Quote

Yesterday i actually got hit by a 54.
I got exactly 1.5 beeps from my RWR. ... beep be- ... dead.

 

Ahh, so that explains it, you got shot down by one, and now you want a nerf.

 

Also, presumably you had the F-14 on the RWR too? And what, you just decided to ignore it? Only going defensive when the RWR saw the missile?

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Northstar98

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

And i also don't buy this:
"Yeah the aim54 was a 120 on steroids, better in every way,  but then they discontinued it because it's awesomeness was overkill so they settled for the 120". 

@northstar , why you left out the part where i said i destroyed him ? How is that 'ignoring' ?
And a cruise missile doesn't go defensive. 


 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

And i also don't buy this:
"Yeah the aim54 was a 120 on steroids but they disconued it because it's awesomeness was overkill so they settled for the 120". 

 

Remind me what operational aircraft can carry the AIM-54 again?

 

Also, nice straw man.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Northstar98

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Well from the two scenario's, i know which one i think is more likely : 

1) Phoenix was aim120 on steroids, better in every way, so the US military ditched it because it was actually TOO good. Better than they needed ... OR : 
2) Phoenix was a huge portable scud missile only suited for hitting huge and slow bombers and became obsolete because of the lack of huge slow bombers carpet bombing or nuking cities. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Northstar98]

18 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Well from the two scenario's, i know which one i think is more likely : 

1) Phoenix was aim120 on steroids, better in every way, so the US military ditched it because it was actually TOO good. Better than they needed ... OR : 
2) Phoenix was a huge portable scud missile only suited for hitting huge and slow bombers and became obsolete because of the lack of huge slow bombers carpet bombing or nuking cities. 

 

Or, while the AIM-54 was good, it could only be utilised by a single aircraft that was incredibly maintenance intensive and expensive to keep going; that was being replaced, and the primary mission of the Tomcat and the Phoenix (fleet defence) wasn't really present any more, so there wasn't much point keeping either going.

 

The AMRAAM and the Hornet just made more sense from a financial perspective, which ultimately (maybe unfortunately) has the final say. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

On 1/27/2021 at 11:55 AM, BonerCat said:

You are missing the point man

 

Yes you are....

 

On 1/27/2021 at 11:55 AM, BonerCat said:

The thread was meant to be about the sudden maneuver, not so much about the max G of the missile itself.

 

That sudden maneuver has the purpose because the required G's it needs to pull to intercept targets.

 

On 1/27/2021 at 11:55 AM, BonerCat said:

My point is, the AMRAAM does not "jink" half way to the target, and only starts onsetting G if the target maneuvers and the missile is already close to the target, while the Phoenix will suddenly loose a whole mach of speed before even getting close to the target, for no apparent reason.

 

AMRAAM is different, it can't really be compared by its guidance logic. It is called for a reason "Advanced" even when it is "just a Medium range".

 

Phoenix is meant for long range interceptions. When you loft it, it will do its best to maximize its energy all the way to the terminal phase.

Your "nudge" down is about that terminal phase starting. Missile detects the parameters matching for target that maximum energy for the range is not required and it can start to optimize for the intercept angles.

 

On 1/27/2021 at 11:55 AM, BonerCat said:

The whole "Missile needs to pull so and so G to intercept target onsetting so and so G" is irrelevant here, since i was talking about the long range intercept alone.

 

It is exactly on the point.

 

If you send a missile to 100 nmi distance, you do not want it to consume its energy flying low or trying to get direct heading on target it doesn't know how much they can maneuver. You maximize its energy to the range, and then let it to play at the end-game that how to intercept the target. AIM-54 is stupid missile.

 

On 1/27/2021 at 11:55 AM, BonerCat said:

The point of having a non maneuvering target was to show the long range guidance, and that sudden jink.
The target was not meant to be a factor in the example.

 

The Phoenix doesn't know what is the target. It only knows range, vector and what kind a return to expect at the end-game. When going for the end-game it starts to figure out what is the target properties and how to maximize its capabilities for it.

 

On 1/27/2021 at 11:55 AM, BonerCat said:

Such jink will still happened, regardless of if you're shooting a bomber, an AWACS, a fighter, a missile, or a bird. As long as the missile lofts, it does that pull, which reduces the speed at which it enters terminal stage and turns on it's radar, giving it a lower PK

 

Lower speed doesn't mean automatically lower Pk. Faster you are, wider your turn is and lower your reaction changes are.

 

On 1/27/2021 at 11:55 AM, BonerCat said:

While 4g may not be a lot compared to the max G it can pull, it does cause the missile to loose a fourth(!) of it's speed way before even entering terminal!
plus, on the second shot, the missile pulls up to 11G! Roughly 2/3 of it's max G according to the 18G figure you brought up

 

Yes, and see how wide and slow turn it was even with 11 G. The Phoenix would need to pull a lot more to make a sudden quick maneuver to go after a far more maneuverable fighter than it is capable to. As it was not designed to go after fighters but bombers that it can outmaneuver very easily.

The Phoenix needs to predict earlier that when to change intercept course on the target, it can't pull at max speed and in final seconds to try pull some crazy horses. Neither can it do assumption that all targets are just non-maneuvering and start descending much sooner and fly straight toward, wasting even more energy.

 

On 1/27/2021 at 11:55 AM, BonerCat said:

This thread was never meant to be about the missile in terminal stage, pulling G to intercept a maneuvering target
It was meant to bring up the speed loss before the terminal stage.

 

That is the start of terminal stage....

 

On 1/27/2021 at 11:55 AM, BonerCat said:

My point is, the missile *should* perform a smooth intercept, much like the new AMRAAM, keeping that speed for the terminal stage
When making this thread i mostly wanted to know if ED is planning to fix this any time soon, and bring it up in case they weren't aware

 

Smooth can be killing speed more, and too much speed when closing target, wrong intercept angle can lower Pk.