AIM-54 long range guidance

[BonerCat]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

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

The point of the entire thread (at least the original one) was to point out that it *shouldn't* be the required G for intercept
It should, instead of pulling 4 g for some 5-7 seconds, pull 0.5g for 15-30, resulting in much less drag during that pull, therefore less speed loss.

 

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

That is the start of terminal stage....

That "jink" happends some 5 seconds before the missile goes active and into terminal stage. It will happend regardless of what the target is doing

 

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

AIM-54 is stupid missile

I m sure the US Navy settled on having half a mil missiles that are stupid...


You clearly don't see my point, despite the fact i tried to explain it to you multiple times now
I m sorry i can't get it through to you. I stand by my arguments, even if you can't see why

[nighthawk2174]

I know its the equivalent of arguing with a brick wall but let me try to break this down as well:

 

7 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

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

Not during midcourse guidance though where it bleeds a full mach of airspeed as said above it should be more like a lower g value over a longer period.  Just go in game and fire the AMRAAM then the phoenix and observe how they behave.  The phoenix should do the exact same thing as the amraam during the midcourse phase.

Quote

 

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".

They really are comparable, while the amraam in all probability received more advanced guidance.  From what's out there the 120A's guidance system was based off of the 54C's.

 

Quote

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.

Right but this should be a smooth transition not a sudden 11g jerk.

Quote

 

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.

No not really for the time it came out it was quite advanced and remained so for quite some time.  Better than anything the Russians had for a VERY long time as well.

Quote

 

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.

 

I think you don't quite get how guidance algorithms work, it doesn't just adjust its capabilities based off of the target it will fly to null out LOS rate based on a number of factors may I recommend as a starting point:

 

Quote

 

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.

And your source on it being just for bombers and not capable at all of hitting fighters?  I mean... it was the first a/a missile to hit a target pulling more than 6g's.  Hitting an F86 being used as the target. The missile is capable of ~18g's which should allow it to rather quite easily hit every type of airborne target.  Again in the worst case geometry you may need up to 2x the g of your target.  But most often you will not need that much.  You can see this in DCS with the amraam.

Quote

The Phoenix needs to predict earlier that when to change intercept course on the target,

 

????

Quote

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.

Yes it can, and with its rather large warhead it just needs to get close within 20'ish meters.  Which if your moments from getting hit its unlikely a sudden very high G maneuver would be able to through the missile off enough for you to escape the proxy fuze (irl in DCS well proxy fuzes don't exactly work like they should)

 

????

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Katj]

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. 

Well, even if the Phoenix was only intended to be used against bombers, it would have been Mach 2 cruise missile carrying bombers. Not slow carpet bombers.

But as we all know they designed the thing to be able to hit a wide variety of targets. Even the look of the thing, with the very large wings for a missile, makes it clear that it can generate a lot of lift for maneuvering.

[Blinky.ben]

3 hours ago, Katj said:

 

 

Well, even if the Phoenix was only intended to be used against bombers, it would have been Mach 2 cruise missile carrying bombers. Not slow carpet bombers.

But as we all know they designed the thing to be able to hit a wide variety of targets. Even the look of the thing, with the very large wings for a missile, makes it clear that it can generate a lot of lift for maneuvering.

 

Just to add to your point the Aim-54 was also intended to intercept and destroy the missiles that the bombers might have launched at the carrier group. There is a video that it getting around of the Aim-54 intercepting and destroying a missile during a test.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Blinky.ben

[IronMike]

18 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

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". 

 

There is no reason for you to buy it, because no one said that. You really only hear/read what you want and what fits your narrative, CSGO, it is quite frustrating tbh, because it makes a discussion completely fruitless. You have an opinion, founded in complete misinformation, and let no body tell you anything, who just might know better. And you jump to wrong conclusions, just to enforce your point.

I said that it was like an overkill version of the aim120 (as its contemporary older bigger and more brute brother). That does not mean it is better in every way, it means it is worse in every way: 1. It weighs more 2. It costs more 3. It costs more to maintain 4. You will shoot it less likely 5. It flies further than anyone needs, which inflates its size and costs for more fuel and a bigger motor 6. It is not tailored to an ever evolving mission anymore which is increasingly defined by multiple sensors "colaborating" between multiple smaller units and so on and so forth (and by that I dont mean bombers or fighters or antiship missiles, but ranges, theatres, conflict sizes, drones, enemies, etc...). I made it extra bold, so you don't misunderstand that à la "it was only good against bombers" or similar nonsense, which keeps being repeated on forums - despite actual professionals, who literally worked with it, telling them otherwise... It's aggravating, really, because apparently what experts say, common sense or logic and facts do not seem to apply, if it doesn't allow to hate on a missile... 

The aim120 is better than the aim54, except they share commonalities, like a seeker head evolution developed by the same company. You know, like the brakes in a BMW will always be BMW quality brakes. And throwing in an aim9 into the mix, is akin as replying to my BMW analogy with "but what about BMX bikes?!" ... It's apples and oranges. Or, cars and bikes, or you know: active radar homing missiles and short range heat seaking missiles... two things, which have nothing in common, while the aim54 and the aim120 have very well much in common.

Anyway, if you do not want to learn or understand, that is your choice. It has been explained to you now more than 5 times, and if you still don't get it but rather dellude yourself ... I am sorry, but I cannot help you.


PS: Just wanted to add: someone who cannot fight against the aim54, and rather spends time constantly whining on forums about it, than learning how to beat it (which is easily doable), is not the King of BVR, but the King of Complaining.

Edited February 1, 2021 by IronMike

[Fri13]

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

I know its the equivalent of arguing with a brick wall but let me try to break this down as well:

 

It is not a good to start with personal insults, as you have lost all your arguments in that point.

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Not during midcourse guidance though where it bleeds a full mach of airspeed as said above it should be more like a lower g value over a longer period.  Just go in game and fire the AMRAAM then the phoenix and observe how they behave.  The phoenix should do the exact same thing as the amraam during the midcourse phase.

 

Fact is, it shouldn't do the same thing as it is not the same missile. Different physics, different missiles, even if you would use exactly identical guidance module, sensors, algorithms etc, it would be different.

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

They really are comparable, while the amraam in all probability received more advanced guidance.  From what's out there the 120A's guidance system was based off of the 54C's.

 

"Based off" is not same thing as same. Lot of things are based to something else, it is normal engineering and fact of life. It doesn't mean things are same or even comparable at all.

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Right but this should be a smooth transition not a sudden 11g jerk.

 

If you look the Tacview video, there is no sudden jerk but smooth transition.

As I said, you can not trust Tacview in missiles G's.

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

No not really for the time it came out it was quite advanced and remained so for quite some time.  Better than anything the Russians had for a VERY long time as well.

 

What Russia has even today is very little known. And what is known, they have been even in better than what Phoenix has.

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

I think you don't quite get how guidance algorithms work, it doesn't just adjust its capabilities based off of the target it will fly to null out LOS rate based on a number of factors may I recommend as a starting point:

 

Maybe you should start with more respectful tone first... And leave assumptions....

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

And your source on it being just for bombers and not capable at all of hitting fighters?

 

The world is not black and white as you claim. The Phoenix is not capable to intercept a fighter pulling 9 G turns. It is not a magical "silver bullet".

If a fighter flies like a bomber, there is nothing that denies it to intercept it. YES IT WILL HIT FIGHTERS!

If a fighter flies unlike a bomber, unlike the cruise missiles, unlike anything that the Phoenix is not capable to intercept, NO, IT WILL NOT HIT FIGHTERS.

There is big difference between stupid pilot and skilled pilot. When a pilot knows what to do to avoid the Phoenix, it is possible to do so. And it means NO IT WILL NOT HIT THE FIGHTER. When the pilot is stupid and doesn't know what to do against Phoenix, YES IT WILL HIT THE FIGHTER.

If you pull a steady turn toward the Phoenix where it has time and distance to start maneuvering with it physical limits, it will intercept the fighter no matter what. But there are missiles that are designed and built to be far better in that, to specifically intercept highly maneuverable targets. I could record you 100 videos how Phoenix will hit the fighter with 100% Pk, but I could as well do that same with 0% Pk. Question is not "not capable at all of hitting fighters" but that WHEN it can hit a fighter, and there is the big difference.

 

The Phoenix is not like a AIM-9X or R-73, it is not like a AIM-120C-7 or it is not like a R-77 or even like R-27.... It is not as capable as it was designed for other purposes. The AIM-120A was terrible missile, the B was not so much better. It took few years to get C out when the AIM-120 became more suitable missile and better than R-27ER. It took even longer to get AIM-120D out that is now at the range of Phoenix. And Russia has even their own even longer variant missiles, that as well have not been designed to be used against fighters. Can you launch those against fighters? Definitely you can bet for that! Are those as capable against fighters as against larger less maneuverable targets? No....

And if you have an enemy that has engagement range for you just a 10 nmi, and you have weapon that gets high Pk at 15 nmi, then you do not go to use a very expensive weapon at that target when you have more suitable and better weapon to use but only from shorter distance. The idea of the air war is not that who can shoot from furthest distance, but who can deny air space from the other, it doesn't even require enemies being shot down.

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

  I mean... it was the first a/a missile to hit a target pulling more than 6g's. 

 

The 6G does not yet tell anything, it depends how targets maneuver and when. It is 101 of the tactics against missiles. Timing is critical and to do it at correct direction.

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Hitting an F86 being used as the target. The missile is capable of ~18g's which should allow it to rather quite easily hit every type of airborne target.

 

From where we get to back to the fact, 3.5-5 times more G's are required from missile to be able intercept of target G's.

Because the missile can perform 18 G turn, it doesn't mean it can intercept a fighter that can only turn in 9 G.

Missile pulling 11 G is not much at all. It is wide turn radius and small turn rate. It is nothing like the missiles designed against fighters that pull even over 60 G, and yet those can miss but that is more than just proper maneuvering.

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

 

  Again in the worst case geometry you may need up to 2x the g of your target.  But most often you will not need that much.  You can see this in DCS with the amraam.

????

 

Again it is false assumption. The missiles in DCS doesn't turn properly, they do not report proper G's and you need to take each interception individually one by one.

 

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Yes it can, and with its rather large warhead it just needs to get close within 20'ish meters.

 

Higher you are, further you can be as air density affects the fragments same way as the fighters or missiles in flight. Problem is just inverse square law for the fragments probability to hit target.

 

18 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

  Which if your moments from getting hit its unlikely a sudden very high G maneuver would be able to through the missile off enough for you to escape the proxy fuze (irl in DCS well proxy fuzes don't exactly work like they should)

 

The timing of the maneuvers are critical, not the last ditch just second or two before hit. The timings and maneuvers are classified. Each corresponding missile trained for that what to use, as same tactic is not same for all. Example the famous F-16 avoiding six launches, when the pilot landed, all the chaff cartridges were intact. Key is to know what is coming, where they are coming, get the estimation of the impact and properly fly. Add a ECM and CM to that and missile Pk will dramatically drop. In first Gulf War the Iraqis failed in timings, they even turned to fly straight away from the missile and lead to high missile Pk values.

The whole maneuver idea is not that missile is near you, but you get it fly away of you.

 

[BonerCat]

15 hours ago, IronMike said:

"it was only good against bombers" or similar nonsense, which keeps being repeated on forums - despite actual professionals, who literally worked with it, telling them otherwise

When the Devs, who took countless hours to research this topic, cooperating closely with SME's, *People who actually worked with these planes and weapons IRL*, state otherwise, and you still refuse to change your mind, I loose faith that anything can

I can't pull you out of your bubble against your will, but if you wanna stay there so badly, at least stay there for good, instead of making walls of texts on the forums, where people want to bring up and discuss issues, and get shit fixed
People tried to reason with you Fri, but you just don't listen. I m sorry i had to be blunt, but i m just about done with this "discussion"

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

^
It's pretty amazing how a well supported post that probably took quite some time to type up, is instantly called a 'wall of text' simply because it doesn't fit your: "Aim54 is exactly as Aim120 but with 2x range and 2x speed" narrative.  
Bonercat, it seems that you really only want the AIm54 to be some sort of extremely advanced version of the aim120 . 
You really want it to be a 'magic silver bullet', and you will not stop until it is. (in DCS) 

The thing is literally a flying fuel-bag. Same size, same thickness and shape for god's sake. 

Look at it, it's a scud missile

 

If it was so 'advanced' and 'overkill' they would have kept it, and not switched to the "crappier" aim120. 

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

 

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Badger1-1]

Wow, you are really one of a kind BVR King, just to get on your level, a Scud is about 10-11m long and the Phoenix is about 4m.

 

I just read the whole topic just to laugh at everything you say because you really do not want to understand what other people say  Its really fascinating..

 

So as a neutral party I say this again: They say its worst, it IS bigger and heavier and all that IS true BUT----> wait for it! ------> that doesnt mean it should behave like someone who is missing his exit on the freeway and tries still to get there by doing some crazy manouvers!

 

And that is pretty much all to this

 

You might spent too much time playing CS  

[Northstar98]

 

37 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

^
It's pretty amazing how a well supported post that probably took quite some time to type up, is instantly called a 'wall of text' simply because it doesn't fit your: "Aim54 is exactly as Aim120 but with 2x range and 2x speed" narrative.

 

Would that be the narrative you made up?

 

37 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Bonercat, it seems that you really only want the AIm54 to be some sort of extremely advanced version of the aim120.

 

No, we just want it to perform properly, not bleeding itself dry of energy by doing manoeuvres it shouldn't be doing long before it gets anywhere near a high-altitude, hot-aspect target that isn't reacting at all.

 

37 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

You really want it to be a 'magic silver bullet', and you will not stop until it is. (in DCS).

 

And you really, really, really need to examine your whole shtick, it's getting old.

 

Yes, you got shot down by a Phoenix and you went defensively far too late (not something I'd expect a 'king' of BVR to do but hey ho) and now you're salty and want a nerf.

 

37 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

The thing is literally a flying fuel-bag. Same size, same thickness and shape for god's sake.

 

The similarity is that it's pointy and is mostly cylindrical, like every other missile going?

 

37 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Look at it, it's a scud missile

 

You're probably thinking of the 5V55R, or maybe MIM-104s, y'know those missiles that are substantially heavier and larger than a phoenix but somehow aren't completely useless?

 

37 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

If it was so 'advanced' and 'overkill' they would have kept it, and not switched to the "crappier" aim120. 

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

 

Jesus christ, how do you misinterpret something this hard? And I love how you soft-quote 'advanced' when nobody said that. The AIM-120 isn't crappier, in the same breath the B-2 Spirit isn't crappier than the B-52 because it has slightly less range. (BTW the AIM-120D is getting on for the range of the Phoenix, while being more advanced and easier/cheaper to maintain).

 

The AIM-54 was designed for a mission that doesn't really exist anymore, it was very heavy and very expensive, and has so far only been operation on a grand total of one type of aircraft, that was also very intensive and expensive to maintain; an aircraft that was slowly being phased out a decade before the AIM-120...

[IronMike]

Don't worry guys, we'll eventually sort out the mid-term guidance, once we're able to implement the new missile FM from the new API.

 

The rest of this discussion is utterly fruitless and nonsense - a couple of people here do not want to understand, and that's when you cannot help them anymore. My suggestion is to not waste any further energy on this, rest assured, that kind of complaining does not influence the development process. We listen to SMEs, do research and stick to irrefutable facts. What we do not listen to, is a loud minority, who keeps complaining about the missile, while at the same time completely refusing to not only understand our replies, but obviously does not even make the effort to read them.

The reason why we reply to them in the first place, is because we want to help them understand, but some folks don't want to be helped, and that's that. Again, rest assured, their complaining has zero bearing on development. This is a simulator - we simulate, we don't balance, and we most certainly don't go by ill educated opinions.

 

 

 

 

[Fri13]

6 hours ago, BonerCat said:

When the Devs, who took countless hours to research this topic, cooperating closely with SME's, *People who actually worked with these planes and weapons IRL*, state otherwise, and you still refuse to change your mind, I loose faith that anything can

 

Yes and when there are lots of specialists and actual engineers who say that it was not designed against highly maneuvering fighters, backed up with the math that missile that can only pull 18 G can not maneuver after a target that is more agile than it. Nowhere I have said that it can't be used against fighters, only that IT IS NOT MEANT TO. You can keep thinking that it is a silver bullet that can intercept anything the man has ever built....

 

6 hours ago, BonerCat said:

I can't pull you out of your bubble against your will, but if you wanna stay there so badly, at least stay there for good, instead of making walls of texts on the forums, where people want to bring up and discuss issues, and get shit fixed
People tried to reason with you Fri, but you just don't listen. I m sorry i had to be blunt, but i m just about done with this "discussion"

 

If you can not stop the insults falsely claiming that I have said it is black and white that it can't be used against fighters, then you can not be reasoned even in the first place as you do not read anything. It is you who need to understand that Phoenix is easy to avoid just by maneuvering when you know it is coming at you. I fear far more a R-73 or AIM-9X than AIM-54. Even the AIM-120B is more dangerous one than Phoenix. But difference is that I am not flying a bomber or similar one, if I would then I would be scared about such a missile as it means almost certain destruction.

[IronMike]

4 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Yes and when there are lots of specialists and actual engineers who say that it was not designed against highly maneuvering fighters, backed up with the math that missile that can only pull 18 G can not maneuver after a target that is more agile than it. Nowhere I have said that it can't be used against fighters, only that IT IS NOT MEANT TO. You can keep thinking that it is a silver bullet that can intercept anything the man has ever built....

 

This is simply wrong. Please show a source else. Here are ours, including references listed at the end, including all simulation data you need. http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

 

 

Besides of that, everybody please stay polite to each other - wrong opinions or not - everyone is still entitled to have one. That counts for both sides of course.

Edited February 1, 2021 by IronMike

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

You're probably thinking of the 5V55R, or maybe MIM-104s, y'know those missiles that are substantially heavier and larger than a phoenix but somehow aren't completely useless?

 

We need to remember that Russia has even more advanced and more capable missiles than AIM-54 was at its best version, but they do not claim that those are usable against fighters. Different targets, different missiles, different ideas.

 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

(BTW the AIM-120D is getting on for the range of the Phoenix, while being more advanced and easier/cheaper to maintain).

 

Exactly, and it still is far more capable to perform than the AIM-54 was. The AIM-120 project was quickly improved from A to C and it got dramatic improvements and capabilities, something that was not possible with Phoenix.

 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

The AIM-54 was designed for a mission that doesn't really exist anymore, it was very heavy and very expensive, and has so far only been operation on a grand total of one type of aircraft, that was also very intensive and expensive to maintain; an aircraft that was slowly being phased out a decade before the AIM-120...

 

Well, the mission still exists, that is why the AIM-120 has gone forward so heavily. Now more than ever there are more cruise missiles, the Russia still operates a long range supersonic bombers, there are even more high speed aircraft than previously and so on. And meanwhile all the US military prices has just gone up and up and up. Maintaining a AIM-54 with F-14 would have been cheaper than while venture to even put on Super Hornet and F-22 (that is cheap program compared to F-35). Redesigning F-14 to be easier to maintain could have been possible for some level, but it was just wanted out. As US military doesn't always get what they need or want, but what is sold to them by weapons manufacturers, that is where the business is.

 

Meanwhile as USA is going deeper in bankruptcy because their military, Russia has fraction of all that money and manages to build more advanced and better weapons, focus to defense and upgrade everything. Now more than ever a such magic missile as AIM-54 would be required to intercept a hypersonic missiles with high change to destroy them. More than ever a F-14 with huge intercept range would be required to chase those missiles and patrol the areas and get there with powerful radar etc.

 

But the fact is, F-14 was old design, just old. The AIM-54 is as well old design. No needs or demands to really reproduce those or improve them. Better tech came and won.

US builds more aircraft carriers, increase their fleet strength and sends more aircraft to fly all around the world than ever.

Same thing is with all the countries that are in war business, Sweden develops one of the world best weapons and systems out there, yet it is not mentioned much anywhere because their centuries old business model is to sell weapons for everyone, both sides of the conflict if possible. And yet they have moved more and more to newer tech like what Gripen offers.

Russia did same, and even India has pushed own to offer something lightweight class, while China is doing completely own things like a Russia.

 

No matter how much I personally would love to see a MiG-23 being upgraded to latest possible technology and get it flying with latest missiles etc, the fact just is that it is obsolete airframe by today standards. The R-23 missile is just.... Awful compared to what latest tech can offer.

 

But still the fact is, if a full coalition war is started, in a year or two the high tech becomes terrible thing. Those who know how to fight with the more simpler technology that is cheap to produce and easy to maintain in harsh conditions will be more victorious. As when the bombs has fallen and there is no place to live anymore... those who know how to handle a bow, spear and rocks are victorious.

 

 

[Katj]

 
 Missile pulling 11 G is not much at all. It is wide turn radius and small turn rate. It is nothing like the missiles designed against fighters that pull even over 60 G, and yet those can miss but that is more than just proper maneuvering.

You do know that a missile doesn't have to match the turn rate, or turn radius of the target to be able to intercept, right?

[Fri13]

13 minutes ago, IronMike said:

 

This is simply wrong. Please show a source else. Here are ours, including references listed at the end, including all simulation data you need. http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

 

Where in your document it is proven that AIM-54 can intercept a 9G target with 18 G maximum performance?

[Fri13]

2 minutes ago, Katj said:

You do know that a missile doesn't have to match the turn rate, or turn radius of the target to be able to intercept, right?

 

If you read my posts, you will understand that....

 

If the pilot is stupid and flies straight....

If the pilot is stupid and performs easily predictable steady turn toward missile or straight away from missile....

If the pilot has zero situational awareness....

If the pilot fails in timings of the maneuvers....

 

In any of those it doesn't matter does the target pull 1 G or more, it is question of the pilot skills.

 

In DCS it is even easy to spot the Phoenix from about 15 km range against blue sky and you can see it maneuvers and closure. Timing and proper maneuver makes it easy to avoid with couple 4-6 G maneuvers. It is not a silver bullet that kills you all the time. But if you make the mistake, then you die, no matter what missile is coming at you.

 

[IronMike]

10 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Where in your document it is proven that AIM-54 can intercept a 9G target with 18 G maximum performance?

 

I am not sure you understand how flight models are done? In an FM, we tweak parameters according to the CFD data, that then gets matched into the by now dated missile AFM of DCS - how much G it can pull or not, is a result of this data. We do not tweak G values per se... The reason why it overpulls at the moment is not because of wrong data, but because the FM that it uses, sends it active in a wrong way, due to wrong mid-term guidance, due to a dated missile AFM. And btw, to the missile's own detriment, because it overpulls and thus renders itself useless in this moment, because it bleeds off all energy that it would need to intercept.

Where you are wrong, is that it wasn't developed for anything but bombers. Please stop repeating this nonsense, as by now, it just hurts to read. No source ever stated that, and I challenge you again, to provide reputable sources who say differently.

Be that how it may, however, it does not matter much, because it has no bearing on our development of the missile FM, unless you really manage to provide factual data, that proves us, the CFD research, the sources listed in the whitepaper and all our SMEs combined wrong.

 

PS: How much G a target pulls can have little to no bearing on how much G a missile has to pull in order to intercept it. I would even argue: the more G the further away the target pulls, the less G is required by the missile to intercept it, because the displacement in azimuth and altitude will be smaller, the higher G maneuvers a target pulls, means the missile will have to adjust it's course less. That's just on the side. (It is a different story with last-second high G maneuevers of course, but these are not meant to counter the amount of Gs a missile can pull - which will always be more than a fighter - but to give it too little time and space to react to this maneuever, no matter how many Gs it can pull, and thus force it to overshoot.)

Edited February 1, 2021 by IronMike

[BonerCat]

I m sorry guys. I never meant for this thread to become a shitshow

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

14 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

It is not a silver bullet that kills you all the time. 

 

So is !
It is basically an amraam (latest model of course) but two times faster and with two times more range, and with much better chaff resistance.
The military only ditched it because it was actually TOO GOOD. 
They deemed it was too unfair to the enemy. 

I'm finally beginning to understand. 

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[IronMike]

13 minutes ago, BonerCat said:

I m sorry guys. I never meant for this thread to become a shitshow

 

It's ok, we are by now used to this kind of derailing. We got your message though, it is something that is being worked on anyway. Not your fault. And rest assured: we're happy to be proven wrong with evidence and factual data, reputable sources etc. But what we most certainly do not listen to, is loud minorities, who are trying to force their opinion on everyone else, without even backing it up with any of the beforementioned facts.

 

7 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

So is !
It is basically an amraam (latest model of course) but two times faster and with two times more range, and with much better chaff resistance.
The military only ditched it because it was actually TOO GOOD. 
They deemed it was too unfair to the enemy. 

I'm finally beginning to understand. 

 

 

 

Again, no one ever said anything like this. You just keep quoting your own fantasies, bud. Unless you change, we will unfortunately have to ingnore you from now on. I already told you twice now why it was in fact worse than the aim120 in every aspect (except range), but why that doesn't mean they are fundamentally different. However, you seem to have so much irrational blood in your eyes, that it completely clouds your vision, as you obviously did not even read what I said. I am sorry to put it so harshly, but you are 100% wasting everyone's time here.

PS: If you keep replying in this manner, CSGO, we will consider it as trolling - because obivously you have nothing to contribute to the bug report. We're here to discuss bugs and fix them, and not your opinions. Your opinions do not matter. I hope I made myself crystal clear now. I also issued you a warning for that. Please stop derailing any and all aim54 topics you can find.

 

@BIGNEWY or @NineLine - please be so kind and take a look that this topic does not suffer from any further off topic discussions. It is unfair to those who report bugs to help fix issues. If you want, it can also be closed. Thank you.

Edited February 1, 2021 by IronMike

[Skysurfer]

 

Reference 7:05 and onwards. 

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Skysurfer

[BIGNEWY]

 

13 minutes ago, IronMike said:

please be so kind and take a look that this topic does not suffer from any further off topic discussions. It is unfair to those who report bugs to help fix issues. If you want, it can also be closed. Thank you.

 

Agreed IronMike. 

 

People unless you have something constructive to add to a bug report please save it. Lets keep reports for information and short track replays we can check in debug. 

 

thanks

[BIGNEWY]

 

After reviewing this thread I have decided to close it, its just arguing and conjecture. Please remember to treat each other with respect when posting. 

 

If you have a short track replay showing the issue please make a new thread and we will investigate. 

 

A guide for reporting bugs can be found here