dundun92 Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 15 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said: The "A" in amraam stands for "advanced". Phoenix has not "advanced", you can't just compare these missiles if they were the same thing. It's called "Aim -54 phoenix" and not "aim-54 ALRAAM" . Phoenix is NOT "same as amraam but better" !!@#!@# ...are you that desperate to make the AIM-54 look bad? 3 Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when? HP Z400 Workstation Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 20 hours ago, GGTharos said: The D, nothing before this. Interestingly reading about old problems with air defense datalinks I think it gave me a pretty good idea why the better position knowledge is desired. Out of curiosity GGT, what were those problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grater Tovakia Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 if you track down the parts for the AIM-54C you can see stuff like the WGU was comparable to the AIM-120As. Ofc all the AIM-54C Manuals are locked behind classification walls. I know there are people working on FOIA requests though. Keep in mind the early 120's have quite a bit of AIM-54 DNA in them and vice versa. So BreaKers comment is plausible, however his comment on documentation is not. Aside from a maitennence manual I know of no official AIM-54C documentation floating about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 31 minutes ago, Blaze1 said: Out of curiosity GGT, what were those problems? A big one was track alignment - for a bunch of reasons different vehicles would report the same contact in different locations, so you'd get multiple tracks for the same contact. 19 minutes ago, Grater Tovakia said: Keep in mind the early 120's have quite a bit of AIM-54 DNA in them I don't know if I believe that. Concept sure, but even that was quite a bit different from the A. And the hardware in the 120 was a result of miniaturization, again quite a bit different from the 54. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grater Tovakia Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 2 minutes ago, GGTharos said: A big one was track alignment - for a bunch of reasons different vehicles would report the same contact in different locations, so you'd get multiple tracks for the same contact. I don't know if I believe that. Concept sure, but even that was quite a bit different from the A. And the hardware in the 120 was a result of miniaturization, again quite a bit different from the 54. Im just parroting what I have heard, but if you look at parts the commonality is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlikwin Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 2 minutes ago, GGTharos said: A big one was track alignment - for a bunch of reasons different vehicles would report the same contact in different locations, so you'd get multiple tracks for the same contact. I don't know if I believe that. Concept sure, but even that was quite a bit different from the A. And the hardware in the 120 was a result of miniaturization, again quite a bit different from the 54. Yeah early ADA systems are interesting to read about. Lots of things could be learned there to make DCS a bit more real, but much like the current issues (or rather lack of issues) with DCS radar modeling I doubt we see any of it. As for the 54/120 thing, Ive read docs that describe 54 tech de-risking alot of aim120 tech. So, at least the way I read that is that conceptually/operationally this was done, but as you say it wouldn't be the same part, but perhaps a miniaturized version of a very similar 54C part. New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1) Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 9 minutes ago, GGTharos said: A big one was track alignment - for a bunch of reasons different vehicles would report the same contact in different locations, so you'd get multiple tracks for the same contact. I don't know if I believe that. Concept sure, but even that was quite a bit different from the A. And the hardware in the 120 was a result of miniaturization, again quite a bit different from the 54. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grater Tovakia Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 1 minute ago, Harlikwin said: Yeah early ADA systems are interesting to read about. Lots of things could be learned there to make DCS a bit more real, but much like the current issues (or rather lack of issues) with DCS radar modeling I doubt we see any of it. As for the 54/120 thing, Ive read docs that describe 54 tech de-risking alot of aim120 tech. So, at least the way I read that is that conceptually/operationally this was done, but as you say it wouldn't be the same part, but perhaps a miniaturized version of a very similar 54C part. Yeah this was the position I was trying to advocate and you did it a lot better lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlikwin Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 Just now, Grater Tovakia said: Yeah this was the position I was trying to advocate and you did it a lot better lol. That being said, you can't really beat physics, so for alot of those parts bigger is in fact better. Bigger radar antenna = better performance, bigger battery = more power to play with, bigger fuel fraction = more range and so forth. However, the further down the timeline you go, the better and faster and smaller things like A/D converters get, processors get faster and so forth. So that means better detection due to lower noise floors, better signal processing logic, better guidance logic and so forth. New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1) Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 not sure of the original sources, but interesting summary: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54-variants.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlikwin Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 17 minutes ago, Kula66 said: not sure of the original sources, but interesting summary: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54-variants.htm That is very interesting. Especially about the tubes and antenna design tidbits. Plus the "improved beam" capability... Seems to imply that the C had much better notch resistance. New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1) Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 The A was not happy with beaming targets generally, the system was supposed to deny you a DLZ if it computed that a target would end up in a beaming situation. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlikwin Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 1 hour ago, GGTharos said: The A was not happy with beaming targets generally, the system was supposed to deny you a DLZ if it computed that a target would end up in a beaming situation. And yet.... It goes pitbul and youre toast even in a notch. New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1) Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dundun92 Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 3 minutes ago, Harlikwin said: And yet.... It goes pitbul and youre toast even in a notch. In DCS, lol nope. 3 1 Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when? HP Z400 Workstation Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctrach Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Harlikwin said: And yet.... It goes pitbul and youre toast even in a notch. After another extensive PvP training tonight discovering how easy it is to notch or otherwise mitigate all advantages of the Phoenix, you're simply not doing it right. People who keep going on about how this is some kind of overmodeled superweapon just really need to learn how to fight the F-14, it's one of the weakest "gen 4 fighter" in the game right now. Definitely among the full fidelity ones. This doesn't make it a no-factor, it's still got dangerous long range missiles and is overall just a great airframe. However, an F-16, F/A-18, F-15 or Su-27 should emerge victorious the majority of times if flown properly. Edited March 31, 2021 by Noctrach 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlikwin Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 1 hour ago, Noctrach said: After another extensive PvP training tonight discovering how easy it is to notch or otherwise mitigate all advantages of the Phoenix, you're simply not doing it right. People who keep going on about how this is some kind of overmodeled superweapon just really need to learn how to fight the F-14, it's one of the weakest "gen 4 fighter" in the game right now. Definitely among the full fidelity ones. This doesn't make it a no-factor, it's still got dangerous long range missiles and is overall just a great airframe. However, an F-16, F/A-18, F-15 or Su-27 should emerge victorious the majority of times if flown properly. IDK, maybe they are using C's. And this is my memory from a while ago mostly. I know while flying the 14 with A's they are worthless at long range, but still pretty deadly in PAL mode. New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1) Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csgo GE oh yeah Posted April 2, 2021 Share Posted April 2, 2021 (edited) On 3/31/2021 at 5:24 AM, dundun92 said: ...are you that desperate to make the AIM-54 look bad? No, i just don't buy this whole "Phoenix is 'overkill version' of AIM120 Amraam" story that some of you are trying to push. Seems a bit like "The (Advanced!) 120 has this, now we want that for phoenix to because ... uhm... they're both missiles!! " Edited April 2, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted April 2, 2021 ED Team Share Posted April 2, 2021 Guys, please be respectful of each others opinions, please and thank you. Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts