Jump to content

Aim-54 CCM


BlackPixxel

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

No it's not. 

The 1970's analog MK60 is not an "overkill version of the amraam" . Unless it's makers had the ability to travel 40 years to the future, and put that technology is this ancient vietnam war era missile .
It's seeker is grossly overperforming.

Are you sure? I have read in a Hughes brochure that it was designed to seek and destroy anything that had been programmed into its computers. I believe Tom Cooper has documented that the Iranians used it to successfully destroy Iraqi GPS satellites and strike the nuclear facilities at Osirak with AIM-54A+++ at ranges of over 1000nm. 

  • Like 4

"I'm just a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2021 at 8:58 AM, DCSoping said:

But it does though ? 
Because they are now guided to 'held tracks' ?

So in practice if you break lock with awg radar before missile is active, missile is not dumb but being guided to projected destination and then goes active. 

 

This rarely happens though, usually only if contact was lost few seconds before going active anyway. If target was manouvering in any way it will not go active even if track is held my AWG/WCS. 

 

By limitatios of DCS target needs to be in a certain box/area during held track or the Phoenix will not go active even if countdown goes to zero. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gunslinger22 said:

Are you sure? I have read in a Hughes brochure that it was designed to seek and destroy anything that had been programmed into its computers. I believe Tom Cooper has documented that the Iranians used it to successfully destroy Iraqi GPS satellites and strike the nuclear facilities at Osirak with AIM-54A+++ at ranges of over 1000nm. 

😂
Please don't tell HB, they will actually implement it. 
Below a picture of the 70's 🙂

Joking aside, i even heard on satal or tact stream that it's gotten even way harder to notch/chaff/ground clutter the phoenix lately.  
The MK60 is from the 70's, and it's anlog. And that missile WAS build to attack non manouvring bombers. 
Why is it behaving like a cruise missile and tracking extremely low flying and notching F16's throught the trees ?
Surely even you F14 guys can admit that the MK60 seeker is overperforming grossly  ?

Meme-K-60.jpg


Edited by Csgo GE oh yeah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Joking aside,

Yeah

1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

 And that missile WAS build to attack non manouvring bombers. 

I thought you said joking aside.  The guidance was upgraded immediately to deal with amenuvering and jamming targets as this was identified as a weakness.  Like, right at IOC.

1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Why is it behaving like a cruise missile and tracking extremely low flying and notching F16's throught the trees ?

Because any radar in DCS tracks through trees.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 6

[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

My Phoenixes get notched quite a lot during look down and when target is in notch, especially in hilly terrain.

 

And regarding the BOMBER ONLY missile title that keeps geting thrown around I believe that was mainly given the limitations of AWG-9 & TWS at the time and not that the missile itself had any problems with manouvering targets. There were tests made where it had no problems at all following small high G manouvering targets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Comstedt86 said:

My Phoenixes get notched quite a lot during look down and when target is in notch, especially in hilly terrain.

 

And regarding the BOMBER ONLY missile title that keeps geting thrown around I believe that was mainly given the limitations of AWG-9 & TWS at the time and not that the missile itself had any problems with manouvering targets. There were tests made where it had no problems at all following small high G manouvering targets. 

It was more operational doctrine.

In the late 70's/early '80s the Soviet fighter AA missile threat was not deemed significant enough that an AIM-7 couldn't deal with it. Save the heavy and expensive Phoenix to protect the fleet.

It was with the arrival of the Flankers/Fulcrums and their more capable weapon sets in the late 80's/early '90s that it was decided that the AIM-54 would become part of an approved anti-fighter loadout.

Time and again ACTUAL EVIDENCE from source documentation and trained personnel (Dave 'BIO' Baranek) has REPEATEDLY shown that the AIM-54 was a capable anti-fighter weapon FROM THE START, despite the delusional rantings of those who choose to ignore the facts.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like that Googling nowadays is surprisingly hard. Heck, even reading is hard, innit?

Quote

While not intended as a dogfight missile, Phoenix has greater capability against maneuvering targets than any other air-to-air missile.
For example, in the illustrated launch mission, a QF-86 drone attempted to break AWG-9 and Phoenix track by violently maneuvering in the vertical plane 16 seconds after missile launch. The drone pulled 5g’s going into a 6200 foot dive and 6g’s coming out. Phoenix scored a lethal hit on the drone just as it pulled out of the dive. In other evasively maneuvering target launches, Phoenix has pulled as many as 16g’s to hit the target.

Hughes Aircraft Company - December 1974

But I guess this does not count because… manufacturer is biased?

 

Quote

The crews of the two F-14As which covered Dowran’s last raid into Iraq had been ordered to remain on the Iranian side of the border, but when the F-4E flown by Dowran’s wingman, Maj Mahmoud Eskandari – which had been damaged by a 57 mm shell hit near the cockpit – was almost cut off by two flights of Iraqi interceptors, the Tomcat pilots could not hold back. Disobeying their orders, they raced into Iraq and shot down three fighters with two AIM-54s fired from more than 50 miles away.

Bishop, Farzad; Cooper, Tom. Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat – page 125

But I guess it doesn't count because… Iran bad?

 

And +1 to @DD_Fenrir, but even Bio does not count because… he's too nice, I guess?

On a serious note, I wonder where the devs find the strength to deal with the same nonsense over and over again. I also wonder why the mods don't action.

  • Like 4
full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Internal Draft WIP

Phantom Phamiliarisation Video Series | F-4E/F-14 Kneeboard Pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Karon said:

On a serious note, I wonder where the devs find the strength to deal with the same nonsense over and over again.

Notice that they don't really pay attention to these threads anymore except to come in and occasionally straightjacket the lunatics. As soon as the paranoid rants begin, the objective discussion of the topic based on facts and SME testimony are lost. I believe Heatblur has said before that they cannot discuss missile API developments and aren't responsible for weapon behavior once it departs the aircraft, but maybe that's the cover-up for the true narrative that ThEy'Re BrEaKiNg ThE gAmE oN pUrPoSe.

 

51 minutes ago, Karon said:

I also wonder why the mods don't action.

Same.

  • Like 4

DCSF-14AOK3A.jpg

DCSF14AOK3B.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Swordsman422 said:

Notice that they don't really pay attention to these threads anymore except to come in and occasionally straightjacket the lunatics. As soon as the paranoid rants begin, the objective discussion of the topic based on facts and SME testimony are lost. I believe Heatblur has said before that they cannot discuss missile API developments and aren't responsible for weapon behavior once it departs the aircraft, but maybe that's the cover-up for the true narrative that ThEy'Re BrEaKiNg ThE gAmE oN pUrPoSe.

I usually read and take notes, I then use them to provide the devs' perspective when I write about different topics. Taking the API as an example, they did say a few things that explain why we have what we have now (long story short, it's a series of workarounds as the work on the API progresses, but it's a long-term endeavour).

Unfortunately, as you correctly say, they tend to be less present as soon as the topic derails, and this is really pissing me off: I come here from a position of ignorance to learn more, not to seeing every interesting topic by some idiot that can't tell the difference between DCS and War Thunder. We are lucky enough to have devs open to communication and even constructive debate, but I understand them if they were to stop that.

  • Like 1
full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Internal Draft WIP

Phantom Phamiliarisation Video Series | F-4E/F-14 Kneeboard Pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Comstedt86 said:

My Phoenixes get notched (line of sighted) quite a lot during look down and when target is in notch, especially in hilly terrain.

 

And regarding the BOMBER ONLY missile title that keeps geting thrown around I believe that was mainly given the limitations of AWG-9 & TWS at the time and not that the missile itself had any problems with manouvering targets. There were tests made where it had no problems at all following small high G manouvering targets. 

I corrected your post. 


Edited by Csgo GE oh yeah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that people like BlackPixxel are in PVP groups and their one and only agenda is affecting PVP game balance through bullying devs into doing this or that. They have zero interest in realism or how it actually works. And they want specific missiles fixed rather than wait for the entire missile API be done. Talking to them makes absolutely no sense, not from a user point of view, nor from a developer point of view.

Unless you want to get bogged down in some pseudo-analysis someone has done in a zealous fever after being shot down once again...

  • Like 7

http://www.csg-2.net/ | i7 7700k - NVIDIA 1080 - 32GB RAM | BKR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Slant said:

It's worth noting that people like BlackPixxel are in PVP groups and their one and only agenda is affecting PVP game balance through bullying devs into doing this or that. They have zero interest in realism or how it actually works. And they want specific missiles fixed rather than wait for the entire missile API be done. Talking to them makes absolutely no sense, not from a user point of view, nor from a developer point of view.

Unless you want to get bogged down in some pseudo-analysis someone has done in a zealous fever after being shot down once again...

Did i read that sentence right?

PvP people (ralfidude and IASG.. forgot the name) ...

...bullying devs (podcasts, "other sim" players spamming/instigating the hoggit reddit and forums with unscientific "my missile missed" posts) ...

... after being shot down once again (ralfidude&friends crying 24/7 about their missiles in every video and in the game chat, the ones who flew back then remember) ...

... and they want specific missiles fixed (AIM-120 only) instead of waiting for the entire missile API to be done.

 

Blackpixxel & friends prove their claims with real documentation. The conflict is simply between which documents to trust more or whether to ignore documentation because it is "hand drawn" (Chizh, ED team, last year).

 

 

You should be glad that your modules and missiles are being maintained, updated and have a much larger and vocal crowd in support of them. Without you, ED, HB etc. would be out of business. Us redfor flyers used to have such a large community, but ED has done their best to drive them away from the simulator and by not selling us a single thing (except for a soviet scrapcopter), we are not getting a single wish fulfilled.

Dont be grumpy, instead embrace the situation and enjoy your maintained and extremely top-tier aircraft. Based on experience i suggest to not take it for granted.


Edited by Max1mus
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Us redfor flyers used to have such a large community, but ED has done their best to drive them away from the simulator and by not selling us a single thing (except for a soviet scrapcopter), we are not getting a single wish fulfilled.

 

 

I feel ya on this part.  I loved the Flanker and Fulcrum when I was a kid.  Got Flanker 2.5, then LO-MAC where I exclusively flew the Su-27 against my roommate in his F-15.  I was always complaining that the FBW was not modeled. Then DCS World became a thing and I picked up the Su-27 again.  Better FBW, but compared to the F-14/16/18 it might as well have still been LO-MAC modeling for systems.  I still love the Flanker, but I would love a Su-30SM contemporary of the modern BluFor jets.  Problem as I understand it is that Russia will not allow the systems documents to be released.  Same reason the Mirage 2000 is not allows to be named Mirage.  Same reason the F-14D will never happen.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

Did i read that sentence right?

PvP people (ralfidude and IASG.. forgot the name) ...

...bullying devs (podcasts, "other sim" players spamming/instigating the hoggit reddit and forums with unscientific "my missile missed" posts) ...

... after being shot down once again (ralfidude&friends crying 24/7 about their missiles in every video and in the game chat, the ones who flew back then remember) ...

... and they want specific missiles fixed (AIM-120 only) instead of waiting for the entire missile API to be done.

 

Blackpixxel & friends prove their claims with real documentation. The conflict is simply between which documents to trust more or whether to ignore documentation because it is "hand drawn" (Chizh, ED team, last year).

 

 

You should be glad that your modules and missiles are being maintained, updated and have a much larger and vocal crowd in support of them. Without you, ED, HB etc. would be out of business. Us redfor flyers used to have such a large community, but ED has done their best to drive them away from the simulator and by not selling us a single thing (except for a soviet scrapcopter), we are not getting a single wish fulfilled.

Dont be grumpy, instead embrace the situation and enjoy your maintained and extremely top-tier aircraft. Based on experience i suggest to not take it for granted.

 

Not talking about Ralfidude, who's definitely a few classes above you or Pixxel. I would be careful at using his name to justify your agenda. I understand your frustration about the apparent lack of high fidelity eastern aircraft, but things are slowly moving in that direction. You should know that when the Russian Government is not on board with whatever you're doing, it's not a good idea to oppose them. So how about you cut ED some slack? We don't need another episode like the one that happened to a certain Bohemian developer for merely taking photographs. In a Western nation, no less. I don't dare to think what happens to you in Russia if they think you're a spy.

Anyway, while I understand your frustration, trying to get the working high fidelity airframes nerfed (yes, I intentionally use that pure game balance term) is not the way to go. It's not me vs. you. You could get me on board. But there are a couple things you're doing to alienate my side of the spectrum spectacularily. First off, you're part of ONE very specific circle of guys doing this. You're a minority opinion. And you're only interested in PVP. Seems fishy to start with, but okay, nothing wrong about that. But then, when your ideas get rejected, you shift your focus in attacking Western assets and making wild claims about them being inaccurate instead. Okay, bit aggressive. But what really gets me is that all you do, every single post is aimed at elevating Eastern capabilities and reducing Western capabilities. There's not one instance where you say something like "Hey, those 120s.. they seem to guide funny, that should be fixed."

You're losing a lot of credibility by being 100% one sided. And this is where Ralfidude differs from you. He's an alrounder in that he doesn't seem to care overly much which aircraft he flies, and he has gripes about all of them in their own particular way. He and some other Youtubers are very open about their biases and when they say something, they don't make wild claims if they can't back it up.

I'm not grumpy, I'm just calling you out. I've had these discussions with Pixxel before. I've seen the Russian documents, I've looked a long time at that thread with Chizh and I've seen the reasoning behind his rebuttals. And honestly, they make sense. You screaming louder won't change that he's calling the shots. If you can't convince him, tough luck. Maybe you're just wrong. Happens to the best of us from time to time. Move on.


Edited by Slant
  • Like 3

http://www.csg-2.net/ | i7 7700k - NVIDIA 1080 - 32GB RAM | BKR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Slant said:

1. First off, you're part of ONE very specific circle of guys doing this. You're a minority opinion.

[...]

2. And you're only interested in PVP. Seems fishy to start with, but okay, nothing wrong about that.

[...]

3. But what really gets me is that all you do, every single post is aimed at elevating Eastern capabilities and reducing Western capabilities. There's not one instance where you say something like "Hey, those 120s.. they seem to guide funny, that should be fixed.

All 3 of those points are wrong, further solidifying my earlier point of your research quality lacking behind that of the people that you´re criticizing. I will explain.


1. It seems that you have not fully read my post. I will repeat the point: We are a minority opinion because ED has not sold a single russian aircraft except a 1970s soviet scrapcopter in the past years. And the modules we have are not being maintained properly with some textures, HUD filters. etc. being older than a decade.

2. Incorrect, and you would know this if you knew me better. I love PVE and it could infact be better than PVP if
a) The AI had modern chinese, indian, russian etc. units available (in some cases, this would mean just changing a few .lua lines)
b) The AI used reasonable tactics and strategy. At the moment, they do not react to TWS nails and will die to 60nm missile launches, like from the AIM-54 with a 100% chance. On ACE level.

3. Also incorrect. I have said that i completely disagree with EDs decision to add entirely random chances of missiles missing, without target input or any sort of ECM/CM used. But this is your fault. You and the hoggit community asked to have chaff made useless. A little excourse in the spoiler below.

Spoiler

(Incase) you dont know, the AMRAAM went through multiple entirely different guidance modelling logics in the past 2 years. ED has essentially experimented with different ways to shape its seeker efficiency. A simple way to put it: About 2 years ago, it had the same consistent modelling most of the other missiles in DCS still have to this day, including the ones carried by AI in your PVE missions. Then ED started giving it the special treatment. Unfortunately ED has very limited knowledge of their own simulators mechanics and the basics of BVR combat, as such the results rarely represented their actual intentions.
 
One of those times, you could straightup dodge it 10/10 times if you had your jammer enabled. Barrel roll or even just a simple break when it came close, and thats it. That was about 1.5 years ago, when it was made nearly immune to chaff, but did not have the random tracking errors it has now. That lasted multiple months, and it was actually us, the PVP community, that reported it (including my group) and got ED to revert that nonsense. Of the PVE community, nobody noticed. If i had to lay out a hypothesis: Probably because it does not occur to you if you barrel roll a 3 mile enemy AMRAAM. Yours were hitting the AI planes just fine.

 


Edited by Max1mus
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of the actual thread and the original post. Not that Heatblur cares, they do what they want.

The complaint brought up by Blackpixxel persists, the close phoenix-A is still infinitely harder to survive than a close 1970s sparrow and much harder than a 1980s/1990s sparrow. Furthermore, as Dundun pointed out earlier, Heatblur did something unknown a few months ago that made AIM-54 reaquire notching and chaffing targets constantly. Ever noticed your AIM-54 snaking back and forth every 0.5s  on a target thats attempting to notch? Thats why.

This is true for both AIM-54A and AIM-54C and the differences between the 2 in terms of tracking are tiny. Whatever seeker advancements were made on the AIM-54C are not represented in DCS. Now whether its the -C thats too bad or the -A thats too good is up to you.

There are a few other issues with the -54, like it causing a launch warning at 4-5 miles despite tracking you with its seeker since 10. Or it lofting on jamming targets, which is a two-fold issue since at the same time, the F-14 on one hand ignores DCS jamming effects but on the other hand abuses them to the max with its own jammer.

 

Not all issues are exclusive to the defending target by the way. There are issues between pilot/RIO which make most radar modes practically unusable if the ping difference is in the low 200s. There is also a way too large penalty for flying with jester. He is not capable of turning the MLC filter off, ruining your first pass shots. And he is not capable of using the active switch, which is an insane advantage since the AIM-54 will always find the target if that one is enabled. Im gonna ignore the fact that jester reliably spots all missile launches through solid metal.

I hope HB adresses all of them. But my guess is that they've already moved on to the next cash printing project. A magical 2003 plane that time traveled to 2020 and back, stole some meteor missiles and somehow attached them despite not having the software or correct radar (do its pylons even support it) for it. A truly new level of full fidelity modelling and realism. Maybe Deka Ironworks can travel to 2075, take some PL-420 interplanetary missiles and equip them on the DCS J-11A? It would make for the ultimate battle!!!


Edited by Max1mus
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

 

AI fire the phoenix only in semi active homing mode with a PDSTT lock, where its pretty comparable to a sparrow. GS doesnt seem to be aware of it here.

Always test the missiles, and do so with another player. Don't rely on some sort of empirical public server/PVE mission experience or borderline fake news videos (which unfortunately most of GS/GR content consists of).


Edited by Max1mus
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: There is no point in reasoning with either of you, @Csgo GE oh yeah and @Max1mus.

Topic closed - again. Everyone posting reasonably can thank Maximus and CSGO for it - again. We have no more time for your trolling. Both you, and especially CSGO have cost us more time than in any way reasonable. We will investigate measures to stop you both from continuing to do so on our subforums - the glass is not only full, it is pouring over. Until then this topic stays closed.

EDIT 2: Topic unlocked again, after admin actions have been taken. Please continue to discuss in a courteous manner. Thank you!


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 4

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlackPixxel said:

@IronMike Maybe you could tell us why the current CCM values are that way, especially about those two points:

 

-very little difference between the old analog 54A and the more modern digital 54C

-old 54A is doing much better than other more modern (and even digital) missiles (much lower CCM)

We have set the values to what ED told us to set them.

As for the reasoning - which we ofc bounced off of ED - is that both seekers advanced in time and got updated. The C should compare to the aim120c (although the value is set higher still) and the A close to the aim120B (and here, too, the value is set higher, which ofc means lower resistance). Unfortunately there is no intricate seeker model in DCS, that would allow to tie different seekerhead evolutions to different time periods, say through the historic date setting in the mission editor. But the same is valid for the aim120s, aim7s, or any missiles in DCS: no matter the year you want to simulate, the weapons will always perform as their most modern version of the variant's seekerhead used. Whether that will change or not we do not know and is also not up to us. 

It is also possible that currently things have changed in the missile API (to which we have no access, and thus no access to guidance at all), which makes the missile resistance to chaff behave differently and more in-depth beyond the CCM value we can set. This is why we use the value proposed by ED themselves, too. We have no further insight beyond that. Note also please that the aim54 new missile API is not fully implemented yet, and we can only go as fast as the API is being both developed and distributed to us. We've been asked to pace our own integration to ED's implementation and API overhaul, which of course aims at the bigger picture of improving all missiles across the board, not only the aim54s. In that sense we simply have to be patient atm and thus would like to ask you for your kind patience, too.


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 4

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...