The AIM-54C should be able to active on its own.

[nighthawk2174]

So something me and a few friends have been debating is whether or not the 54C has the same limitation as the 54A needing the active command from the AWG-9.  I recently found this had been posted on the forums before:

This description of the AIM-54C's inertial system could easily be copy pasted into the amraam's description.  I have some documentation on the AMRAAM and the terms used to describes its INS system are the exact same as the above terminology and description.  This just makes sense too considering the time period of the AIM-54c's electronics update coincides exactly with the amraam's late term development.  Which was done by the exact same company, Raytheon, and considering the 54c didn't have the same space limitations as the amraam I see no reason the programing already done for the amraam wouldn't have been included in the 54C upgrade; especially the electronics/ECCM upgrade done to the 54C in 1988.  Not to mention the more advanced lofting and optimal control guidance algorithms, which could explain the higher G-limit on the missile.  I find it extremely improbable that the 54C doesn't act exactly like the amraam.  As far as i'm aware anecdotal evidence says that the AIM-120A's and -54c's guidance systems are the clones of each other.  And again since the AIM-54C knows its own position in 3D space and by extension the distance from the target (or predicted target point) I see no reason it shouldn't be able to turn on its own seeker.  The reason this limit exists in the A is it does not poses this ability and relies entirely on the AWG-9.  Not to mention the above quote directly states that it "...switches on it's own radar transmitter..."

 

And while it is far from the most important factor something to consider; it would give a real reason to carry the 54C over the 54A-MK60.  It would differentiate itself with better guidance algo's, lofting algo's, CCM, and the ability to go active on its own.  The tradeoff being somewhat worse kinematics.

 

Edited August 28, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Airhunter]

Yup. Currently the 54C is the worst performer in DCS as far as guidence and lofting goes. (CCM aside). This has been brought up in the past but I don't think the developers will consider any changes without further documentation. Obviously if you could say use the same API and guidence as the 120B it would be muhc closer to the above described methods. 

[nighthawk2174]

Yes I think that it would be more accurate to just place the 54C onto the 120B's guidance, adjusting values as necessary.

[eatthis]

Interested to see what hb say about this

 

[Killshot0597]

I have a feeling Heatblur will wait for ED to finish their new missile API before making any big changes to the AIM-54.

[nighthawk2174]

4 hours ago, KIllshot0597 said:

I have a feeling Heatblur will wait for ED to finish their new missile API before making any big changes to the AIM-54.

That is a possibility, especially with the work for the more accurate INS-datalink interaction finally underway.

[near_blind]

I know devs within HB have been made aware of this document, and that someone with first hand knowledge of how the AIM-120 works explained to them what the semantics of command-inertial mean in the context of the AMRAAM, and what they likely mean in the context of an ARH missile with an IMU that shares a largely common development history with the AMRAAM. As it was relayed to me at the time, the feeling was that there wasn't enough detailed information about the -54Cs differences from the -54A, nor was there enough depth in the missile API to justify the effort to meaningfully differentiate the two. This was over a year ago, and also 2nd/3rd hand, so to be taken with grains of salt.

I would be curious if this could be reassessed now that meaningful depth has been added to the AIM-120 missile API, and now that there is a giant Meteor shaped elephant in the room (or would that be an elephant shaped Meteor? )

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 8/28/2021 at 10:25 PM, nighthawk2174 said:

since the AIM-54C knows its own position in 3D space

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist!  

[DSplayer]

On 8/31/2021 at 10:02 AM, near_blind said:

I would be curious if this could be reassessed now that meaningful depth has been added to the AIM-120 missile API, and now that there is a giant Meteor shaped elephant in the room (or would that be an elephant shaped Meteor? )

Maybe after the AIM-54 API gets updated too when that comes out. They said somewhere Late Summer or Fall iirc.

[DD_Fenrir]

It’s an interesting and seemingly reasonable hypothesis I grant you, but there’s a lot of supposition and extrapolation to get from the limited evidence presented to the conclusion. 
 

Personally, I’d like to see some more sources that confirm or corroborate before this is made a reality in DCS.

 

However, this is a good starting point to an investigation to see if the hypothesis can be proved… or otherwise.

[DSplayer]

1 minute ago, DD_Fenrir said:

It’s an interesting and seemingly reasonable hypothesis I grant you, but there’s a lot of supposition and extrapolation to get from the limited evidence presented to the conclusion. 
 

Personally, I’d like to see some more sources that confirm or corroborate before this is made a reality in DCS.

 

However, this is a good starting point to an investigation to see if the hypothesis can be proved… or otherwise.

Unfortunately similar investigations in the past have resulted in no changes thanks to lack of information. Maybe a new set of eyes thanks to the passage of time could result in something new coming up but I personally doubt anything will change.

[Kula66]

7 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

It’s an interesting and seemingly reasonable hypothesis I grant you, but there’s a lot of supposition and extrapolation to get from the limited evidence presented to the conclusion. 
 

Personally, I’d like to see some more sources that confirm or corroborate before this is made a reality in DCS.

 

However, this is a good starting point to an investigation to see if the hypothesis can be proved… or otherwise.

 

Meanwhile we 're stuck in the rather ridiculous situation where the 54C (early 90s), which we know had a steady stream of updates, has the same seeker as the 54A (mid-60s)

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by Kula66

[DSplayer]

7 hours ago, Kula66 said:

 

Meanwhile we 're stuck in the rather ridiculous situation where the 54C (early 90s), which we know had a steady stream of updates, has the same seeker as the 54A (mid-60s)

 

 

Not exactly the same but the difference is super small in the code. The ccm is a slightly better value on the C than on the A.

[Kula66]

And you feel that accurately reflects the 20 years development effort, $100s of millions spent and the revolution in digital electronics that took place over that time? Not sure I notice it myself.

With all the underlying improvements in DCS missiles going on, let's hope that once the code fully sits with ED, they will address this - I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually.

[DSplayer]

1 hour ago, Kula66 said:

And you feel that accurately reflects the 20 years development effort, $100s of millions spent and the revolution in digital electronics that took place over that time? Not sure I notice it myself.

With all the underlying improvements in DCS missiles going on, let's hope that once the code fully sits with ED, they will address this - I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually.

It doesn't accurately reflect the improvements but in terms of DCS, there is a difference but imo it obviously isn't representative of how I think the missile performed irl compared to the earlier models.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

On 9/2/2021 at 4:51 PM, Kula66 said:

 

Meanwhile we 're stuck in the rather ridiculous situation where the 54C (early 90s), which we know had a steady stream of updates, has the same seeker as the 54A (mid-60s)

 

 

It seems more to me that they simply slapped on the C-seeker onto the A variants as well though. 

So you have it backwards 

[Airhunter]

7 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

It seems more to me that they simply slapped on the C-seeker onto the A variants as well though. 

So you have it backwards 

 

It's neither an A seeker nor a C seeker, it is DCS API. So many limitations that come with it. 

[Kula66]

7 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

So you have it backwards 

Nope, it's just fine and dandy as is

Edited September 4, 2021 by Kula66

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

lol

[Naquaii]

On 8/28/2021 at 10:25 PM, nighthawk2174 said:

So something me and a few friends have been debating is whether or not the 54C has the same limitation as the 54A needing the active command from the AWG-9.  I recently found this had been posted on the forums before:

This description of the AIM-54C's inertial system could easily be copy pasted into the amraam's description.  I have some documentation on the AMRAAM and the terms used to describes its INS system are the exact same as the above terminology and description.  This just makes sense too considering the time period of the AIM-54c's electronics update coincides exactly with the amraam's late term development.  Which was done by the exact same company, Raytheon, and considering the 54c didn't have the same space limitations as the amraam I see no reason the programing already done for the amraam wouldn't have been included in the 54C upgrade; especially the electronics/ECCM upgrade done to the 54C in 1988.  Not to mention the more advanced lofting and optimal control guidance algorithms, which could explain the higher G-limit on the missile.  I find it extremely improbable that the 54C doesn't act exactly like the amraam.  As far as i'm aware anecdotal evidence says that the AIM-120A's and -54c's guidance systems are the clones of each other.  And again since the AIM-54C knows its own position in 3D space and by extension the distance from the target (or predicted target point) I see no reason it shouldn't be able to turn on its own seeker.  The reason this limit exists in the A is it does not poses this ability and relies entirely on the AWG-9.  Not to mention the above quote directly states that it "...switches on it's own radar transmitter..."

 

And while it is far from the most important factor something to consider; it would give a real reason to carry the 54C over the 54A-MK60.  It would differentiate itself with better guidance algo's, lofting algo's, CCM, and the ability to go active on its own.  The tradeoff being somewhat worse kinematics.

 

 

 

The problem is that nothing of this really say anything about the actual function you're trying to prove.

 

The same argument could be made for the AIM-54A, they could've allowed it to go active on its own but didn't. Likely due to several considerations we're not privy to. Who's to say what considerations were made for the AIM-54C?

 

Now, I'm not saying I don't believe that it could go active on it's own but we do know that the AIM-54A couldn't and we have no proof of the AIM-54C being able to do so, regardless of what we ourselves believe.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Naquaii

[Noctrach]

18 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

 

The problem is that nothing of this really say anything about the actual function you're trying to prove.

 

The same argument could be made for the AIM-54A, they could've allowed it to go active on its own but didn't. Likely due to several considerations we're not privy to. Who's to say what considerations were made for the AIM-54C?

 

Now, I'm not saying I don't believe that it could go active on it's own but we do know that the AIM-54A couldn't and we have no proof of the AIM-54C being able to do so, regardless of what we ourselves believe.

 

 

I do have to say, while I don't really mind it not going active by itself, I do find this a somewhat odd stance to take considering the AIM-54C objectively distinguishes itself by having a command-inertial guidance system. The very function of such a system is to give the missile a way to discern its position relative to the predicted target location. (Queue the missile knows where it is...) The fact the 54A does not have this means there is no reason to believe it even had any choice but to rely on the AWG-9 for its activation. Considering the rough state of inertial navigation prior to the digital era, I highly doubt a missile with analog components could've accomplish anything remotely like it without inducing mind-boggling amounts of drift.

 

I do hope that the transition to the new API will bring some other distinguishing features to the 54C in terms of guidance, kinematics and reliability.

 

I understand that there's already enough pointless debate and controversy around the Phoenix, so there's plenty reason to err on the side of conservatism. I respect your choice in that regard. However, I personally feel that its an untenable position to maintain when we're going to end up having MDBA Meteor missile, the functioning of which will rely entirely on best-guesses and fiction.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Noctrach

[TLTeo]

Just to be nitpicky - unlike the IRIS-T, the Meteor has been teased but not confirmed. It's not impossible that HB will decide not to include it until they have more info on it.

[Naquaii]

3 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

 

I do have to say, while I don't really mind it not going active by itself, I do find this a somewhat odd stance to take considering the AIM-54C objectively distinguishes itself by having a command-inertial guidance system. The very function of such a system is to give the missile a way to discern its position relative to the predicted target location. (Queue the missile knows where it is...) The fact the 54A does not have this means there is no reason to believe it even had any choice but to rely on the AWG-9 for its activation. I do hope that the transition to the new API will bring some distinguishing features to the 54C in terms of guidance, kinematics and reliability.

 

I understand that there's already enough pointless debate and controversy around the Phoenix, so there's plenty reason to err on the side of conservatism. I respect your choice in that regard. However, I personally feel that its an untenable position to maintain when we're going to end up having MDBA Meteor missile, the functioning of which will rely entirely on best-guesses and fiction.

 

 

Why does "command-inertial guidance" prove that it should go active on its own? Why is that such a magic word for you guys? There could still be very valid reasons for the missile not being allowed to go active on it's own, like I said they could've allowed the AIM-54A to do that as well, yet didn't.

 

And like I said, I wouldn't be suprised if it could go active on it's own but I've yet to see any evidence of that, including what's been posted in this thread.

[Harlikwin]

I think the easiest answer to why missiles don't go active on their own is that if you loose control of it you have no idea what its gonna lock onto in the meantime. In DCS well, no problem, in the real world much like real IFF, you don't want mr. missile just randomly locking things, so IMO, thats a big part of it.

 

[Noctrach]

16 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

 

Why does "command-inertial guidance" prove that it should go active on its own? Why is that such a magic word for you guys? There could still be very valid reasons for the missile not being allowed to go active on it's own, like I said they could've allowed the AIM-54A to do that as well, yet didn't.

 

And like I said, I wouldn't be suprised if it could go active on it's own but I've yet to see any evidence of that, including what's been posted in this thread.

I'm not saying it proves anything, but it's a pretty major distinguishing factor from the analog -A and really only serves the use-case of giving the missile a sense of spatial location. Whether this is purely for better guidance or autonomous activation I haven't a clue. Only that I think its reason to expect significant difference in the guidance performance for the -C comparative to the -A

 

If the -A relied on AWG-9 "echoes", as is rumoured, then I'd expect a more efficient flight profile for the -C.

 

17 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Just to be nitpicky - unlike the IRIS-T, the Meteor has been teased but not confirmed. It's not impossible that HB will decide not to include it until they have more info on it.

Fair point I guess, though similar arguments can (and imo should) be made for the IRIS-T and AIM-9X Though the latter is ofc at ED's discretion.

I guess my point is that weapons are so damn classified that asking for proof is kinda silly. I don't mind if they're implemented as a "within the realm of reason best approximation". That's the best you'll ever get anyway.

 

The only thing we know is that the 54C was a much more advanced missile than the 54A. In-game it really isn't.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Noctrach