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

[Kula66]

3 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

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.

 

You mean, just like it does now when you fire it in PAL mode?

[KlarSnow]

Because that is a key term in how AMRAAM works. If you are familiar with AMRAAM and how it works, the terminology is used in exactly the same manner in the references up there. Those terms are not thrown about lightly.

 

The unrealistic thing with the AIM-54C is how it isn’t really a choice currently in game. And most people go with the IRL inferior missile. Best guesses are plenty fine, especially if it results in more realistic differentiation between weapons. It would be better at this point to just remove it and just have the A, rather than have it be an almost objectively worse option. 

 

If you aren’t going to at least make the anecdotal evidence of the AIM-54C being the best version of the Phoenix somehow true in game, I’d argue you have a far more inaccurate representation than just systems and switchology.

 

Phoenixes of all types are already banned or limited in all the competitive servers where this kind of slavish attention to every little detail is flayed to within an inch of its life. It’s not like making a mildly speculative, but based on limited evidence better version of the missile will change that. But it will allow those of us who don’t care about that kind of competitive gameplay to use a more realistic and effective weapon.

 

Informed Best guesses often come much closer to reality than many would like to think.

[Noctrach]

26 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

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.

 

This has been discussed multiple times on this forum tbh, the discretion on not hitting targets that should not be hit is entirely down to the crew firing with positive target identification and clear avenue of fire.

 

The idea that e.g. SARH missiles are incapable of "randomly locking things" is just inaccurate. Radar locks aren't laser beams and tracks merge all the time.

If that was a consideration, AMRAAM simply wouldn't exist.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Noctrach

[near_blind]

18 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

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.

 

Could they have though, in a meaningful way? My understanding is that the AIM-54 does not have an understanding of it's own position, or the position of the target. It performs a pre-planned fly out maneuver, and then approaches the target first off directive instructions from the radar, then SARH guidance, then ownship ARH guidance. If that is correct I don't see how the A could do an own ship activation beyond a simple timer: all state calculation of the positional state of the missile and target are calculated or estimated by the AWG-9 and broadcast to the missile. 

Compare that to the AIM-120 (and proposed behavior of the C). The AIM-120 is passed the predicted position (and state) of the target, and is aware of its own position relative to that location. It will fly out to that location and go active at the appropriate distance. Updates to the target's position and state are passed to the missile and the missile will update the predicted intercept point and how it needs to maneuver to achieve that intercept. If the launching platform ceases updating the target information (dead, lost, turned around), then the missile will still fly to the last known target position. 

 

The reason people seize on command-inertial and the addition of an IMU and digital computer is that these additions fit with the idea of the missile being more closely aligned with the AIM-120 system of control than the AIM-54A system of control.

 

If we have to guess on how the AIM-54C works, asserting that it works like the AIM-54A is just as much a guess as asserting it works like an AIM-120A. Why choose the most conservative option which provides the end user the least variety in weapons options and provides no great incentive to choose anything but the longest stick? Why this high a bar of evidence for the AIM-54 compared to say, an SD-10, or a Meteor?

[Naquaii]

3 minutes ago, near_blind said:

 

Could they have though, in a meaningful way? My understanding is that the AIM-54 does not have an understanding of it's own position, or the position of the target. It performs a pre-planned fly out maneuver, and then approaches the target first off directive instructions from the radar, then SARH guidance, then ownship ARH guidance. If that is correct I don't see how the A could do an own ship activation beyond a simple timer: all state calculation of the positional state of the missile and target are calculated or estimated by the AWG-9 and broadcast to the missile. 

Compare that to the AIM-120 (and proposed behavior of the C). The AIM-120 is passed the predicted position (and state) of the target, and is aware of its own position relative to that location. It will fly out to that location and go active at the appropriate distance. Updates to the target's position and state are passed to the missile and the missile will update the predicted intercept point and how it needs to maneuver to achieve that intercept. If the launching platform ceases updating the target information (dead, lost, turned around), then the missile will still fly to the last known target position. 

 

The reason people seize on command-inertial and the addition of an IMU and digital computer is that these additions fit with the idea of the missile being more closely aligned with the AIM-120 system of control than the AIM-54A system of control.

 

If we have to guess on how the AIM-54C works, asserting that it works like the AIM-54A is just as much a guess as asserting it works like an AIM-120A. Why choose the most conservative option which provides the end user the least variety in weapons options and provides no great incentive to choose anything but the longest stick? Why this high a bar of evidence for the AIM-54 compared to say, an SD-10, or a Meteor?

 

Except that we know more about the AIM-54A than the AIM-120 frankly.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Naquaii

[near_blind]

3 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

 

Except that we know more about the AIM-54A than the AIM-120 frankly.

 

That's excellent for our AIM-54A variants, but the AIM-54C is not an AIM-54A.

 

Would you design an AIM-7M off the documents for an AIM-7E? How would you rectify digital versus analogue? Conscan versus inverse monopulse? Physically versus digitally set manuever gain limitations?

[Noctrach]

But even then we're still talking guesswork in terms of actual operational characteristics such as doppler gates, guidance laws, seeker sensitivity, etc. etc.

All we know is roughly how the guidance mechanism worked, a bunch of kinetic information based on test shots and the workings of the AWG-9.

 

Considering the volume of second-hand information on AMRAAM from manuals like the F-16CJ-34 and real world shoot-downs, I kinda disagree with the statement.

The AIM-120 has a more tangible performance record than the Phoenix ever would, considering it was never really used.

 

It's all approximations in the end.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Noctrach

[Naquaii]

Just now, near_blind said:

That's excellent for our AIM-54A variants, but the AIM-54C is not an AIM-54A.

 

Would you design an AIM-7M off the documents for an AIM-7E? How would you rectify digital versus analogue? Conscan versus inverse monopulse? Physically versus digitally set manuever gain limitations?

 

It's not much of a leap of faith that it would share a lot with the AIM-54A. What you're saying would be like designing an AIM-7M of off a totally different missile.

1 minute ago, Noctrach said:

But even then we're still talking guesswork in terms of actual operational characteristics such as doppler gates, guidance laws, seeker sensitivity, etc. etc.

All we know is roughly how the guidance mechanism worked, a bunch of kinetic information based on test shots and the workings of the AWG-9.

 

Considering the volume of second-hand information on AMRAAM from manuals like the F-16CJ-34 and real world shoot-downs, I kinda disagree with the statement.

The AIM-120 has a more tangible performance record than the Phoenix ever would, considering it was never really used.

 

It's all approximations in the end.

 

Now you're just assuming what we've based our AIM-54A off of.

[Noctrach]

Just now, Naquaii said:

 

Now you're just assuming what we've based our AIM-54A off of.

Simply going by the whitepaper

[Naquaii]

1 minute ago, Noctrach said:

Simply going by the whitepaper

Which is one of our sources yes.

[Noctrach]

The point still stands that the single defining feature that overlaps suspiciously with other known technology does not seem to be enough to prevent the 54C from being simulated as an inferior missile to the 54A-Mk60 in the sim. Personally, I disagree with this decision.

[Airhunter]

By this logic, if you guys know nothing about the 54C then why is it in the game? The are various reports and evals. done by the navy which state its sometimes 4x fold increase in capability and more range (probably due to said command inertial guidence and said on board INS) compared to the 54A. It is at the point where our in-game AIM54A's show up as 54C's (texture wise). While adjusting ccm values in game for the C is probably one reasonabe option it's still not a true representation of what is described in various places and reports. Also you guys requesting exact evidence in the form of weapon manuals is basically asking for something you'll probably never get and ignoring the publicaly available information that we have (hence this thread). If you have 0 documentation on the 54C why ask for counter-evidence for the information we already have rather than accept it and make some educated guesses based on these sources and the fact that it's Raytheon. Because right now there is even less evidence and documentation for how the 54C is behaving in the game. It even lofts way lower than the 54A as of right now.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Airhunter

[near_blind]

8 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

It's not much of a leap of faith that it would share a lot with the AIM-54A. What you're saying would be like designing an AIM-7M of off a totally different missile.

Because for all intents and purposes, the AIM-7 contemporaneous to the AIM-54C is a totally different missile compared to the AIM-7 contemporaneous to the AIM-54A. Just like the AIM-9L to the AIM-9B.

 

 

[Airhunter]

[Naquaii]

14 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

By this logic, if you guys know nothing about the 54C then why is it in the game? The are various reports and evals. done by the navy which state its sometimes 4x fold increase in capability and more range (probably due to said command inertial guidence and said on board INS) compared to the 54A. It is at the point where our in-game AIM54A's show up as 54C's (texture wise). While adjusting ccm values in game for the C is probably one reasonabe option it's still not a true representation of what is described in various places and reports. Also you guys requesting exact evidence in the form of weapon manuals is basically asking for something you'll probably never get and ignoring the publicaly available information that we have (hence this thread). If you have 0 documentation on the 54C why ask for counter-evidence for the information we already have rather than accept it and make some educated guesses based on these sources and the fact that it's Raytheon. Because right now there is even less evidence and documentation for how the 54C is behaving in the game. It even lofts way lower than the 54A as of right now.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

This basically just says that the AIM-54C is more accurate than the AIM-54A, not that it could/will go active on it's own volition.

And I'm not saying we don't have any info on the AIM-54C at all, just less. But that doesn't mean that we're going to change how it functions from vague information on the Internet that doesn't even say what you're trying to prove.

 

I do agree that the current AIM-54C in DCS isn't good enough to make it as viable an alternative to the AIM-54A as we'd like. One part being that the countermeasure resistance is too crude of a value that can be countered by just dumping more chaff currently and another that there's not really a way to model the guidance and seekerhead advantages as it is in DCS. At least not in the old missile modelling.

 

We're hoping that we'll be able to make the AIM-54C a more given upgrade over the -54A with the new missile modelling but as it is having it go active on it's own isn't one of those advantages. At least for now. And reposting information talking about the "command-intertial" capability of the AIM-54C isn't going to change our mind as it is. This is info we've already known about for quite a while.

 

 

[Airhunter]

16 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

 

This basically just says that the AIM-54C is more accurate than the AIM-54A, not that it could/will go active on it's own volition.

And I'm not saying we don't have any info on the AIM-54C at all, just less. But that doesn't mean that we're going to change how it functions from vague information on the Internet that doesn't even say what you're trying to prove.

 

I do agree that the current AIM-54C in DCS isn't good enough to make it as viable an alternative to the AIM-54A as we'd like. One part being that the countermeasure resistance is too crude of a value that can be countered by just dumping more chaff currently and another that there's not really a way to model the guidance and seekerhead advantages as it is in DCS. At least not in the old missile modelling.

 

We're hoping that we'll be able to make the AIM-54C a more given upgrade over the -54A with the new missile modelling but as it is having it go active on it's own isn't one of those advantages. At least for now. And reposting information talking about the "command-intertial" capability of the AIM-54C isn't going to change our mind as it is. This is info we've already known about for quite a while.

 

 

 

Well, if you at least listen to Klarsnow (not me, as I don't work in the military nor know any specifics) you'd understand that command/inertial indeed describes the very way an AMRAAM or any modern Fox-3 missile behaves. Command/Inertial is not mentioned with regards to the AIM-54A or a Fox-1 as far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong). Having a strap-down INS really comes down to the missile knowing where it is in space and with relation to the target track as well as having memory for when the command phase might be lost or broken (loss of radar support). According to the same report the 54C seeker and guidence & control system had a programmable database and target parameters, which stems from the more digital nature of said missile. It had a higher max. ceiling than the 54A and could allegedly go Mach 5+ for this very reason. The new seeker as well as the mention of better dealing with cluster as well as beaming targets probably implies some sort of PRF change (possible MPRF like in the AMRAAM) or being programmable for specific target parameters as mentioned bfore. Furthermore the 54C did not havy any space restrictions like the AMRAAM did and a much bigger seeker as well as contrl & guidence section. The only anecdotal part of this discussion is how the 54C is legitimately worse  in your simultion than the 54A (especially Mk60 engine kinematics wise), since the ccm does not really matter that much in DCS (spam more chaff to get a new roll of the dice). 

Should you be able to find and share a reference to the 54A having command/inertial guidence as well then that would be a legitimate proof of us being in the wrong here.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Airhunter

[Naquaii]

7 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

Well, if you at least listen to Klarsnow (not me, as I don't work in the military nor know any specifics) you'd understand that command/inertial indeed describes the very way an AMRAAM or any modern Fox-3 missile behaves. Command/Inertial is not mentioned with regards to the AIM-54A or a Fox-1 as far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong). Having a strap-down INS really comes down to the missile knowing where it is in space and with relation to the target track as well as having memory for when the command phase might be lost or broken (loss of radar support). According to the same report the 54C seeker and guidence & control system had a programmable database and target parameters, which stems from the more digital nature of said missile. It had a higher max. ceiling than the 54A and could allegedly go Mach 5+ for this very reason. The new seeker as well as the mention of better dealing with cluster as well as beaming targets probably implies some sort of PRF change (possible MPRF like in the AMRAAM) or being programmable for specific target parameters as mentioned bfore. The only anecdotal part of this discussion is how the 54C is legitimately worse  in your simultion than the 54A (especially Mk60 engine kinematics wise), since the ccm does not really matter that much in DCS (spam more chaff to get a new roll of the dice). 

Should you be able to find and share a reference to the 54A having command/inertial guidence as well then that would be a legitimate proof of us being in the wrong here.

 I am a weapons engineering officer myself, thanks.

 

I know very well what command inertial means and just waving that term around still doesn't prove anything and if that's your whole line of reasoning we might as well stop here. At least I will.

 

That a missile has a command/inertial function does not prove much about how it's seeker work or what logic guides it's functionality. You might be able to infer things about it but that's the limit and also the problem here really. You guys are inferring stuff about the AIM-54C that you can't prove.

 

And that said, it's you guys that are claiming functionality here that you can't prove and that doesn't really change whether or not I can prove details about the -54A to you.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Naquaii

[nighthawk2174]

47 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

 I am a weapons engineering officer myself, thanks.

 

I know very well what command inertial means and just waving that term around still doesn't prove anything and if that's your whole line of reasoning we might as well stop here. At least I will.

 

That a missile has a command/inertial function does not prove much about how it's seeker work or what logic guides it's functionality. You might be able to infer things about it but that's the limit and also the problem here really. You guys are inferring stuff about the AIM-54C that you can't prove.

 

And that said, it's you guys that are claiming functionality here that you can't prove and that doesn't really change whether or not I can prove details about the -54A to you.

 

I'm sorry but the fact that it outright states that the functionality of the inertial system was incorporated onto the 120 should be more than enough.  As has been said terms like strap-down inertial guidance are used to describe very specific functionality.  And we know that this system allows the amraam to go active on its own and that this system was also added to the 54C.  This should be more than enough secondary sources to show that the 54C has at a minimum a high probability that it acts like the AIM-120A.  Which should be enough to change its behavior, exact documentation on the 54C is not going to show up for a while, and you guys know that.  So you have to make best gueses based on what we do have and all that we have points towards functionality mimicking the 120A, such as new lofting, optimal control, active by itself, and probably MPRF.  

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Naquaii]

13 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

I'm sorry but the fact that it outright states that the functionality of the inertial system was incorporated onto the 120 should be more than enough.  As has been said terms like strap-down inertial guidance are used to describe very specific functionality.  And we know that this system allows the amraam to go active on its own and that this system was also added to the 54C.  This should be more than enough secondary sources to show that the 54C has at a minimum a high probability that it acts like the AIM-120A.  Which should be enough to change its behavior, exact documentation on the 54C is not going to show up for a while, and you guys know that.  So you have to make best gueses based on what we do have and all that we have points towards functionality mimicking the 120A, such as new lofting, optimal control, active by itself, and probably MPRF.  

 

 

No, once again you're assuming things that you can't prove. A lot of military systems have strap-down inertial systems, that fact does not equal 100% that they can go active on their own or that they're ARH-missiles for that matter. Do you have any sources proving this is the reason the AMRAAM can do this?

[KenobiOrder]

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

 I am a weapons engineering officer myself, thanks.

 

I know very well what command inertial means and just waving that term around still doesn't prove anything and if that's your whole line of reasoning we might as well stop here. At least I will.

 

That a missile has a command/inertial function does not prove much about how it's seeker work or what logic guides it's functionality. You might be able to infer things about it but that's the limit and also the problem here really. You guys are inferring stuff about the AIM-54C that you can't prove.

 

And that said, it's you guys that are claiming functionality here that you can't prove and that doesn't really change whether or not I can prove details about the -54A to you.

 

Basically what Klarsnow said. These modules are at some point guesswork anyhow. Informed best guesses are better than nerfing a weapon simply because we cant prove it definitely. Should all the missiles have garbage guidance logic , by which i mean in DCS in general and not aim54, simply because we dont have descriptions of their guidance logic? Clearly no, and what ED is doing with the aim7 and aim-120 is essentially making the best guess we have instead of restricting the missiles to PN only 1960s guidance.

 

Command inertial is not some general term. Its specific US nomenclature for a kind of functionality. Generally when the military uses a term like that, it tends to apply broadly to certain specific capabilities.

 

Pretty sure you dont have logic diagrams and other data for the inner workings of the AWG-9 or 54A. So those are ultimately guesses as well.

 

Command Inertial is a term used as part of the "normal" mode the aim-120.

Edited September 5, 2021 by KenobiOrder

[Naquaii]

2 minutes ago, KenobiOrder said:

Basically what Klarsnow said. These modules are at some point guesswork anyhow. Informed best guesses are better than nerfing a weapon simply because we cant prove it definitely. Should all the missiles have garbage guidance logic , by which i mean in DCS in general and not aim54, simply because we dont have descriptions of their guidance logic? Clearly no, and what ED is doing with the aim7 and aim-120 is essentially making the best guess we have instead of restricting the missiles to PN only 1960s guidance.

 

Command inertial is not some general term. Its specific US nomenclature for a kind of functionality. Generally when the military uses a term like that, it tends to apply broadly to certain specific capabilities.

 

Pretty sure you dont have logic diagrams and other data for the inner workings of the AWG-9 or 54A. So those are ultimately guesses as well.

 

You're ofc free to believe whatever you wish and discussing what can or can't be modelled in DCS also does not really change this, at least for me. As far as I'm concerned I'm done with this discussion unless you guys find any new evidence.

[Jayhawk1971]

@Naquaii While most of us really (!) appreciate your dedication to realism and "getting it right", I assume a lot of us don't really care about the ultimate, hardcore "proof" that much, because if each and every developer over the past decades (personally I have been "active" since 1984 and Microprose's "F-15 Strike Eagle") had stuck to that concept as religiously, we would only have had WWI, WWII and maybe Korean War simulation games. Some wiggle room is always necessary when trying to simulate more modern stuff in a non-classified environment.

 

Most of us would be happy if you'd just make the weapon systems perform as close as you feel it would in real life (without compromising real-world data to the bad guys) while striking a good balance with regards to gameplay. Sometimes making an educated guess is quite alright, and from what I have experienced with this module so far, I trust your educated guesses would be more than adequate (= very good).

 

Please keep in mind that "at the end of the day" (= 500 points worth in marketing phrase bullshit bingo  ) you are in this case developing for PC gamers and not for a defense contractor.

 

Lastly, IMO this discussion is not at all meant to be antagonistic towards you and/ or HB, but simply customers as passionate as you about the module stating what they would like to have WRT the Phoenix.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Jayhawk1971

[Airhunter]

Exactly, at some point ALL or most DCS weapons are guesswork, especially the AMRAAM as most of what is known about it is either based on some old HUD footage, general missile guidence algo's or simply other sims which shall not be named. 

 

So what kind of evidence and proof outside of the actual weapons and employment manuals or logic diagrams (which we'll never see) would be needed to get this straight? Or why does said developer feel such resistance to these suggestions? Does he feel having the 54C behave and guide exactly like the A is more realistic despite said evidence or reports of improvements in guidence? An educated guess on new data is just as much if not less of a guess as the C behaving like an A which there is also 0 evidence for. And again it is pretty anecdotal and laughable if you claim to have some accurate simulation of both Phoenix variants yet the C underperforms in amost all aspects compared to the A in your simulation of it. 
No one here is claiming to know some secret and be in the know on how it should perform but these reports at least indicate a similarity to the 120A, especially given no space restrictions - same manufacturer, roughly the same era. I think 20 some years of development and improvement should at least make one or two leaps in certain areas. Not to mention if you asked former crew about what missile they would rather take into combat all of them say 54C no doubt.
So again, I don't understand some choices that were made at HB. Why have the 54C in the game alltogether if there is no data available on it apart from the usual CFD treatment the entire 54 family has gotten (even though the 54A has a slightly different geometry and weight)? I'd be at least happy if we could get proper, white AIM-54A textures to visually differentiate the two like you can with most munitions and missiles in DCS. Especially now that the 54C is pretty much made up and a worse A. This isn't some attack or jab at the developer or Heatblur, I just genuinely don't understand the logic behind this. To me it sounds like "We have made the choice/guess early in the development to make the 54C behave just like the A but somehow be worse, and are now just sticking with it because we don't have further hard data and documentation despite some reports and indications that came up along the road that indicate certain differences".  

 

At this point I'm not even saying or sticking with the fact that it should go active on its own but it should at least have the well documented higher ceiling, smoother guidence and reach Mach 5+ due to said higher ceiling. In short, be a better choice than the 54A in almost all scenarios. This should be the goal no matter how it's achieved. 

Edited September 5, 2021 by Airhunter

[TLTeo]

I'm amazed we now have a thread complaining that the Phoenix isn't good enough. We really have gone full circle.

On a more serious note, there are a lot of things that in DCS can't be simulated well enough to represent relative performace - EW being the big one. We have jammers on the Fishbed, Viggen, Warthog and Harrier that all perform perfectly identically to each other, which is much, much less realistic than the details of the Phoenix variants' guidance. It is entirely possible that what sets the -C apart from the -A would show up with a better EW model, and that until that's happens DCS just can't capture those details. Until then we may be stuck with just a slightly lower value in a .lua file.

 

Personally I don't particularly care either way, but it's just worth remembering how simplistic a lot of this stuff really is under the hood.

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Kula66 said:

You mean, just like it does now when you fire it in PAL mode?

 

I mean if you are basically WVR and committed to it I'd assume IFF has been done by the pilot. Aside from of course the classic DCS asshole that lobs fox3s into furballs. 

5 hours ago, Noctrach said:

This has been discussed multiple times on this forum tbh, the discretion on not hitting targets that should not be hit is entirely down to the crew firing with positive target identification and clear avenue of fire.

 

The idea that e.g. SARH missiles are incapable of "randomly locking things" is just inaccurate. Radar locks aren't laser beams and tracks merge all the time.

If that was a consideration, AMRAAM simply wouldn't exist.

 

 

So we are agreed?