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

[Lurker]

19 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

To be fair, Naquaii really does have a point that it doesn't prove anything by itself. What it should do at least is render the -C much better capable to determine proper loft/intercept parameters, which would benefit terminal energy and lethality. However, I can imagine that this is impossible to represent on the old missile API where they have zero control over anything beyond initial launch parameters.

 

 

Yeah, educated guesses is not how I would like them to model anything really either. Fact of the matter is that "What it should do..." is in the air. If we don't know what it does, and Heatblur don't know what it does, then anything they decide to change or add is basically guess work anyway? 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Lurker

[BIGNEWY]

please stay on topic and treat each other with respect. 

 

thanks

[QuiGon]

16 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Yeah, educated guesses is not how I would like them to model anything really either. Fact of the matter is that "What it should do..." is in the air. If we don't know what it does, and Heatblur don't know what it does, then anything they decide to change or add is basically guess work anyway?

 

That's why they modeled the 54C similar to the 54A, as they have much more data on the A. If there is something that works different in the C compared to the A, then this needs data/proof. As there is no such data/proof in regards to the missile going active on its own, HB decided to keep it the way the A works which they have data for. It's as simple as that. If you say that is also too much guesswork, then I guess HB should remove the C entirely and only keep the A, which they have more data for. I also don't like guesswork, so I think removing the C would be a good solution. It's a better solution at least than giving it features that we have no data/proof for.

Edited September 6, 2021 by QuiGon

[Lurker]

Just now, QuiGon said:

 

That's why they modeled the 54C similar to the 54A, as they have much more data on the A. If there is something that works different in the C compared to the A, then this needs data/proof. As there is no such data/proof in regards to the missile going active on its own, HB decided to keep it the way the A works which they have data for. It's as simple as that. If you say that is also too much guesswork, then I guess HB should remove the C entirely and only keep the A, which they have more data for.

 

Well they do know that the C version has the smokeless motor, so if nothing else that leaves merit for it to be included. To me that's not an insignificant difference. 

[Airhunter]

30 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

@Lurker

You don't think the A version is overperforming ? You can say that with a straight face ?

It's an honest question. 
But it gets swept away with smirky comments like "nah everything is fine and dandy (wink wink grin grin)

As for my second question, the term "advanced" in AMRAAM , i'm just guessing here but they didn't just make that up to make the aim120 sound cooler or did they ?

Why is every comment that is not "please make phoenix even better" brushed away as "non constructive" in this subforum? 
 It may not be constructive to your goals but that does not mean it doesn't add to the converstation. 

 

 

Hearblur has documentation and logic diagrams on the A. It does not overperform by DCS standards. The R-27 family is also fully analogue. Your comments on the AMRAAM could be made by a 12 year old at this point and you have no idea what you are talking about. Advanced is neither a techical nor scientific term describing anything it is purely there for marketing as the acronym AMRAAM sounded good for the polticians. However we know for a fact that the C and 120A share a lot of components (documented by the same part/unit designation). Not to mention that both were developed by Raytheon roughly during the same timeframe. Why reinvent the wheel for each project so to speak. 

[QuiGon]

3 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Well they do know that the C version has the smokeless motor, so if nothing else that leaves merit for it to be included. To me that's not an insignificant difference. 

 

Indeed, that is known about the C, as well as the improved ECM resistance. Both is modeled and warrants having the C indeed. I'm glad HB doesn't give it any features, that are purely based on speculation/guesswork though.

Edited September 6, 2021 by QuiGon

[Airhunter]

5 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

Indeed, that is known about the C, as well as the improved ECM resistance. Both is modeled and warrants having the C indeed. I'm glad HB doesn't give it any features, that are purely based on speculation/guesswork though.

 

 

There is no improved ECM resistance or even such a thing in DCS. Motor is also reduced smoke and not entirely smokeless (as it should be). Have you even read some of the document excerpts in this thread?

Edited September 6, 2021 by Airhunter

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

27 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

Hearblur has documentation and logic diagrams on the A. It does not overperform by DCS standards. The R-27 family is also fully analogue. Your comments on the AMRAAM could be made by a 12 year old at this point and you have no idea what you are talking about. Advanced is neither a techical nor scientific term describing anything it is purely there for marketing as the acronym AMRAAM sounded good for the polticians. However we know for a fact that the C and 120A share a lot of components (documented by the same part/unit designation). Not to mention that both were developed by Raytheon roughly during the same timeframe. Why reinvent the wheel for each project so to speak. 

The MK60 analog seeker does not overperform 'by DCS standards' in your opinion ? 

I'm trying to figure out if you're trying to be sarcastic or not. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Airhunter]

Just now, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

The MK60 analog seeker does not overperform by DCS standards in your opinion ? 

I'm trying to figure out if you're trying to be sarcastic or not. 

 

It's not my opinion. It's the exact same seeker as on the 54A Mk.47 and probably the easiest missiles in DCS to beat and spoof if you know what you are doing. 

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

That is such utter nonsense. Have you even flown online lately ? Like at all ? 
AIm 120c  is way easier to notch than even the ancient MK60 with it's analog seeker. 

[Harlikwin]

9 hours ago, Kula66 said:

 

With PAL at 10-15 miles, you can easily lock a bandit, fire and the 54 will happily race after a nearer friendly, as I understand it (and evidence confirms) it's maddog off the rail! So the argument, that they wouldn't design a system that could potentially lock a friendly accidentally by going active itself, doesn't really hold any water or the current PH ACT implementation is wrong too.

 

 

Dunno about the PH ACT being wrong (whats wrong with it?)

 

And yes of course in that instance it could lock a friendly, the point is a well trained pilot isn't gonna shoot it like that under those circumstances, real world ROE and all that. The US was VERY skittish about BVR combat in VN and well into the 80's (look at libya). 

 

And thats the point of having the manual PH ACT switch (or was back then), if the missile got "lost" for some reason someone felt like it was better that it fall dead in the ocean instead of turning on as a failsafe. 

 

I have no idea what the case is there for the C, if it is more AAMRAM like, I'd guess then its plausible it can go active on its own, but if HB is unclear on it or doesn't have docs, well not much we can do aside from find those docs to clear it up.

 

[Airhunter]

41 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

That is such utter nonsense. Have you even flown online lately ? Like at all ? 
AIm 120c  is way easier to notch than even the ancient MK60 with it's analog seeker. 

 

If all you are getting your opinion from is "flying online" then this is the end of our discussion. And no I have not lately if you are wondering. The only thing that changed as of recent with the API is the increased chaff resistance and ability to re-acquire in the terminal phase. Specifically for you I will do some tests with a friend of mine, him in the 14 chucking 6 Aim-54A Mk. 60's at me and me defeating 95+ % of them in say a Mig-21 or 29. Tacviews and videos to follow. Again, DCS and missile modeling is not based around airquake or some very small competitive scene who are all screeching like little children.

6 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Dunno about the PH ACT being wrong (whats wrong with it?)

 

And yes of course in that instance it could lock a friendly, the point is a well trained pilot isn't gonna shoot it like that under those circumstances, real world ROE and all that. The US was VERY skittish about BVR combat in VN and well into the 80's (look at libya). 

 

And thats the point of having the manual PH ACT switch (or was back then), if the missile got "lost" for some reason someone felt like it was better that it fall dead in the ocean instead of turning on as a failsafe. 

 

I have no idea what the case is there for the C, if it is more AAMRAM like, I'd guess then its plausible it can go active on its own, but if HB is unclear on it or doesn't have docs, well not much we can do aside from find those docs to clear it up.

 

 

This is not what PH ACT does. PH ACT simply commands the missile active off the rail in PD modes (no loft) but as far as I understood still SARH mid-course as long as there is a lock, latter of which is missing in DCS.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Airhunter

[Kula66]

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Dunno about the PH ACT being wrong (whats wrong with it?)

 

 

I didn't say it WAS wrong .. you said they'd never design a system that created a missile that went active by itself, and I pointed out that they already had done and it was called PAL (functionally the same as PH ACT). Then a question: or is the current PAL/PH ACT implementation wrong too?

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, Kula66 said:

 

I didn't say it WAS wrong .. you said they'd never design a system that created a missile that went active by itself, and I pointed out that they already had done and it was called PAL (functionally the same as PH ACT). Then a question: or is the current PAL/PH ACT implementation wrong too?

 

I merely pointed out that in various modes the Phoenix didn't go active by itself for long range shots. And in some modes it clearly does. Really I think the point is that the Phoenix relied heavily on the "meat servo" back in the day.  More modern missiles like the AAMRAAM clearly don't have that "feature/limitation". Or maybe there is some range safety command we are missing on the AAMRAM. 

 

[Noctrach]

18 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

This is not what PH ACT does. PH ACT simply commands the missile active off the rail in PD modes (no loft) but as far as I understood still SARH mid-course as long as there is a lock, latter of which is missing in DCS.

Yup, it just gives the missile the necessary targeting information (doppler gates, azimuth, etc) and then it's active off the rail. It has nothing to do with activating the missile mid-flight or whatever other things people come up with.

The second part I'm not 100% sure, depends on whether the AIM-54 would be able to fall back on SARH guidance when active or not.

 

PAL is a pulse mode that can't guide the Phoenix, so it does something similar. "You're looking for this kinda thingy in this direction, now off you go"

It's like a well-educated maddog shot.

 

Then you have BRSIT which is literally just "Yo Phoenix, good luck :D"

 

None of these modes would be a thing if target safety was a design concern

Edited September 6, 2021 by Noctrach

[Airhunter]

4 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I merely pointed out that in various modes the Phoenix didn't go active by itself for long range shots. And in some modes it clearly does. Really I think the point is that the Phoenix relied heavily on the "meat servo" back in the day.  More modern missiles like the AAMRAAM clearly don't have that "feature/limitation". Or maybe there is some range safety command we are missing on the AAMRAM. 

 

 

Now you are just making up theories in your own head. This is never a consideration or concern. 

 

2 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

Yup, it just gives the missile the necessary targeting information (doppler gates, azimuth, etc) and then it's active off the rail. It has nothing to do with activating the missile mid-flight or whatever other things people come up with.

 

The second part I'm not 100% sure, depends on whether the AIM-54 would be able to fall back on SARH guidance when active or not.

 

Not sure about the latter either I just remember someone (I think IronMike) posting the correct behavior of the missile in various modes and mentioning this. But being the same as in P-STT would also make sense. 

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

15 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

If all you are getting your opinion from is "flying online" then this is the end of our discussion. And no I have not lately if you are wondering. The only thing that changed as of recent with the API is the increased chaff resistance and ability to re-acquire in the terminal phase. Specifically for you I will do some tests with a friend of mine, him in the 14 chucking 6 Aim-54A Mk. 60's at me and me defeating 95+ % of them in say a Mig-21 or 29. Tacviews and videos to follow. Again, DCS and missile modeling is not based around airquake or some very small competitive scene who are all screeching like little children.

 

This is not what PH ACT does. PH ACT simply commands the missile active off the rail in PD modes (no loft) but as far as I understood still SARH mid-course as long as there is a lock, latter of which is missing in DCS.

 

Well you should try it an an 'actual' scenario every once in a while maybe. 

Anyway, looking forward to you breaking the A.I's  F14-STT locks instead of notching an active phoenix -_- 
Or succeeding 1 out of 10 times vs your friend .  
 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Airhunter]

3 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Well you should try it an an 'actual' scenario every once in a while maybe. 

Anyway, looking forward to you breaking the A.I's  F14-STT locks instead of notching an active phoenix -_- 
Or succeeding 1 out of 10 times vs your friend .  
 

 

 

This will not be against AI but a player vs. player setup, BVR start at 35k feet. 

[TLTeo]

Just a quick reminder that engaging with csgo about the Phoenix is a waste of time. The concept of objective reality doesn't work on the guy.

 

30 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

as far as I understood still SARH mid-course as long as there is a lock, latter of which is missing in DCS

Uh, I didn't know this bit. Should this apply to shots with the ACM cover up too?

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

The irony is really strong. ^^ I find it dishartening that you can not see that. 

This missile with so much drama around it already , for years. Banned from most competitions. 
But yet another thread asking for
- "just give this" ,
- "but it could have maybe" ,
-  "just make stuff up please" (as long as it in F14 favor)

You honestly believe that an analog 1960's missile should have a seeker that is better than the aim120 C , almost impervious to chaff and notch ? 
Honestly ?? 

The MK60 seeker should perform way worse than even the AIM54-C. 

 

But instead, you want the aim54-C to perform way better than the already way overperforming MK60 seeker.
It just never ends with you guys. You lack even the slightest amount of self-reflecting ability. 

p.s:
If HB wants to make some sort of "offline" phoenix i would not care at all.
But for the love of god let them please fix REAL existing issues with these missiles first before making them 'go active on their own'. 
Besides don't they already go active on HELD tracks since recently ?

When is it enough ?

If you struggle to get kills online in your F14 i will help you:

Just fire in that 'straight away active' mode. You'll be at 15nm, still way out of reach of any other missile.
99% chance of a hit because notching/chaffing them is very impossible. Half of the time your RWR warning will diseappear for 5 seconds and then suddenly you still go boom and find out the missile was tracking all the time. 

 

Your 80nm shots though, yes people are starting to learn to notch the F14 radar so forget about that. 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Airhunter]

18 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Remember every thing that gets added means more frustration online. 
 

 

 

For you. Not for others or people who know how to counter it. I have been flying against the 14 online since the Tomcat came out and never had any issues dealing with them and their missiles. And again, please give me a day or two to run said tests and show you hard, up to date evidence.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Airhunter

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

What just go on any server and come back with an HONEST opinion on notching ACTIVE phoenixes. 

MK60 or MK47 doesn't matter, they're exactly the same in that regard. 

 

Not really wanting to see some pre-baked opiniated edited 'proof' you make with your friend to prove your point. 
So i hope your testing will be honest and not some propagand bullshit. 

 

I will do some testing myself this weekend as well, and we can compare results. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[near_blind]

6 hours ago, Naquaii said:

If it isn't currently it's the first I'm hearing of it? What is missing?

 

Post launch the RIO should have the ability to manually send an active command via the PH ACT switch.

[Naquaii]

7 minutes ago, near_blind said:

 

Post launch the RIO should have the ability to manually send an active command via the PH ACT switch.

 

Incorrect, the switch is pre-launch only.

[Airhunter]

5 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

 

Incorrect, the switch is pre-launch only.

 

Does it still get SARH mid-course in PD-STT though? With the switch active prior to launch that is.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Airhunter