AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion

[IronMike]

34 minutes ago, bonesvf103 said:

So it worked OK then...but now, I do the same mission over and over and fly it the same way and now my missiles seem to hit only 20% of the time.  Most of the time I watch the missiles go after they go bullseye and they always got close to the MiGs and never detonate even though they were close enough, or the MiG somehow just gets out of the way.  He was chaffing, but well before the missile even got there.

 

I don't get it I'm just starting to feel like this is literally hit or miss.

 

v6,

boNes

Tacview-20220210-165233-DCS.zip 433.39 kB · 1 download

Oh, you fire off-bore, with the MK47 that is not so ideal, due to the much shorter motor burn time. Reverse the crank into the bandit and then keep pressing. Shoot on the shoot cue, aka lead the missile head on into the bandit, maximise its energy, then push push push on the AI. Make sure your AWG9 gets all the radar return possible (see how one of your missiles goes ballistic, aka not tracking anymore), you can trust on the AI dropping their semis, once they get the missile warning. You only need to kill one of the two with the initial shot, press on the other with PAL, finish him off with an aim7.

[bonesvf103]

Thanks again for the quick response, but I thought earlier you said to crank before firing so that the radar can see the targets as separate contacts better and thus give the missles better targets to see?  That is why I fired off bore.  I wanted to crank 40-50 ATA before getting the valid lock and firing.

If we crank on the target then fire, are we to hold that crank the whole time until the missile goes pitbull to insure it sees the target fine?  I would think so but then my question becomes what is the point of the T?  It's supposed to be centered to keep the best amount of targets in the scan volume, but if we crank like that, there really is no point of the T anymore.

So are you basically saying to crank all the way up to missile fire time in which case, go back nose on and then fire?  Wouldn't that make the targets a mass of blips again and not give the Phoenix good distinct targets to seek?  If doing it that way, after firing, can I crank to make it more difficult for the bandits to lock and fire on me?  Or will that also screw up the phoenixes since my radar is off bore to see the targets?

If the Phoenixes were AIM54As or AIM-54 (not C) what would be the procedure then?

Also as a safeguard I flew up to 30,000 and fired as I was passing through 15 deg nose up so that by the time the missile fired I'd be 20-30 nose up to give them that toss.

v6,

boNes

Edited February 11, 2022 by bonesvf103

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, bonesvf103 said:

So are you basically saying to crank all the way up to missile fire time in which case, go back nose on and then fire?  Wouldn't that make the targets a mass of blips again and not give the Phoenix good distinct targets to seek?  If doing it that way, after firing, can I crank to make it more difficult for the bandits to lock and fire on me?  Or will that also screw up the phoenixes since my radar is off bore to see the targets?

 

No, so you crank to pull them apart. They will start maneuvering to lead on you, which makes 2 close bandits drift apart. When you come close to firing, you reverse the crank (say from left to right or vice versa), and while the nose is head on, you fire, and then adjust the crank so it keeps illuminating the target well. At the point of the reverse they should be fairly apart for that. Since this is AI, you do not have to pull through with the reverse though, but instead just keep the nose head on aspect for perfect illumination, you can even dip a bit below their altitude to help the radar, although likely not even needed in this mission. And if you want to make it more difficult for them to reach you, you ofc can pull through with the crank in reverse, but you always should fire head on.

For the mk60, you could likely fire off-bore, but why waste that juicy energy if you do not have to? Against players on a busy server cranking also helps to mislead them, and then sometimes an off-bore shot will surprise them. They will think you are not committed on them, since you are not flying at them, but mind you - experienced players will see through that trick. Cranking ofc also helps to increase distance between you and the oncoming missile from your opponent, and once yours is pitbull, already puts you in an ideal position to quickly turn cold into a split S. Hence you increase speed to an ideal speed for a split S up to that point. But even in this mission above, pull your nose in with increasing speed and give that missile all the oomph you can. Watch that tacview I posted to you initially again, you will see how I reverse back into a nose hot position, to give the missile all the energy it needs, and have it pull as little G, or correct as little as possible. The stronger your missile, the more off bore you can shoot, but you will always trade energy for that off-bore initial pull, and thus reversing the crank while timing your shot nose-on, is much better than just hanging out there at full gimbal and wasting much needed speed and energy for the missile.

[bonesvf103]

IronMike,

Again thanks, I'll practice this  some more.
With non Mk60 missiles, is there a different tactic?

v6,

boNes

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by bonesvf103

[Hardcard]

@IronMike

Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

Here's what I see.

My first shot was taken at an altitude that allowed the AWG-9 to pick up that viper.
I was flying higher, initially, but vipers are tricky to pick up in situations like this, so I had to drop lower. 
Also, he was 6.7nmi away and notching when I fired, he wasn't cold, watch it again: https://streamable.com/wz43k9 

Forget about the viper, just watch the phoenix. It craps itself at 6nmi and can't even reach mach 2...  compare it to what his amraam did, reaching mach 2+ in a couple of seconds. 

I agree that phoenixes should experience more drag than missiles with smaller surface area, but not to the point of rendering the missile useless. 


Now, the 22nmi shot @23k ft: https://streamable.com/foq7u4

My mk47C barely reached mach 3, even though it was flying at 35k ft, not only that, but, again, the bleeding after the burn was insane. 

Unless we consider 20nmi to be long range, phoenixes can't be struggling in shots like this and still be considered long range missiles.
Amraams and SD-10s are supposed to struggle in this kind of shots, but not the mighty phoenix, reported to be capable of hitting targets at 100nmi. 

I don't expect my phoenixes to reach 100nmi in this kind of shots, ofc, but I definitely expect more than 20nmi.

Finally, the 28.7nmi shot @30k ft: https://streamable.com/1xzhrz

Just so you know, the guy from the previous shot is way more aware and dangerous than this guy.
The difference is that I gave that guy a smokeless mk47 C and I gave this guy a smokey mk60 A (since the mk47C has such appalling performance that I didn't even want to try).
Besides, this guy was outnumbered 3:1, of course he turned. 

You seem to misunderstand me. I don't care about the fact that he evaded my phoenix, I care about the fact that even the mk60 A is struggling to reach 30nmi when given a trajectory of 50k feet. 

30nmi still isn't long range.


If your solution is "fly at 40+k feet, close to mach 2 and only expect to hit noobs", I hate to break it to you, but most medium range missiles in DCS become lethal long range missiles when shot in those conditions.

Phoenixes aren't behaving like long range missiles, they're behaving like medium range missiles, that's all I'm saying. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Hardcard

[IronMike]

2 hours ago, Hardcard said:

@IronMike

Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

Here's what I see.

My first shot was taken at an altitude that allowed the AWG-9 to pick up that viper.
I was flying higher, initially, but vipers are tricky to pick up in situations like this, so I had to drop lower. 
Also, he was 6.7nmi away and notching when I fired, he wasn't cold, watch it again: https://streamable.com/wz43k9 

Forget about the viper, just watch the phoenix. It craps itself at 6nmi and can't even reach mach 2...  compare it to what his amraam did, reaching mach 2+ in a couple of seconds. 

I agree that phoenixes should experience more drag than missiles with smaller surface area, but not to the point of rendering the missile useless. 


Now, the 22nmi shot @23k ft: https://streamable.com/foq7u4

My mk47C barely reached mach 3, even though it was flying at 35k ft, not only that, but, again, the bleeding after the burn was insane. 

Unless we consider 20nmi to be long range, phoenixes can't be struggling in shots like this and still be considered long range missiles.
Amraams and SD-10s are supposed to struggle in this kind of shots, but not the mighty phoenix, reported to be capable of hitting targets at 100nmi. 

I don't expect my phoenixes to reach 100nmi in this kind of shots, ofc, but I definitely expect more than 20nmi.

Finally, the 28.7nmi shot @30k ft: https://streamable.com/1xzhrz

Just so you know, the guy from the previous shot is way more aware and dangerous than this guy.
The difference is that I gave that guy a smokeless mk47 C and I gave this guy a smokey mk60 A (since the mk47C has such appalling performance that I didn't even want to try).
Besides, this guy was outnumbered 3:1, of course he turned. 

You seem to misunderstand me. I don't care about the fact that he evaded my phoenix, I care about the fact that even the mk60 A is struggling to reach 30nmi when given a trajectory of 50k feet. 

30nmi still isn't long range.


If your solution is "fly at 40+k feet, close to mach 2 and only expect to hit noobs", I hate to break it to you, but most medium range missiles in DCS become lethal long range missiles when shot in those conditions.

Phoenixes aren't behaving like long range missiles, they're behaving like medium range missiles, that's all I'm saying. 

 

How is 55km not long range? ... I just can repeat what I said: your expectations need to be adjusted, including your tactics. We've been hitting bandits on servers 40, 50, 60 nm out... Launched higher, further away, with an even higher loft, and you have a missile no amraam can match. If you launch from 20k feet altitude, you launch it in thicker air, it uses its motor burn time (which is limited) to get into the good air for the loft. And then it will dive back down, partially at transonic speeds, into thicker air all while pulling Gs, adjusting course, etc... You just expect it to do stuff, which it can't.

In your first shot your bandit is turning cold, weaving down low, look at the Gs the missile has to pull trying to keep up. An amraam wouldnt catch up either. You did not press on him. You launched your thick missile in the "soup", and you expected it to basically perform a 10nm tail shot, if you take all the weaving into account. How should that work, with the motor burning out already, especially for the C, with a much shorter burn time?

The second shot, with a C again above all... was abysmal for such a setup. Make it climb through thick air, use all the motor burn time and then redecend into the thicker air - and yet it reached at great energy, yet failed to connect, likely due to a notch/ chaff. Bad luck is all there, but the missile did what it was expected to do energy wise.

And that last shot, again, you launch from below mach1 yourself, from below 30k feet, you use all your motor burn time for the missile to climb out of the thicker air, and then descend back into it.

The phoenix will not kill anything at 50nm from any altitude, or 30 even, just because you want it to. That doesn't mean they behave like medium range missiles. You are simply not employing them as you should though, and then blame it on the missile.

I said this in this thread before: in my squad it is always, 100% the pilot's fault, never the missile's fault. If you adapt that mindset, you will adapt to the missile much easier. Launch it high, launch it far. If you drag it down and to "medium" range, then you make it a "medium" range missile, and if you drag it down to sea level and go in close, you make it in to a close range missile. You put it in a situation which is not at all favorable for it. And unless you change your approach with it, your success with it will not change either. The CFD isn't wrong, it is slightly conservative - maybe - but otoh, according to the CFD it should actually slow down even faster. So, no matter how you turn it, or what you expect now, this will not change by any significant amount when fired from down low, and you can either take my advice, change your expectations and adjust how you use them, or continue to struggle with it.

You wanna be lower? Then push in closer. You are high? Launch from a distance and altitude the other guy won't even consider launching his amraam yet. No amraam will be deadly at these ranges for you, if you crank it, beam it or turn your crank/beam into a split S. But the other guy will be running like hell, and if he runs just a tad too late, he will be toast.

Not sure what you want us to do else? Double its speed and range, based on what - because you feel so? My apologies, but I hope you can see how that will not be a thing.

Edited February 11, 2022 by IronMike

[Hummingbird]

What's the max speed you can expect the AIM-54 to reach at 10 kft, flying straight? Should it be higher than an AMRAAM ?

[trenchfeet]

12 hours ago, shrimpy_dikdik said:

Is anyone else having issues with Aim-54 in TWS mode online? I've played a fair bit online in the last year but very recently it seems every shot I do I lose track within about 10-20 seconds without the enemy doing anything special. They will immediately show up again and Jester will acquire and IFF again but the missile is wasted.  And we are talking 40k 1.2M 20 degree loft shots, solo head on target at around 20k with nothing to hide behind and not notching or chaffing. The servers have shown a lot of lag recently, does this impact the track somehow? Must be the last 20 fired go this way and as mentioned I've played a lot the last year online with reasonable success.

 

yep, what's your ping?

 

Sorry @IronMike to ask a why didn't my missile hit question but why didn't it hit (lol) I'm trying to better understand the new guidance. I'm seeing this happening alot. In this case a TWS small shot. Nose hot bandit not manoeuvring getting the pitbull rwr last moment only to dive yet still avoid the hit (I know he is fast) but it just seams the Aim54 is still to slow or guidance issue? Or has it just been notched in the verticle.

Is this just what we have to accept now that it will not work on any sort of high g manoeuvring target? Thanks for your time!

Aim54Mk60.zip.acmi

[bonesvf103]

4 hours ago, IronMike said:

  Watch that tacview I posted to you initially again.

I just watched it but is it the right tacview (20220204-210819-DCS.zip.acmi)?  In it you are flying straight at them the whole time and get the 2 Phoenix kills.

 

v6,

boNes

[IronMike]

5 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

What's the max speed you can expect the AIM-54 to reach at 10 kft, flying straight? Should it be higher than an AMRAAM ?

Likely not much faster than seen in the 500m CFD graph in the OP. 10kft = thick air. So is 20k, and 30k even - in comparison to the thinner air above 40k feet and even higher. Compare how long it takes to get to max speed and then how fast it slows down, when the motor is out. An AIM120 will do much better in comparison after motor burn out, it is all explained in the OP.

 

On 2/5/2022 at 4:24 AM, IronMike said:

1. No.
2. Don't think so, the difference is that in PDSTT it is guided like a SARH missile all the way to the target, so the difference with CCM may be as the difference between SARH and ARH is handled in DCS generally, if there is one. If you lose lock, the missile will not reacquire.
 

Not true. Watch the tacview I posted in the first thread with the mk60 launched from 110nm. It will hit the target with mach 3. It really depends from what altitude you launch and to what altitude it will climb. The further away and the higher the launch, you may actually get a much higher terminal velocity on the target. If you fire lower and make the phoenix climb to its peak of loft through thicker air, you will have simply wasted the precious motor burn time, so a closer shot with shallower loft will in these situations ofc have a higher terminal energy - as you did not waste the motor on making it climb. That is why: far shots need to be fired as high as possible.
 

The last part of this quote is also not true. Don't forget, all your tests if done in the PG BVR mission, are done with the C only, which has a shorter motor burn time, thus, again you want to be higher. With the mk60 you can hit AI from 30-35 miles at 20000ft, provided you yourself are fast enough and you may want to aid the loft by pitching up a bit when firing. But the question is rather, why do you guys insist on these low level shots? 20k ft is not high at all, especially not for the Tomcat. You should be well above 30k feet for shots beyond 30nm. No one forces you to be down low. And especially with the C you should not be low.
 

I would heavily advise against making such generalistions from one particular mission/setup. The rule of thumb is simply: the further away you want to launch, the higher you must be, you don't have to cut anything by anything. And as mentioned above, you will get extremely fast terminal energies when you fire 40k+ well above mach 1 on even targets as far as 110nm out. The lower you fire, the closer in you want to fire, but I wouldn't go by 1/2 or 1/3, etc... The motor burns for iirc around 25 seconds (depending on which AIM54, I'd have to look it up). Go by the time you estimate it would take to reach the target, and on sea level you want to burn the motor all the way (depending on the situation even long before it burns out), and going higher you can allow yourself to fire a tad further out, the higher the further. The missiles do slow fast after the motor has burned out ofc, if fired through thicker air.
 

I really hate to be that guy, but this also does not hold true. It depends, again, on where you fire from, how fast you are, how fast the bandit is, etc. - as you will see in the tacviews below.

I know you meant the above quoted snippets all for a 20kft launch in that mission, but even so, it depends really on so much more, for instance, the mk60 will be much different from the C, it depends on how fast you are, if you pitch during the shot, what the bandit does, etc... So these "it will be such and such" general conclusions can quickly turn into a mindset-trap is what I am getting at, especially when you switch the test mission, but even within this mission to a certain extent.

I made some tacviews for you, in the same mission, PG BVR.

1. "25NM Medium" : You can see that from 25nm one shot connected, one did not, at 20k feet. The tgt size switch was left in normal in this one, and one of the bandits was lucky to turn cold early enough and had the conditions in his favor. But the other bandit caught it pretty nicely. However: this is not an ideal setup or scenario, and as you see, it can quickly turn into a gamble. This tacview is only meant to show the shot.

2. "35NM High": Already much better (I only fired on one this time), and you can see the loft here in fact helps, because it has been fired from a higher altitude. It comes in faster and much deadlier, and the shot is almost ideal. It is where you should be at. But given the opponent, why not give it a tad more oomph even? Which brings us to the next one. Tgt size switch was left to normal. This tacview is only meant to show the shot.

3. "30NM Ideal": This is a much more ideal high altitude launch, which does not go for range as much for being high, fast and able to connect, and also tacically more prudent for this mission - it offsets the bandits first through a crank, which makes it easier for the AWG9 to separate the track, you gain time to climb and speed up, you turn back in, you launch from around 30NM - and both bandits are toast, no matter what they want to do. We're talking AI - against a player I would have flown similar, but fired even closer - or actually much higher and further, depending on how high I would estimate his SA. TGT size switch was set to small. This tacview also shows a valid tactic for this particular scenario.

4. "15NM Ideal": This is a much more ideal low altitude launch, where I move in closer to fire into the bandits from below at around 15nm, tgt size switch again set to small. It starts again with a crank to help the AWG9, with a descent meant to gain speed, and when I reverse back in, I pitch up into the loft of the missiles to help them. Also here, both bandits are toast and stand zero chances. This is a maneuver I would use more likely against players, but only if for some reason I could not get higher further out. Ideal, in both cases, btw means only "more ideal" - neither the crank, nor the setup is really ideal, it is simply meant to demonstrate, how different setups, altitudes, speeds and ranges, both far and close, both high and low or medium, can be used more ideally to achieve great results. And that you cannot simply say "need to cut by half" or "cannot fire down low anymore", etc (not that you said that like that). Also this tacview was meant to show another valid tactic for this kind of setup, beyond just demonstrating the shot.

I would in general suggest: take your time everyone to get acquainted with the new performance again, that is - a couple of weeks, a few dozen flight hours, several nights burning the midnight oil on servers, etc. etc. ... before we start making new rule of thumbs or jump to conclusions too fast. All of us, me included, need to develop a new feeling for the adjusted performance, but the possibilities, as hopefully demonstrated in the tacviews below, are as diverse as they used to be, if the circumstances are taken into account properly and if the right setup is chosen for each particular shot you want to take.

Happy shooting!
 

PG_BVR_15NM_Ideal_Cmk47.zip.acmi 276.84 kB · 18 downloads PG_BVR_30NM_Ideal_Cmk47.zip.acmi 204.83 kB · 19 downloads PG_BVR_25NM_Medium_Cmk47.zip.acmi 195.58 kB · 14 downloads PG_BVR_35NM_High_Cmk47.zip.acmi 212.28 kB · 17 downloads

 

I meant the tacview in this reply @bonesvf103 The explanations are also above.

[IronMike]

12 minutes ago, trenchfeet said:

yep, what's your ping?

 

Sorry @IronMike to ask a why didn't my missile hit question but why didn't it hit (lol) I'm trying to better understand the new guidance. I'm seeing this happening alot. In this case a TWS small shot. Nose hot bandit not manoeuvring getting the pitbull rwr last moment only to dive yet still avoid the hit (I know he is fast) but it just seams the Aim54 is still to slow or guidance issue? Or has it just been notched in the verticle.

Is this just what we have to accept now that it will not work on any sort of high g manoeuvring target? Thanks for your time!

Aim54Mk60.zip.acmi 590.07 kB · 0 downloads

Heh, one of them actually hit, but it seems the proximity fuze did not work - this is an issue in DCS sometimes, especially online. No idea what causes it. The other missile simply got defeated by maneuvering, indeed. Here, too, you launch from too low, too close and not close enough at the same time. Either be a) higher and further) or b) same alt but much closer. Crank them, reverse back into the crank, shoot head on, pull through into the opposite crank and finish with a split-S yourself. If you can make that motor burn all the way to the target, the target has little chance. If you waste it on the loft, well, you wasted it. I hope that helps a bit, and if it condoles: an amraam from you, with him defending like that, would have suffered a similar fate.

Edited February 11, 2022 by IronMike

[trenchfeet]

Big thanks for having a look!

[shrimpy_dikdik]

36 minutes ago, trenchfeet said:

yep, what's your ping?

 

Sorry @IronMike to ask a why didn't my missile hit question but why didn't it hit (lol) I'm trying to better understand the new guidance. I'm seeing this happening alot. In this case a TWS small shot. Nose hot bandit not manoeuvring getting the pitbull rwr last moment only to dive yet still avoid the hit (I know he is fast) but it just seams the Aim54 is still to slow or guidance issue? Or has it just been notched in the verticle.

Is this just what we have to accept now that it will not work on any sort of high g manoeuvring target? Thanks for your time!

Aim54Mk60.zip.acmi 590.07 kB · 1 download

It was on the GS server which is based in the same country as myself so ping was very low. They have changed the mission recently and that usually causes weird lag issues with aircraft bouncing all over the place. I was using the GS server to test the recent changes to the missile as there is a large supply of willing victims often without the experience to defeat the Aim 54. 10 out of 10 shots all around 35k+ with good firing situations all lost track during the first half of the flight before the radar picked them up instantly but the missile was trashed. 

 

I did go on the Blueflag Persian Gulf server yesterday and had a 1v1 with a JF 17 at around 40nm, myself at 35k he was around that or slightly lower. Not sure what missile they have but we both went pitbull at the same time (8 second till impact), I got away he didn't. I'm guessing it's most likely the mk60 had more energy than whatever they had which is exactly how I'd expect the aim 54 to behave. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by shrimpy_dikdik

[Callsign JoNay]

1 hour ago, Hummingbird said:

What's the max speed you can expect the AIM-54 to reach at 10 kft, flying straight? Should it be higher than an AMRAAM ?

It's slower. Mk60 reaches 2.4m compared to the 120C at about 3.0m. But it still goes farther due to the longer burn time.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Callsign JoNay

[Hummingbird]

Tested the AIM-54C at SL, launched it at 560 KTAS, and it reached a maximum speed of 1180 KTAS (going straight and level)

 

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Hummingbird

[Lurker]

Ping is usually but not always a good indication of network stability. Most importantly ping doesn't show you packet loss, which is probably what is causing most desync issues in DCS World, and is probably what is causing the AWG-9 or the AIM54 to drop locks more often than they should. 

I have a few ideas (indeed many of them picked up on these very forums) about what kind of approach Heatblur could take to mitigate this, but they would probably be unacceptable to simulation purists. 

As for Eagle Dynamics, they could work on improving their network code. But it's Eagle Dynamics, and they have their hands full just preventing the sim from falling apart....

Edited February 11, 2022 by Lurker

[draconus]

53 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

The tests would be better if the missiles fly straight, not descending or ascending.

 

1 hour ago, shrimpy_dikdik said:

I did go on the Blueflag Persian Gulf server yesterday and had a 1v1 with a JF 17 at around 40nm, myself at 35k he was around that or slightly lower. Not sure what missile they have but we both went pitbull at the same time (8 second till impact), I got away he didn't. I'm guessing it's most likely the mk60 had more energy than whatever they had which is exactly how I'd expect the aim 54 to behave.

I would always expect SD-10 from JF-17.

 

5 hours ago, Hardcard said:

30nmi still isn't long range.

We won't have agreement on that.

btw: Even 5nm in low alt tail chase is still long range missile.

 

7 hours ago, IronMike said:

No, so you crank to pull them apart. They will start maneuvering to lead on you, which makes 2 close bandits drift apart.

Aren't AI reacting (turning) quick enough to still have the same radar picture when you turn for the launch?

 

8 hours ago, bonesvf103 said:

If we crank on the target then fire, are we to hold that crank the whole time until the missile goes pitbull to insure it sees the target fine?  I would think so but then my question becomes what is the point of the T?  It's supposed to be centered to keep the best amount of targets in the scan volume, but if we crank like that, there really is no point of the T anymore.

Or will that also screw up the phoenixes since my radar is off bore to see the targets?

If the Phoenixes were AIM54As or AIM-54 (not C) what would be the procedure then?

"The HUD and VDI displays a steering cue (T) guiding the pilot towards optimal target illumination and also displays range and Rmin and Rmax to target number 1" so of course you will not use the T while cranking - you only try to keep the search (TWS) cone within the gimbals. Radar looking to the side will not work worse than head on unless Vc starts to be the issue - so not at all in the head on and cranking situtation but if the target is starting to beam and turn away then yes.

With powerful enough missile you can force off bore launch and it will still get to the target (depending on launch parameters and target maneuvers) but it will always fly longer that way which puts you at disadvantage and usually the missile has less energy on terminal.

Different AIM-54 versions are all employed the same way but you can use their advantages over the old A mk47. A mk60 gives you more range and speed (from the moment the mk47 would already stop buring) and C mk47 gives you theoretically better guidance, better ECCM and less smoke.

More on the F-pole maneuver FYI.

[Hummingbird]

That the AIM-54C will only reach ~1.8 mach at 500 ft from a launching speed of 560 knots seems odd IMHO.   

AIM-54 will barely outrange the AIM-120's now.

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Hummingbird said:

That the AIM-54C will only reach ~1.8 mach at 500 ft from a launching speed of 560 knots seems odd IMHO.   

AIM-54 will barely outrange the AIM-120's now.

It is not odd, it is correct. Look at the CFD again. The aim120 has half the drag/weight ratio and a better drag co-efficient. It will be the better choice down low. You're not supposed to fire aim54 at sea level.

[Hummingbird]

7 minutes ago, IronMike said:

It is not odd, it is correct. Look at the CFD again. The aim120 has half the drag/weight ratio and a better drag co-efficient. It will be the better choice down low. You're not supposed to fire aim54 at sea level.

I'm not doubting that the AIM-54 should lose speed faster, that's a given considering its size and shape, but with such a massive rocket motor burning for such a long time I did expect it to reach more than M 1.8 at 500 ft with a starting velocity of M 0.8.  I know the Phoenix was considered as a naval medium range surface-to-air missile, which seems odd if it would barely be able to reach much over M 1.2 when launched from a standstill.

[IronMike]

28 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

I'm not doubting that the AIM-54 should lose speed faster, that's a given considering its size and shape, but with such a massive rocket motor burning for such a long time I did expect it to reach more than M 1.8 at 500 ft with a starting velocity of M 0.8.  I know the Phoenix was considered as a naval medium range surface-to-air missile, which seems odd if it would barely be able to reach much over M 1.2 when launched from a standstill.

Again, look at the CFD. It may have been considered, but it also was not picked. Those kind of arguments are in the same realm as "I feel it should go faster..."

[Lurker]

46 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

I'm not doubting that the AIM-54 should lose speed faster, that's a given considering its size and shape, but with such a massive rocket motor burning for such a long time I did expect it to reach more than M 1.8 at 500 ft with a starting velocity of M 0.8.  I know the Phoenix was considered as a naval medium range surface-to-air missile, which seems odd if it would barely be able to reach much over M 1.2 when launched from a standstill.

Test it at 1500ft, that's 500m (or thereabouts) it should be able to reach close to Mach 2 at burnout. Which is exactly on par with the CFD. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Lurker

[Hummingbird]

24 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Again, look at the CFD. It may have been considered, but it also was not picked. Those kind of arguments are in the same realm as "I feel it should go faster..."

I mean if that's what the CFD says, I'm just surprised. Thought the rocket motor provided more thrust.

[cheezit]

47 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

I'm not doubting that the AIM-54 should lose speed faster, that's a given considering its size and shape, but with such a massive rocket motor burning for such a long time I did expect it to reach more than M 1.8 at 500 ft with a starting velocity of M 0.8.  I know the Phoenix was considered as a naval medium range surface-to-air missile, which seems odd if it would barely be able to reach much over M 1.2 when launched from a standstill.

Drag equations that work for both subsonic and supersonic flow are too complex for me to do the math on a napkin, but a missile that can get to Mach 1.8 when launched at Mach 0.8 will achieve closer to Mach 1.7 than Mach 1.2 when launched from a standstill, ceteris paribus.  Of course in the case of the missile being used as a SAM the "ceteris" are not very paribus with regards to your scenario when shooting against anything but a sea-skimming target.

 

BTW, Hummingbird, have you tried duplicating the NASA AIM-54C simulated shots that I linked above in the thread?  I know you and your squadron have done lots of testing work in the past, and I'm not able to try it out myself for the foreseeable future (in the process of moving => stuck with a laptop for a while, among other things).  The High-Q one might be hard to set up, but I think High-Speed and High-Altitude would be doable in DCS without having to do too many goofy tricks to hit the launch parameters.

 

[Callsign JoNay]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

The tests would be better if the missiles fly straight, not descending or ascending.

LIke I said in the description and comments, I did my best. The 7M seems to descend slightly no matter what I do, and the 120C ascends as it loses E. The top speeds achieved are still pretty accurate for the altitude ranges and gives a descent expectation about each missile's LOS NEZ.