AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion

[IronMike]

6 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

Like near_blind said- you have to learn the envelope.  

From above, DSPlayer's 95 nm strike in a SATAC match on the current build:

https://m.twitch.tv/clip/BillowingFlirtyOtterItsBoshyTime-QfUL_L8yOCZGBOzh?tt_medium=mobile_web_share&tt_content=clips_viewing

Note his altitude and Mach number at launch in the other clip on Breakshot's wall. 

 

More importantly than the kill: the entire opposition fell in to pieces right there and then, their gameplay was screwed and everyone was in disarray. This is why both phoenix and Tomcat still shine where they shine best, and no aim120 can achieve that. Before anyone misunderstands that as a "biggest stick comparison" - that's not the point. The point is it illustrates precisely where and how the Tomcat shines.

1 hour ago, bonesvf103 said:

Sorry, I can't get Jester to change range display to less via VAICOM Pro otherwise they wouldn't be so clustered together.  But the radar would still see them the same regardless of the way it's displayed on the TID right?

v6,

boNes

The radar would see it, yes, but illumination weighting, etc may be affected by it, that is in TWSA targets not on your TID would get excluded, etc, get different weighting by drifting closer to the scan zone volume, etc. etc. You need to help your AWG9 more.

[Hardcard]

@IronMike

Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

I expect DCS phoenixes to be true to official Navy reports, no more, no less.
This isn't about personal feelings, it's not even about what either of us would wish, it's about current phoenix performance in DCS not matching official performance reports.  

From the Navy Air Systems Command: https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=724&Article=2168381 
 

Quote

1972:
December 20 - An F-14 accomplished a 'four-for-four' AIM-54 test over the Pt. Mugu missile range. Flying at M0.7 and at 31,500 ft, the Tomcat launched four AIM-54s against five targets three QT-33 and two BQM-34, each flying at M0.6 and at altitudes of between 20,000 ft and 25,000 ft. The missiles were fired at relatively short ranges, between 25 and 30 miles, and were launched in quick succession - not simultaneously. One missile scored a direct hit and the three others passed within the warhead's lethal zones, thus scoring hits.

 

1973:
November 21 - First Phoenix proves effectiveness in full-arsenal testing on an F-14 operating over the Pacific Missile Sea Test Range.
The F-14 fired six Phoenix missiles over a 38-second period and guided them simultaneously at six separate targets 50 miles away, obtaining four direct hits. Flown by CDR John R. Smoke Wilson and LCDR Jack Hauver, the Tomcat was flying at speed of M0.78 and an altitude of 24,800 ft - while the target drones were flying at speeds of M0.6 to M1.1. This was the only time six Phoenix were launched by a single aircraft.
 

This isn't my opinion, these are not my feelings, these are official test results from the Navy Air Systems Command.

Also note that these tests were conducted using early phoenixes, which should perform worse than the mk47C.

So, as I hope you'll understand, I notice conflicts between those official reports and some of your statements:
 

Quote

"How is 55km not long range?"

"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."

"The second shot, with a C again above all... was abysmal for such a setup."

"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'm not the only customer who has noticed discrepancies between official reports vs DCS performance and HB statements.

You can keep telling me that the poor phoenix performance is my noob ass' fault, but official reports like the ones I linked still indicate that DCS phoenixes are underperforming.
(I totally accept that my noobness is preventing me from getting more kills, but that was never my point. Like I said, I don't care that people evade my phoenixes, I care that my phoenixes are struggling in situations where they shouldn't, if official reports are to be believed). 

 

Anyway, I don't enjoy having to come here to report such issues, much less having to argue about them, when there are publicly available reports backing what I'm saying.

Finally, you might find this hard to believe, but the tomcat is my favorite module in many ways, you guys did an awesome job in several respects (that's why I bought it).
My only gripes with the module so far have been Jester implementation, lack of AWACS IFF option and phoenix performance (maybe also the inability to remove glove pylons, but that can wait)... the rest is pretty much awesome.    

It's just odd how hard you seem to be fighting to defend a nerf that goes against official reports and customer satisfaction 

[draconus]

4 hours ago, bonesvf103 said:

But the radar would still see them the same regardless of the way it's displayed on the TID right?

Yes, but it won't build tracks from them and will just disregard making any WCS computations.

3 hours ago, Biggus said:

I'd usually select small against fighters, however I'm wondering whether there might be some big advantages to having the missile go active a bit earlier.

If you need to engage other targets earlier or just turn away it would help.

[Clunk1001]

2 hours ago, Hardcard said:

@IronMike

Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

I expect DCS phoenixes to be true to official Navy reports, no more, no less.
This isn't about personal feelings, it's not even about what either of us would wish, it's about current phoenix performance in DCS not matching official performance reports.  

From the Navy Air Systems Command: https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=724&Article=2168381 
 

This isn't my opinion, these are not my feelings, these are official test results from the Navy Air Systems Command.

Also note that these tests were conducted using early phoenixes, which should perform worse than the mk47C.

So, as I hope you'll understand, I notice conflicts between those official reports and some of your statements:
 

I'm not the only customer who has noticed discrepancies between official reports vs DCS performance and HB statements.

You can keep telling me that the poor phoenix performance is my noob ass' fault, but official reports like the ones I linked still indicate that DCS phoenixes are underperforming.
(I totally accept that my noobness is preventing me from getting more kills, but that was never my point. Like I said, I don't care that people evade my phoenixes, I care that my phoenixes are struggling in situations where they shouldn't, if official reports are to be believed). 

 

Anyway, I don't enjoy having to come here to report such issues, much less having to argue about them, when there are publicly available reports backing what I'm saying.

Finally, you might find this hard to believe, but the tomcat is my favorite module in many ways, you guys did an awesome job in several respects (that's why I bought it).
My only gripes with the module so far have been Jester implementation, lack of AWACS IFF option and phoenix performance (maybe also the inability to remove glove pylons, but that can wait)... the rest is pretty much awesome.    

It's just odd how hard you seem to be fighting to defend a nerf that goes against official reports and customer satisfaction 

I’m with you on this.  The F14 is to me hands down one of the best things I’ve played in a flight sim for the past 30 years.  But I’m getting 100% miss rate with the phoenix in some missions now.

4 phoenix, 4 AI bandits, hot, 40 miles, angels 40, 4 misses. 

Im having more success loading up with sparrows and sidewinders and merging. I can usually get at least a few migs before dying. But this is pretty much the opposite of what the f14 was for.

Im open to new tactics with the phoenix - I’ve read all the suggestions in this post - and today I’m going to try and get Jester to jettison the phoenix stores whilst directly over the bandit at a range of 10 ft or so.  

joking aside - whilst the goal of hyper-accurate replication of real life phoenix flight and tracking characteristics is understandable (the graphs are really pretty), perhaps it should not be the ultimate goal because the rest of the sim (AI) isn’t at the same level of realism.  
Perhaps consideration should be given to the simulation of the weapons end result and how it behaves against the rest of the sim.

If an ultra-realistic phoenix is next to useless in the game itself I’m not sure I want it.  I only play against AI.  

I appreciate the difficulties here, and I have total faith in whatever approach the heatblur team take.

I’ll let you know how my new tactic of ‘Phoenix bonk’ goes…..

Edited February 15, 2022 by Clunk1001

[trenchfeet]

Those discussing the tws small size (regarding this patch), for closer in bandits I’ve found this doesn’t work because you need to accept then you are nose hot to a bandit within 120 or IR range. If you get to this with in this range something has gone wrong your tactics need to be engaging at a greater then 50nm range. Instead go to large or normal mode let out a warning shot and reposition. They will drop and run because you have an active missile out on them. Don’t expect a kill, move to a more favourable position.

[IronMike]

10 hours ago, Hardcard said:

@IronMike



From the Navy Air Systems Command: https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=724&Article=2168381

This isn't my opinion, these are not my feelings, these are official test results from the Navy Air Systems Command.

Also note that these tests were conducted using early phoenixes, which should perform worse than the mk47C.

So, as I hope you'll understand, I notice conflicts between those official reports and some of your statements:
 

It's just odd how hard you seem to be fighting to defend a nerf that goes against official reports and customer satisfaction 

We are not talking emotions, but facts, right? Right.

See, the problem here is this: the facts do add up, but these comments are loaded with emotions (and/or opinions). Take a look at the tacviews attached below. They are more or less replicating the tests you quote precisely. Those are facts. Where it gets emotional, is when you guys think that these tests performed on drones should translate as are to hard maneuvering, aware targets that a) expect the missile and b) do anything they can to defend it. This is where you have to adjust.

So point in case, I am not defending any "nerf" (it is not a nerf, it is an adjustment to get rid of a hilarious over-performance which had been introduced with changes to overall guidance of missiles in DCS), I am defending the facts, which you do not want to accept, because of an emotionally loaded approach of "I feel the missile should..." - which is based on subjective expectations. And just to be clear, I don't blame you for that, I know it comes from a place of passion. But I can only repeat this again: we do not do nerfs and we do not do buffs. We adjust to achieve more realism. That it is being called nerf or buff is already pointing to an emotionally loaded perception and it would do everyone a great service if we could stop using these words altogether.

As for customer satisfaction: I think we have proven time and time again that it matters greatly to us, more than it is normal or industry standard. But not at the expense of trying to achieve more realism. This simply must not exist in a simulator (to a certain degree), and never has, nor ever will. Even more so if that satisfaction is derived from an emotionally loaded perception that is, I am sorry to put it like that, unwilling to accept facts presented to you and to adjust accordingly.

The facts are attached in the tacviews below using the AIM-54A-mk47. Please be so kind and take a look.

Tacview-20220215-140325-DCS-1973 test.zip.acmi Tacview-20220215-131056-DCS-1972 test.zip.acmi

Edited February 15, 2022 by IronMike

[lunaticfringe]

One more on the '72 test.  54A MK47 goes four for four at 25 miles+.

It's doing what the report says it can do.  

 

 Tacview-20220215-092208-DCS-72 4v4 Test 31k.zip.acmi

[IronMike]

7 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

One more on the '72 test.  54A MK47 goes four for four at 25 miles+.

It's doing what the report says it can do.  

 

  Tacview-20220215-092208-DCS-72 4v4 Test 31k.zip.acmi 213.64 kB · 0 downloads

In the test I posted above it even went 5 for 5 from 40+, but I wanted to match the mentioned test as closely as I could, so kept to the mentioned ranges in the tacview that I posted. And in the 1973 test it even goes 6 for 6...

What some fail to understand is that such tests are tests on drones. Change that to a hard maneuvering target that is fully aware of your game, and everything shifts and needs to be adjusted. This is where everyone has to re-learn the missile again.

Edited February 15, 2022 by IronMike

[lunaticfringe]

And here it is with evasion enabled (AI free to engage in defensive maneuver from the point the weapon goes active), just to take that out of the equation.  Again, four 54As hit four targets.

Tacview-20220215-093753-DCS-72 4v4 Test 31k - Evasion Enabled.zip.acmi

[shrimpy_dikdik]

In multiplayer this missile is no longer a threat. 30+ shots fired and 2 kills. Most (90%+) lose track within 20secs from launch, those that actually make it to the target are easily defeated. I've watched other players missiles and they loft so high that when they come down it is at such an acute angle it loses all its energy. I've seen unaware players defeat it just by simply keeping their speed and attitude and flying underneath the missile as it slows to 300kn. No need for evasive action.

 

I fire usually at 45nm, 40k, M1.1 and 20° (less if lower). I then try and get under the targets altitude before I lose track but even then that is exactly what happens most of the time. Also it's a big sign to the enemy that you've fired when they see you dive and crank, so easy to defeat. My normal procedure is fire, watch the missile either lose track or just slow to a walking pace, turn around, flee, gain altitude, rinse, repeat, quit. The only two kills were at similar altitudes and I suspect they were asleep.

 

I was actually not too bad a couple of weeks ago. On GS maybe 2-5 kills per sortie and usually make it back home alive, on Blueflag 1 or 2 but usually the players are a lot more switched on. I know I need to "relearn" the missile, or adjust my style, but to be honest for any multiplayer enemy that is of moderate skill and not asleep it is so simple to defeat.

 

I have zero interest in offline play. I will continue to try and work out how to use this missile in multiplayer. If someone can explain how to not lose track about 95% of the time it would be appreciated. If it is lag (ping on GS server (Canada) 135ish) then there's not much I can do I guess.

Edited February 15, 2022 by shrimpy_dikdik

[IronMike]

27 minutes ago, shrimpy_dikdik said:

In multiplayer this missile is no longer a threat. 30+ shots fired and 2 kills. Most (90%+) lose track within 20secs from launch, those that actually make it to the target are easily defeated. I've watched other players missiles and they loft so high that when they come down it is at such an acute angle it loses all its energy. I've seen unaware players defeat it just by simply keeping their speed and attitude and flying underneath the missile as it slows to 300kn. No need for evasive action.

 

I fire usually at 45nm, 40k, M1.1 and 20° (less if lower). I then try and get under the targets altitude before I lose track but even then that is exactly what happens most of the time. Also it's a big sign to the enemy that you've fired when they see you dive and crank, so easy to defeat. My normal procedure is fire, watch the missile either lose track or just slow to a walking pace, turn around, flee, gain altitude, rinse, repeat, quit. The only two kills were at similar altitudes and I suspect they were asleep.

 

I was actually not too bad a couple of weeks ago. On GS maybe 2-5 kills per sortie and usually make it back home alive, on Blueflag 1 or 2 but usually the players are a lot more switched on. I know I need to "relearn" the missile, or adjust my style, but to be honest for any multiplayer enemy that is of moderate skill and not asleep it is so simple to defeat.

 

I have zero interest in offline play. I will continue to try and work out how to use this missile in multiplayer. If someone can explain how to not lose track about 95% of the time it would be appreciated. If it is lag (ping on GS server (Canada) 135ish) then there's not much I can do I guess.

 

There seems to be issues to guidance online, which we will investigate. Equally the egregious lofting at times is something we will keep investigating. Mind you, the step to transfer it to the new guidance API is still missing, and netcode also plays a factor. This update primarly focus on the performance, which is a first step to identify exactly these problems, and such feedback is very important. Thank you! 

[Rinz1er]

Just going to add my experience FWIW.

I have probably put in about 40+ hrs in the Tomcat since this missile change went into affect, all online. In the beginning I was missing 3/4 mk60 phoenix shots from my usual launch params(30k+, .9 mach, 60mi). I have had to introduce 45 degree cranks, an extra 10k ft, above mach 1, and launching at 45mi to be able to do 3/4 phoenix kills with the mk60. In the mk47c, I have missed maybe every shot I have taken no matter what tactics I have done, mostly because against an amraam opponent, if I fire at relatively the same distance, 30-35 mi and hot aspect, I usually have to defend the amraam before my 54c has gone active and end up trashing the missile, and for whatever reason, when I take  a longer shot it just gets too slow to hit a maneuvering target. 

The more upsetting thing that I have noticed is that after this update, I have not seen any phoenix track after launching them maddog (ACM cover up). Not sure what is going on there or if anyone else has had this experience. 

The last slightly annoying thing that I have noticed is that the TTI counter on the TID seems to always be off by about 2-4 seconds now. With most hits coming in at -2, -3, or -4. This makes planning my defensive maneuvering rather difficult because I can't determine if I splashed or missed from the TID counter if the missile is still in the air well after TTI.

Anyway, still love the Tomcat and look forward to more updates, thanks for all the work!

Edited February 15, 2022 by Rinz1er
wanted to add that I am doing MP

[DSplayer]

Considering the speed (which seem low in terms of DCS combat) of the target drones, I think it would be easier for those hits at those distances IRL in comparison to doing those against maneuvering targets going at like Mach 1.

Also, did the actual Navy tests actually show that target aspects that the target drones were at? The aspects of the targets are definitely important to the kinetic performance of the 54. 
 

58 minutes ago, shrimpy_dikdik said:

In multiplayer this missile is no longer a threat. 30+ shots fired and 2 kills. Most (90%+) lose track within 20secs from launch, those that actually make it to the target are easily defeated. I've watched other players missiles and they loft so high that when they come down it is at such an acute angle it loses all its energy. I've seen unaware players defeat it just by simply keeping their speed and attitude and flying underneath the missile as it slows to 300kn. No need for evasive action.

 

I fire usually at 45nm, 40k, M1.1 and 20° (less if lower). I then try and get under the targets altitude before I lose track but even then that is exactly what happens most of the time. Also it's a big sign to the enemy that you've fired when they see you dive and crank, so easy to defeat. My normal procedure is fire, watch the missile either lose track or just slow to a walking pace, turn around, flee, gain altitude, rinse, repeat, quit. The only two kills were at similar altitudes and I suspect they were asleep.

 

I was actually not too bad a couple of weeks ago. On GS maybe 2-5 kills per sortie and usually make it back home alive, on Blueflag 1 or 2 but usually the players are a lot more switched on. I know I need to "relearn" the missile, or adjust my style, but to be honest for any multiplayer enemy that is of moderate skill and not asleep it is so simple to defeat.

 

I have zero interest in offline play. I will continue to try and work out how to use this missile in multiplayer. If someone can explain how to not lose track about 95% of the time it would be appreciated. If it is lag (ping on GS server (Canada) 135ish) then there's not much I can do I guess.

 

I do not think GS server is a very good measure of stuff considering the server does have lag which trashes missiles and tracks since people just warp around sometimes.

[SgtPappy]

37 minutes ago, Rinz1er said:

The more upsetting thing that I have noticed is that after this update, I have not seen any phoenix track after launching them maddog (ACM cover up). Not sure what is going on there or if anyone else has had this experience. 

I think I have had similar experiences here so I practiced vs various targets offline and it appears that it still does go active with ACM cover up but you have to be closer than before.

Routinely, I would fire AIM-54C's online at ~ 10 nm and the missile would right away drop off the plane which was my indication that it was active. Now, the target has to be a little closer and very hot which leads me to believe the active at launch/off the rail is a TTI-driven thing (maybe that was common knowledge but I don't remember for sure). I'm fairly certain that the AIM-54s go active based on calculated TTI (< 16 s?) and now that they have slowed down especially at lower altitude, TTI is a lot longer at 10 nm than it used to be so you have to be a lot closer for the missile to go active off the rail unless you have a RIO.

The rate of acceleration now appears to be more in line with the real AIM-54 launch videos that exist, but of course that is peanuts compared to the actual papers/proof shown earlier in this thread.

Edited February 15, 2022 by SgtPappy

[DSplayer]

2 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

I think I have had similar experiences here so I practiced vs various targets offline and it appears that it still does go active with ACM cover up but you have to be closer than before.

Routinely, I would fire AIM-54C's online at ~ 10 nm and the missile would right away drop off the plane which was my indication that it was active. Now, the target has to be a little closer and very hot which leads me to believe the active at launch/off the rail is a TTI-driven thing (maybe that was common knowledge but I don't remember for sure). I'm fairly certain that the AIM-54s go active based on calculated TTI (< 16 s?) and now that they have slowed down especially at lower altitude, TTI is a lot longer at 10 nm than it used to be so you have to be a lot closer for the missile to go active off the rail unless you have a RIO.

 

I’ve had similar problems but this was before the 54 patch and I had written a bug report a couple months back and nothing came of it.

 

[IronMike]

2 hours ago, DSplayer said:

I’ve had similar problems but this was before the 54 patch and I had written a bug report a couple months back and nothing came of it.

 

Can you confirm this is still the case? I actually forgot to reply, because in our tests ACM cover up and BRST and PSTT within 20nm worked.

[Strider21]

@IronMike In the CFD White paper it references four known shots. The source for these shots is cited as:  An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System, Stephen Thornton Long, Naval Postgraduate School, March 1977

I cannot find that specific paper online but it seems to be referenced in other books. Is it possible to post it for review?

In the book Modern Fighting Aircraft, F-14, Salamander Books, 1985, it seems to reference the same test shots and similarly describes High Altitude Intercept, Sea Skim Intercept, Max Range Intercept and Multi-target Intercept. I assume the source of these descriptions of these shots is the same because they are described with a fair amount of detail. (target type, firing parameters (speed, alt range) and target conditions (speed, alt and any maneuvers). One shot that is described in the book but isn't mentioned in the White Paper is described as "Phoenix Maneuvering Trial". The shot is reported to have occurred in 1972 and was a F-14 at 10'000 ft, 0.75 MACH and a AIM-54 fired at 9.5nm against a QF-86 at 15300 ft, 0.8 Mach. Four seconds after launch the QF-86 pulls a 5g vertical dive roll with a 6g pull out at 9100 ft. 

With a friend we quickly approximated these test conditions and can confirm that the AIM-54A Mk47 largely performed as reported. The conditions weren't exactly flown but out of 6 shots there were 5 hits. The one miss was when the QF-86 turned cold in the split-S which doesn't seem to be what was flown in the test shot. The TACVIEW is attached. Is this one of the test shots you compared the CFD update against? because the performance appears to match. The only discrepency seems that in the test shot the AIM-54 pulled 16g to perform the intercept but in the TACVIEW the 54s only pull about 7-9g. 

Tacview-20220215-122349-DCS-QF86 Test.zip.acmi

Edited February 15, 2022 by Strider21

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Strider21 said:

@IronMike In the CFD White paper it references four known shots. The source for these shots is cited as:  An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System, Stephen Thornton Long, Naval Postgraduate School, March 1977

I cannot find that specific paper online but it seems to be referenced in other books. Is it possible to post it for review?

In the book Modern Fighting Aircraft, F-14, Salamander Books, 1985, it seems to reference the same test shots and similarly describes High Altitude Intercept, Sea Skim Intercept, Max Range Intercept and Multi-target Intercept. I assume the source of these descriptions of these shots is the same because they are described with a fair amount of detail. (target type, firing parameters (speed, alt range) and target conditions (speed, alt and any maneuvers). One shot that is described in the book but isn't mentioned in the White Paper is described as "Phoenix Maneuvering Trial". The shot is reported to have occurred in 1972 and was a F-14 at 10'000 ft, 0.75 MACH and a AIM-54 fired at 9.5nm against a QF-86 at 15300 ft, 0.8 Mach. Four seconds after launch the QF-86 pulls a 5g vertical dive roll with a 6g pull out at 9100 ft. 

With a friend we quickly approximated these test conditions and can confirm that the AIM-54A Mk47 largely performed as reported. The conditions weren't exactly flown but out of 6 shots there were 5 hits. The one miss was when the QF-86 turned cold in the split-S which doesn't seem to be what was flown in the test shot. The TACVIEW is attached. Is this one of the test shots you compared the CFD update against? because the performance appears to match. The only discrepency seems that in the test shot the AIM-54 pulled 16g to perform the intercept but in the TACVIEW the 54s only pull about 7-9g. 

Tacview-20220215-122349-DCS-QF86 Test.zip.acmi 359.82 kB · 1 download

 

Tacview telemetry is often flat out wrong. Also the missile should be able to pull iirc 20+G, but we have it a tad limited atm to ensure a smoother guidance. We hope we can increase its max G again, once it uses the new guidance API, currently it would unfortunately just constantly trash itself.

The F-86 - to replicate the shot, would likely have to be flown by a human. But the test itself, at these altitudes, indicates what long ranges was thought of for a high maneuvering target down low: which is within 10nm.

Unfortunately I do not have the book, not sure who has it or had it at the time the whitepaper was written, it is all so long ago. Likely they are the same as described in the one you have, otherwise you'd have to search the internet. Tom who initially helped us develop the phoenix is largely not reachable anymore today - unfortunately. It is quite possible he'd have that, but the gest of it is that he moved on from DCS since.

Edited February 15, 2022 by IronMike

[NeedzWD40]

Finally getting back to the lofting, I made some tacviews of the effect:

Tacview-20220215-161836-DCS-F-14 Overloft.zip.acmi

Tacview-20220215-162716-DCS-F-14 Overloft.zip.acmi

Tacview-20220215-163527-DCS.zip.acmi

The first is with AIM-54C in TWS; this one soars past the target and gets an active signal per the timer, but realizes it needs to do a 180 which it doesn't have the energy for. The second is with the AMk60, where it has the same behavior. The final test is again with the AMk60, but in STT. Curiously enough, this one acts like it tries to aim downward but doesn't have the atmospheric drag to properly descend, as it is pitching down yet still climbing. The killing STT shot was put into a similar 30deg loft from lower altitude and at shorter range, which had few if any problems making the hit -- though notably, the target made no effort to evade at this point.

I'm inclined to conclude that the missile is going into such a thin part of the atmo that it simply does not have the friction to maneuver or the WCS is unable to calculate the actual range of the missile under these conditions. A larger, slower target from further out may be possible to hit in this fashion, but smaller, faster targets at closer ranges simply close the distance too quickly for a 30deg launch.

[captain_dalan]

@Hardcard
Let's call a spade a spade, the Mk47 A's are capable of replicating those test shots. Now those 50 miles are just barely make it and if the bandit so much as flies into a turbulence those missiles will fall out of the sky like the big subsonic rocks they are by the time they reach their targets. But they do work. And they will make it if test conditions are met. I routinely get 5 out of 6 or 6 out of 6 and i don't even assist the loft. So it may be a conservative benchmark (minimum conditions met) but it is met never the less. The 30 mile shots are even more reliable (energy wise), and the missiles are comfortably in their kill zone when fired 25-30 miles away, again in the given test parameters. Now you may argue, that minimum conditions aren't enough, and there should be some leeway, but let's wait for the lift adjustments and further guidance improvements before we make our final verdicts. 

Tacview-20220216-013458-DCS-4 on 5 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220216-014311-DCS-6 on 6 test.zip.acmi Tacview-20220216-013916-DCS-6 on 6 test.zip.acmi

[Hardcard]

@IronMike

Ok, I think I've spotted the main problem with my 29nmi shot @30k ft: https://streamable.com/1xzhrz

It wasn't a matter of insufficient altitude and speed on my part, I simply took the shot from too close, forcing the phoenix to follow a narrow arc, which isn't efficient, and alerting the bandit with the smoke.

Had I taken that same shot from 40-50nmi, the mk60 A would've stayed in thin air for longer, entering terminal phase at higher speed (and probably higher altitude), likely not alerting the bandit before pitbull.
There's a chance the bandit would've still been able to defeat the missile, but at least the shot would've been more dangerous.   

Here's a dangerous mk60 A shot, taken at 56nmi with similar speed and altitude parameters as I had: 
https://streamable.com/wgvnem

Sure, the bandit in this case was flying higher than my bandit, but still, the wider arc given by the longer range makes a big difference, this guy didn't see the smoke from 56nmi and the phoenix reached him in a much better energy state (again, this bandit was pretty high, though).

So the key here isn't necessarily to climb to 40+k ft and burn like crazy, it's more a matter of optimizing the phoenix's arc (ie. taking longer shots).

Doing that, it's possible to take mk60 A shots that are in line with the official reports I linked... although the energy bleeding above 20k ft seems a tad too much, maybe.


The mk47 C, though...shouldn't it perform better than the rest of phoenixes? 
Don't you think it's underperforming?

Cheers.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Hardcard

[captain_dalan]

4 hours ago, Strider21 said:

One shot that is described in the book but isn't mentioned in the White Paper is described as "Phoenix Maneuvering Trial". The shot is reported to have occurred in 1972 and was a F-14 at 10'000 ft, 0.75 MACH and a AIM-54 fired at 9.5nm against a QF-86 at 15300 ft, 0.8 Mach. Four seconds after launch the QF-86 pulls a 5g vertical dive roll with a 6g pull out at 9100 ft. 

With a friend we quickly approximated these test conditions and can confirm that the AIM-54A Mk47 largely performed as reported. The conditions weren't exactly flown but out of 6 shots there were 5 hits. The one miss was when the QF-86 turned cold in the split-S which doesn't seem to be what was flown in the test shot. The TACVIEW is attached. Is this one of the test shots you compared the CFD update against? because the performance appears to match. The only discrepency seems that in the test shot the AIM-54 pulled 16g to perform the intercept but in the TACVIEW the 54s only pull about 7-9g. 

Tacview-20220215-122349-DCS-QF86 Test.zip.acmi 359.82 kB · 3 downloads

 

This is the one test i wanted to recommend to @Hummingbird as it can not be replicated offline, but if performed with a cooperative bandit (more then once, to eliminate flukes) it will account for any possible discrepancies in performance that may arise from sub-sufficient alpha induced lift/drag, or wonky atmospheric modeling. If anyone is able, capable and willing of performing the tests, i'd be more then happy to see the results  

[Strider21]

2 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

This is the one test i wanted to recommend to @Hummingbird as it can not be replicated offline, but if performed with a cooperative bandit (more then once, to eliminate flukes) it will account for any possible discrepancies in performance that may arise from sub-sufficient alpha induced lift/drag, or wonky atmospheric modeling. If anyone is able, capable and willing of performing the tests, i'd be more then happy to see the results  

Not following you. I did fly the test with human in the F-86. The TACVIEW is attached. The exact g pulled in the vertical dive wasn't 100% exact but it was flown more less as described. Of six shots five were hits. 

5 hours ago, IronMike said:

The F-86 - to replicate the shot, would likely have to be flown by a human. But the test itself, at these altitudes, indicates what long ranges was thought of for a high maneuvering target down low: which is within 10nm.

 

Test was flown with a human F-14 and human F-86 target. The target profile was more or less as per the description in the book. 

[DSplayer]

8 hours ago, IronMike said:

Can you confirm this is still the case? I actually forgot to reply, because in our tests ACM cover up and BRST and PSTT within 20nm worked.

I just did some testing both with a lock and without a lock using the same mission. Seems like the 54 will track when there is a lock already and the ACM cover is up. The first couple of tries with the ACM cover up and no lock resulted in a couple of the missiles not tracking but idk if it was a fluke or not. Then I continued to retest but I had 1 time where all the missiles had missed (idk if the target was too far away from the ADL or if it was an actual issue caused by the possible bug). I did seem to discover a bug where if you get an PAL P-STT, drop it (or not), then flip the ACM cover up, it wouldn't actually go into boresight mode automatically. That might've been the reason why some of my missiles had missed but I'm not too sure.
F14ACMTestFeb15.trkF14ACMTest2Feb15.trkF14ACMTest3Feb15.trkF14ACMTest4Feb15.trkF14ACMTest5Feb15.trkF14ACMTest6Feb15.trk

Edited February 16, 2022 by DSplayer

[IronMike]

10 hours ago, Hardcard said:

@IronMike

Ok, I think I've spotted the main problem with my 29nmi shot @30k ft: https://streamable.com/1xzhrz

It wasn't a matter of insufficient altitude and speed on my part, I simply took the shot from too close, forcing the phoenix to follow a narrow arc, which isn't efficient, and alerting the bandit with the smoke.

Had I taken that same shot from 40-50nmi, the mk60 A would've stayed in thin air for longer, entering terminal phase at higher speed (and probably higher altitude), likely not alerting the bandit before pitbull.
There's a chance the bandit would've still been able to defeat the missile, but at least the shot would've been more dangerous.   

Here's a dangerous mk60 A shot, taken at 56nmi with similar speed and altitude parameters as I had: 
https://streamable.com/wgvnem

Sure, the bandit in this case was flying higher than my bandit, but still, the wider arc given by the longer range makes a big difference, this guy didn't see the smoke from 56nmi and the phoenix reached him in a much better energy state (again, this bandit was pretty high, though).

So the key here isn't necessarily to climb to 40+k ft and burn like crazy, it's more a matter of optimizing the phoenix's arc (ie. taking longer shots).

Doing that, it's possible to take mk60 A shots that are in line with the official reports I linked... although the energy bleeding above 20k ft seems a tad too much, maybe.


The mk47 C, though...shouldn't it perform better than the rest of phoenixes? 
Don't you think it's underperforming?

Cheers.

 

Awesome, glad to hear that!

The C, is kinda a hassle imo. Its main problem is that much shorter motor burn time, which makes it really hard to define a "sweetspot" for it, if you like. I personally do not like to use it a lot and if I do, I fire either from 30-40nm on super unaware targets, long range on bomber like targets, or really close in on highly aware opponents. That's where I find it most effective. The C having a shorter motor burn time always boggled my mind a bit tbh. We will btw re-investigate motor burn times as well, although I don't think that we are far off the mark, so that likely will not change much, if anything.