AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion

[bonesvf103]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

"We got Tomcat on RWR, 50nm hot, we better start notching and descend or we'll eat one of his Phoenix, probably already on the way" - that's what smart pilot would do.

This is true.

v6,

boNes

[near_blind]

1 hour ago, bonesvf103 said:

And that being the case, well, if the best place to be is at 35,000+ feet to fire a Phoenix and it runs out of juice because the target is at 10,000 ft, then what is the point of having a Phoenix at all?  If I shoot it at 10,000 ft so that it doesn't have to drop down a huge altitude difference, then it is losing energy by being in thicker air/having higher drag.  Why not just shoot a Sparrow at around the same altitude and have a higher chance of killing it?  oh, if you're shooting at low altitude then get in closer range since the air is thicker.  Then again, what is the point of having a Phoenix then?  I might as well use a Sparrow.

If we're still referring to the provided Tacview, only 1 out of 6 of your missiles "ran out of juice because the target was at 10,000 ft", and that was against a defending fighter at the tail end of a 50 mile shot. What other missile in the game could have done better? In a more general sense, if you find yourself in a situation where you *have to think* about whether or not a Sparrow is the right choice, the Sparrow is probably the right choice and you shouldn't have an AIM-54s left on the jet. 

 

1 hour ago, bonesvf103 said:

Just seems to me that everytime there is an advantage that the Phoenix is supposed to have it is negated by something, making it just as lethal and effective as a Sparrow or AMRAAM, if not worse, so I don't really see the point of carrying a Phoenix then.

The point is you don't get AMRAAMs, direct all hate mail to the address of one Richard Cheney. There are a number of reasons the AIM-120 persisted as a generalist missile, while the AIM-54 did not persist at all. One of them is that while it _can_ be a very effective weapon, it needs to be used within a certain context to excel whereas something like an AMRAAM is more generally capable. We lucky few get to actually work for our kills instead of the bug and lawn dart aficionados.

 

1 hour ago, bonesvf103 said:

Shoot it at high altitude...but then it doesn't have the energy against a low target. OK, shoot at a lower altitude...but then it is in thicker air and doesn't have the energy to hit the target or wastes it in an unnecessary loft.  The results always seem to ne to be inconsistent and mediocre, especially when fired under the same conditions.  I can shoot at the same conditions as say IronMike, and the missile will perform differently than from his test, or not perform the same way in my own after repeated tests.

You do not want to shoot the missile down low. Period. You do want the missile to loft. Always. There are acknowledged bugs with the current guidance schema: over lofting, the missile not turning correctly in the terminal phase of flight. These are frustrating, I get that, but they will eventually be fixed, such is the nature of DCS development. 

[Callsign JoNay]

2 hours ago, near_blind said:

You do not want to shoot the missile down low. Period. 

I wouldn't go that far. The Phoenix is deadly down low if the rocket is still burning. It burns for ~30 seconds and goes decently far in that time.

[near_blind]

4 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

I wouldn't go that far. The Phoenix is deadly down low if the rocket is still burning. It burns for ~30 seconds and goes decently far in that time.

Of those 30 seconds, it takes 20 to accelerate to its max speed of Mach 2, and will be subsonic within 10 seconds of motor burn out. Can it work? Absolutely. Is that how I want to be expending my 80 mile hate javelins? definitely not. 

[Callsign JoNay]

1 hour ago, near_blind said:

Of those 30 seconds, it takes 20 to accelerate to its max speed of Mach 2, and will be subsonic within 10 seconds of motor burn out. Can it work? Absolutely. Is that how I want to be expending my 80 mile hate javelins? definitely not. 

If an 120C and a 54A mk60 have a drag race near sea level, the 120 will be subsonic at around 0.85 mach before the mk60's motor even burns out, (at around Mach 1.9). The 54 will out range it a little bit too.

It's a similar WEZ, but the 120 is more deadly in the first half of the WEZ and the 54 is more deadly in the second half.

[Zaphael]

I think the "high" drag of the Phoenix down low is a little too exaggerated. Probably what we are seeing is something that doesn't account for the decrease in drag AFTER the transonic "wall". 

If a shooter aircraft punches the transonic drag region for the missile, the missile would not expend as much energy to do so itself.

I think that the kinematic performance of the Phoenix down low currently, is as though it was a subsonic launch even when it was a supersonic launch. 

For a missile as large as the Phoenix, the difference between a supersonic and subsonic launch should have a significant kinematic difference because of the exponential transonic region drag.

 

 

 

[PD919]

No scientific test.  In the instant action Marianas map Hunting the Jeff, my AIM-54s hit 2 to 3 bandits every time.  It's a very effective missile at above Angels 30.  Below that it still works but it's not quite as good as an AIM120.

[TLTeo]

Yeah, having flown more (SP only), my personal conclusion is you have to treat it differently between high and low altitude shots, although I think the guidance plays as much of a role as the kinetic performance. At high altitude it can get enough speed that the magic all-seeing AI only has a limited time to pull its ridicolous hyper aware chaff spam, so you can get a pretty high Pk from long range TWS shots. At angels ~25 and below I find that hitting a fighter in TWS is basically impossible because the missile goes for chaff very quickly after going active, but PD-STT shots work perfectly well because the missile keeps guiding.

[DoorMouse]

5 hours ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

The guidence needs to switch to the new API with the proper filters. The long awaited AIM54C changes are also overdue by now. The 54C in prticular is stated to have a greater ISP and Mach 5 capes in Heatblur's own paper.

ED needs to complete their API and make those features available. The C has things like SAHR Fallback if its loses internal lock that the game literally has no way of doing until ED makes it available. 

 

And to be clear, the aim54 in military service never achieved Mach 5 to my knowledge. The NASA tests had a heavily modified AIM54 where they removed the warhead, lightened it, and made other changes in order to get it to get that fast.  They also shot it from a platform going Mach 2+ in the first place. 

[Zaphael]

21 hours ago, DoorMouse said:

ED needs to complete their API and make those features available. The C has things like SAHR Fallback if its loses internal lock that the game literally has no way of doing until ED makes it available. 

 

And to be clear, the aim54 in military service never achieved Mach 5 to my knowledge. The NASA tests had a heavily modified AIM54 where they removed the warhead, lightened it, and made other changes in order to get it to get that fast.  They also shot it from a platform going Mach 2+ in the first place. 

They had to modify the missile to hit Mach 5. 

In any case, the Phoenix is slow at lower altitudes. Unfortunately, it feels sluggish even when the launch platform shoots above the transonic region. It shouldn't feel it's accelerating so slowly unless it was nearing Mach 3.

Nevertheless, it is still capable in thicker air. It just cannot be a TWS launch. Pilot has to go STT and wait for the target to get within 15NMI launch and leave. AMRAAMs / SD-10 etc will still require the missile to be supported at this range whereas the Phoenix would be active off the rails. It's still fairly lethal shot which needs to be honoured.

 

[DoorMouse]

On 3/26/2022 at 5:41 PM, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Gotcha.

• https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Phoenix/phoenixmissile.html
• https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060004771/downloads/20060004771.pdf

Quote

When the Phoenix missile’s radar seeker, attendant signal processing equipment, target detector, and warhead are removed, it is possible to have an allowable research payload weight of up to 250 lb.

Really cool stuff, but they did major surgery on the thing, removed 250lbs, and got a F-15 to yeet the thing from 45,000ft. even then it just barely got Mach 5

Edited March 28, 2022 by DoorMouse

[Zaphael]

Wow those numbers are amazing. A "standard" Phoenix was able to cruise around Mach 3+ for almost 120s from launch! 

[Comstedt86]

3 hours ago, Zaphael said:

Wow those numbers are amazing. A "standard" Phoenix was able to cruise around Mach 3+ for almost 120s from launch! 

Try replicating in DCS. 

[GGTharos]

You won't be able to replicate NASA's shots in DCS, they fly a specific profile which is not available in the game.   That said, the graph does give you an idea of the missile's performance, but who shoots at M1.2 at 45000' with 45 degrees of pitch?

[Lurker]

On 3/21/2022 at 8:09 PM, Zaphael said:

I think the "high" drag of the Phoenix down low is a little too exaggerated. Probably what we are seeing is something that doesn't account for the decrease in drag AFTER the transonic "wall". 

If a shooter aircraft punches the transonic drag region for the missile, the missile would not expend as much energy to do so itself.

I think that the kinematic performance of the Phoenix down low currently, is as though it was a subsonic launch even when it was a supersonic launch. 

For a missile as large as the Phoenix, the difference between a supersonic and subsonic launch should have a significant kinematic difference because of the exponential transonic region drag.

 

Do you mean that if you are already supersonic in the F14 when launching and flying down low, the missile should be performing much better than it currently is? Have you tested this?

[Zaphael]

8 hours ago, Lurker said:

Do you mean that if you are already supersonic in the F14 when launching and flying down low, the missile should be performing much better than it currently is? Have you tested this?

What I think is that if the missile is above Mach 1.2 or so, the rate of acceleration should be slightly increased since it has passed the transonic region. Right now, it feels that the amount of drag on the missile is constant.

[DoorMouse]

21 hours ago, Comstedt86 said:

Try replicating in DCS. 

At 45,000 Mach 1.2 launch 45* launch angle.... probably trivial. 

 

Put a target out at 100 miles and shoot those conditions. see what happens. I've easily seen 90 mile missiles retain mach 3+

 

The issues facing it now are the guidance behaviors (overlofting) and AWG9 performance (in some conditions not being able to track even a small number of non maneuvering targets) 

Edited March 31, 2022 by DoorMouse

[cheezit]

Was looking at docs to distract myself from the realities of floor sanding and embedded development recently.   Came across this gem, relevant to the previous discussion in the thread about how the AIM-54A was supposedly overmodelled wrt. ECCM:

 

 

"Better than Sidewinder, even" - apparently having an analog front-end didn't make the thing completely dumb as some have said.  Quelle surprise that a missile whose primary mission was to nail bombers and which had tons of board space for electronics due to its huge diameter did what it said on the tin.

 

 

Sarcasm aside and despite all the obvious caveats here, this does makes me wonder what a circa-1980 Soviet bomber's ECM attack vector against an AIM-9L would have been (or the ECM attack vector of a standoff jammer working with said bomber).  Off the top of my head I'm thinking the proximity fuze, since radar jamming does nothing to an IR missile while the target detection device was one of the ECCM upgrades done in the AIM-54A -> AIM-54C development program (with the 54C featuring a TDD that had two separate proximity fuses that operated on different principles).  Or maybe I'm completely overthinking things and they're lumping flares and flare rejection in as part of ECM/ECCM.

Edited April 18, 2022 by cheezit

[Zaphael]

2 hours ago, cheezit said:

Was looking at docs to distract myself from the realities of floor sanding and embedded development recently.   Came across this gem, relevant to the previous discussion in the thread about how the AIM-54A was supposedly overmodelled wrt. ECCM:

 

 

"Better than Sidewinder, even" - apparently having an analog front-end didn't make the thing completely dumb as some have said.  Quelle surprise that a missile whose primary mission was to nail bombers and which had tons of board space for electronics due to its huge diameter did what it said on the tin.

 

 

Sarcasm aside and despite all the obvious caveats here, this does makes me wonder what a circa-1980 Soviet bomber's ECM attack vector against an AIM-9L would have been (or the ECM attack vector of a standoff jammer working with said bomber).  Off the top of my head I'm thinking the proximity fuze, since radar jamming does nothing to an IR missile while the target detection device was one of the ECCM upgrades done in the AIM-54A -> AIM-54C development program (with the 54C featuring a TDD that had two separate proximity fuses that operated on different principles).  Or maybe I'm completely overthinking things and they're lumping flares and flare rejection in as part of ECM/ECCM.

 

Yes, they often lump counter measures (flares and chaff) as part of Electronic Counter Measures (ECM). Dumbing it down for non military people. 

I think part of the AIM-54A's "ECCM" ability is the AWG-9 TWS launch, which helps avoid tripping the RWR detection of an STT launch say on a Sparrow. 

The 54C, according to limited officially open literature have improved ECCM, believed to be HOJ. 

[cheezit]

3 hours ago, Zaphael said:

 

The 54C, according to limited officially open literature have improved ECCM, believed to be HOJ. 

 

 

To expand on this point, per the open literature (specifically, defense appropriations hearings where a redacted version of the live-fire portion of the test plan was included in the congressional record), the original AIM-54C (not the later AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed, nor the "AIM-54C+", nor the "AIM-C++"/"AIM-54C+ Upgrade"/"High Power Phoenix" with the TWT amp that was basically a design borrowed from the AIM-120A's amp but upscaled for the Phoenix) had more to its ECCM improvements than this: specifically, the test program called for live-fire tests against multiple blinking/blitting self-protection jammers in and synchronized configurations, various configurations of standoff jammers, combinations of self-protection jammers and standoff jammers, etc where simple HoJ capabilities wouldn't achieve anything useful.  I think it was from the FY81  hearings, but I can look up the chapter and verse if you'd like.

[Amahvan]

On 2/10/2022 at 1:25 PM, 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.

 

 

On 2/10/2022 at 1:57 PM, DSplayer said:

Yeah. The recent updates made the AWG-9 super sensitive to internet issues

 

On 2/11/2022 at 2:17 AM, shrimpy_dikdik said:

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. 

 

On 2/15/2022 at 4:11 AM, Clunk1001 said:

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.  

 

On 2/15/2022 at 12:15 PM, 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. 

 

On 2/15/2022 at 12:45 PM, Rinz1er said:

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!

 

 

THIS.

 

On 3/15/2022 at 5:56 PM, draconus said:

"We got Tomcat on RWR, 50nm hot, we better start notching and descend or we'll eat one of his Phoenix, probably already on the way" - that's what smart pilot would do.

This is accurate as well, and I only fly PvP in The War Server (low ping). But it seems that since a recent update, the Tomcat is no longer a capable air to air fighter. Recommitting after the initial crank has become suicide. Shots over 50nm are near impossible to hit, shots inside of 30nm are also near impossible to hit. The AIM-54 in general appears to have become totally ineffective.

 

I appreciate greatly the detail of the Tomcat. It's by far, my greatest addiction and led to an interest in real life performance jet aviation, as well as a 1:1 cockpit sim built in my house (my wife was really happy about that one).

Radar is broken since the RIO MP update.

1500+ hrs in the Tomcat, competitive player. Now I can't hit a single target. I've attached some short clips to show different testing after spending a week trying to figure out if it was indeed pilot error, and testing different timelines of attack (including straight out of Navy tacops for the Tomcat).

It seems the radar flickers on and off, losing the lock (but Jester doesn't know it). Nothing goes pitbull (if it does, it's rare, and tracks poorly).

I've tried STT. but experience the same issue whether at 65nm, 35nm, or <10nm. I've complained in private about the AIM-54s being neutered for "balance", but now the aircraft is not even capable of defending itself against novice players.

Here's a clip of Jester failing to lock a target at 12 o'clock, flying level with no ECM. Painted SA with RWS, then tried locking with TWS unsuccessfully, then STT unsuccessfully, then TWS unsuccessfully again before being launched on and having to dive:
https://clips.twitch.tv/JazzyCrypticGuanacoMikeHogu-_a8whiG8ENIymA6R

Here's another clip, target is flickering in the SA page, not running ECM, and over the water. Unable to lock via TWS and unable to lock STT:
https://clips.twitch.tv/KathishCuriousButterTheThing-eYwW5E5w_vqD1HCs

The issue is NOT Jester, and we tested this with a human RIO to confirm. Same thing-- enemy plane flying high, level, and not running ECM or jammer. TWS lock failed multiple times, 2x missile launch never went pitbull, but targets were never out of radar cone / gimbal limit.

The aircraft is currently unflyable in this condition, and worst of all, I cannot explain or figure out what is causing the issue. Any help would be appreciated.

[KL0083]

5 hours ago, Amahvan said:

 

I've tried STT. but experience the same issue whether at 65nm, 35nm, or <10nm. I've complained in private about the AIM-54s being neutered for "balance", but now the aircraft is not even capable of defending itself against novice players.

 

Yes,and not track with even dogfight switch on!

Rather then what so-called"game-balance",to weaken the Phoenix in to this extent since the last update,I wonder what if the Phoenix was really poor to this shape in real life,or rather all the utter is just "update" to meet some now widely-known Cat-Hate Saga and fulfill the happy of some BC/PC who create and promotes them since early this century..............................

[draconus]

15 minutes ago, KL0083 said:

BC/PC

What?

@Amahvan your video is not much readable wrt TID

[KL0083]

4 minutes ago, draconus said:

What?

@Amahvan your video is not much readable wrt TID

BureauCracy/Politico Corrupto

[shrimpy_dikdik]

8 hours ago, Amahvan said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS.

 

This is accurate as well, and I only fly PvP in The War Server (low ping). But it seems that since a recent update, the Tomcat is no longer a capable air to air fighter. Recommitting after the initial crank has become suicide. Shots over 50nm are near impossible to hit, shots inside of 30nm are also near impossible to hit. The AIM-54 in general appears to have become totally ineffective.

 

I appreciate greatly the detail of the Tomcat. It's by far, my greatest addiction and led to an interest in real life performance jet aviation, as well as a 1:1 cockpit sim built in my house (my wife was really happy about that one).

Radar is broken since the RIO MP update.

1500+ hrs in the Tomcat, competitive player. Now I can't hit a single target. I've attached some short clips to show different testing after spending a week trying to figure out if it was indeed pilot error, and testing different timelines of attack (including straight out of Navy tacops for the Tomcat).

It seems the radar flickers on and off, losing the lock (but Jester doesn't know it). Nothing goes pitbull (if it does, it's rare, and tracks poorly).

I've tried STT. but experience the same issue whether at 65nm, 35nm, or <10nm. I've complained in private about the AIM-54s being neutered for "balance", but now the aircraft is not even capable of defending itself against novice players.

Here's a clip of Jester failing to lock a target at 12 o'clock, flying level with no ECM. Painted SA with RWS, then tried locking with TWS unsuccessfully, then STT unsuccessfully, then TWS unsuccessfully again before being launched on and having to dive:
https://clips.twitch.tv/JazzyCrypticGuanacoMikeHogu-_a8whiG8ENIymA6R

Here's another clip, target is flickering in the SA page, not running ECM, and over the water. Unable to lock via TWS and unable to lock STT:
https://clips.twitch.tv/KathishCuriousButterTheThing-eYwW5E5w_vqD1HCs

The issue is NOT Jester, and we tested this with a human RIO to confirm. Same thing-- enemy plane flying high, level, and not running ECM or jammer. TWS lock failed multiple times, 2x missile launch never went pitbull, but targets were never out of radar cone / gimbal limit.

The aircraft is currently unflyable in this condition, and worst of all, I cannot explain or figure out what is causing the issue. Any help would be appreciated.

In fairness since I made those comments things have improved. I no longer lose track as much as before which to me was the biggest issue. Sure my missiles get defeated but I generally beat theirs also resulting in a no score draw as I retreat to gain altitude, speed and SA. It does seem that the online stability has improved. 

 

I shoot usually 35k+, M1.1+ and from around 35-40Nm. I no longer fire 4 missiles at once looking for that large kill spam message but instead try and pick on those more isolated and without any terrain cover. A lot of online players, especially Flankers, tend to fly low and can duck behind something very easily. I think the changes to the Aim 54 just mean you need to be a bit more thoughtful of who, when and where you attack. I've had a few sorties recently with 3 kills to my name and made it back for tea.