AIM-54 Keep Missing!

[JOEM423]

Ive Got 4 Tracks in TWS Auto, I fire 4 Pheonix Mk60 at 4 Tu-22's at about 60 miles out and lucky if 1 hits the target! Is there a bug? Am I missing Something?

Thx in advance

jsm

[near_blind]

Can't really say much without seeing what the missiles are doing. Do you have a acmi file?

[Biggus]

Need more information.

What's your launch height?  What speed are you at?  What is the closure?  Are they flying on a reciprocal bearing from you?  What is their altitude?  Are they maneuvering between launch and expected impact, and if so, how much and where are they going?  A Tacview file would help a great deal.

I'm getting hits for practically every launch on Su27s with ECM so long as I fire around 50nm at FL350+ with at least 1300 knots closure.  If the target is under FL150, I'd probably hold til 40nm.

[EnDSchultz]

A few things make long distance shots a gamble against the AI. First, they magically know exactly when you have launched and will start chaffing immediately when subjected to a TWS launch, which can result in a lot of phantom contacts and dropping the TWS target almost immediately. This is exacerbated by the AWG-9 having trouble tracking multiple targets in close trail, especially if you don't have a large lateral offset to paint them— this increases the risk of the AWG-9 losing track of engaged targets as it can't decide if it's looking at one aircraft or multiple. The end result being that odds of keeping more than 1-2 of your TWS tracks long enough to reach pitbull are very low under some circumstances.

Typical TID behavior against 4x Su-24 in trail, hot, non maneuvering. Target aspect NOSE, my angels ~35:

Edited March 8, 2022 by EnDSchultz

[EnDSchultz]

Same thing again, this time with an offset and AI instructed not to chaff or ECM. For some reason was only seeing a single target on the TID, launched at 50nm and the instant I did, this happened.

[DoorMouse]

27 minutes ago, EnDSchultz said:

Same thing again, this time with an offset and AI instructed not to chaff or ECM. For some reason was only seeing a single target on the TID, launched at 50nm and the instant I did, this happened.

This constantly happens in PVP but I chalked it up to bad network/player lag/dcs engine struggling... but this is vs AI, so it should be perfect. 

 

Granted if they are very close and then split, the radar might have issues identifying single targets, but it should have no problem seeing one massive B52 sized target which is  4 ship of flankers. 

[EnDSchultz]

1 hour ago, DoorMouse said:

This constantly happens in PVP but I chalked it up to bad network/player lag/dcs engine struggling... but this is vs AI, so it should be perfect. 

 

Granted if they are very close and then split, the radar might have issues identifying single targets, but it should have no problem seeing one massive B52 sized target which is  4 ship of flankers. 

Pretty sure chaff and/or ECM combined with multiple bandits in close formation are largely to blame. RWS tracks 4 targets just fine but as soon as you switch to TWS, it struggles to pick up more than 1, maybe 2 tracks until well inside 50nm, even with offset. If you launch at the wrong time, when it is in the process of picking up or losing tracks, combined with magic chaff precognition, you can get some seriously messed up stuff like the screenshots... I checked the Tacview on some of them and the aircraft were chaffing so I must have screwed up somewhere.

Here's a video example of what happens, though this is a rather mild case. You see that the track goes haywire immediately upon launching, presumably in response to instantaneous chaff deployment.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by EnDSchultz

[Biggus]

This looks a bit like it is partially a radar resolution issue, and I'm not completely certain that it's unrealistic.  RWS seems to be able to pick out a close formation of individual aircraft pretty well at ranges of more than 80nm.  TWS seems to struggle with doing that properly down to something like 30nm.  Then having a rapidly outbound Phoenix or four added to the objects in the scan volume, it seems very difficult to maintain decent tracks.

When scenarios like those occur, I tend to offset myself as much as I can manage given the rate of closure, in the hope that I'll be able to break them out as individual tracks.  Sometimes I'll fire one missile in STT as I point my nose away in order to encourage the bandit formation to maneuver, with no real expectation of that missile hitting anything.  I definitely find it much easier to maintain tracks when I'm not directly nose-on at a group heading directly for me.

The psychic AI chaffing behavior is annoying, but it's far less annoying than it was a year ago when they'd combine the chaff with an attempt to notch.

[nighthawk2174]

I still see no reason that TWS would have a lower resolution then RWS.  TWS is the same waveform as RWS the only difference being the computer builds a trackprofile and updates it over time.

[near_blind]

@EnDSchultz, do you have a copy of that mission and or tracks handy?

[DoorMouse]

12 hours ago, EnDSchultz said:

Pretty sure chaff and/or ECM combined with multiple bandits in close formation are largely to blame. RWS tracks 4 targets just fine but as soon as you switch to TWS, it struggles to pick up more than 1, maybe 2 tracks until well inside 50nm, even with offset. If you launch at the wrong time, when it is in the process of picking up or losing tracks, combined with magic chaff precognition, you can get some seriously messed up stuff like the screenshots... I checked the Tacview on some of them and the aircraft were chaffing so I must have screwed up somewhere.

Here's a video example of what happens, though this is a rather mild case. You see that the track goes haywire immediately upon launching, presumably in response to instantaneous chaff deployment.

 

 

 

Were they actually chaffing and should that really cause this behavior if they are dead hot, High Doppler, and chaff behind them? I would not think this is accurate.

I've also seen similar behavior when targets shoot a missile, and the track gets lost because there is now a new contact on top of the other contact. 

[EnDSchultz]

10 hours ago, near_blind said:

@EnDSchultz, do you have a copy of that mission and or tracks handy?

I have matching Tacview recordings for that engagement and the one below, attached.

 

19 hours ago, Biggus said:

When scenarios like those occur, I tend to offset myself as much as I can manage given the rate of closure, in the hope that I'll be able to break them out as individual tracks.  Sometimes I'll fire one missile in STT as I point my nose away in order to encourage the bandit formation to maneuver, with no real expectation of that missile hitting anything.  I definitely find it much easier to maintain tracks when I'm not directly nose-on at a group heading directly for me.

The psychic AI chaffing behavior is annoying, but it's far less annoying than it was a year ago when they'd combine the chaff with an attempt to notch.

Very true @ the notching. Offsetting doesn't seem to help me in this scenario, even when I do so by as much as 30 degrees. Tracks are still unreliable and it struggles to pick up more than 1-2 of them reliably. Here's another run at the same scenario except I've set up an offset... maybe it's just not enough? I get lucky and don't see any of the insane behavior noted above this time, but you'll notice it doesn't pick up more than 2 tracks until I'm practically WVR.

PS: Apologies for kind of stealing this thread from the OP but they seem to have abandoned it, so...

 

Example 2.zip.acmi Example 1.zip.acmi

Edited March 9, 2022 by EnDSchultz

[Biggus]

Could you share your mission file?

I'm trying to think of things that you are doing differently to me and there isn't very much to list.  I generally don't touch the target aspect switch.  It's probably best practice to do so, but it's one big difference.  I also tend to set my TID range to 50 as the contacts approach that range.  Again, I wouldn't expect that to make much difference in this scenario where there are no other potential aircraft to get caught in my scan volume.  Have you tried changing the Su24s out for another aircraft?  Su27s, maybe?  I'm just wondering whether there might be some weirdness with the RCS of old AI assets.

[EnDSchultz]

On 3/9/2022 at 12:58 AM, Biggus said:

Could you share your mission file?

 

There was really nothing to it, just a basic test mission so I didn't think to save it... 4x (veteran) Russian Su-24 on an Anti-Ship Strike mission and appropriately armed, angels 30 hot towards a carrier at max speed. I launch as F-14A from the carrier (catapult start) to intercept.

Edited March 10, 2022 by EnDSchultz

[IronMike]

can you send us the track of this please?

[Biggus]

Okay, I just quickly knocked up a similar mission.

Much the same result as yours, @EnDSchultz. 

Spot four Su-24Ms at around 100nm.  Single track in TWS down til under 30nm.  That trail formation is super effective.  A few variations with changing altitude and pushing wide to change geometry didn't net much of an improvement.  Setting the Su-24s to AFAC changed their formation and definitely made it easier to pick them up individually a little earlier, but I had nothing like the success rate I normally enjoy against Su-27s.

I'm not sure whether RWS is a bit too good, or TWS is a bit too poor.

@IronMike, I've included a track from this mission.  It's not my finest work, but you can clearly see how easily the radar picks out individuals in trail at a long distance and seems to be unable to pick the trails out until quite late.  Hope this is helpful.

TWS test.trk

[DoorMouse]

14 hours ago, Biggus said:

 

I'm not sure whether RWS is a bit too good, or TWS is a bit too poor.

Anecdotally you'd have to imagine that if the weapon designed to attack and defeat massed bombers attacking a carrier was itself defeated by massed bombers flying in formation towards said carrier- that would be a real design flaw.

 

FWIW I also see this when other aircraft fire missiles and then the track diverges, and inevitably gets trashed. You can trash a TWS shot by just shooting a missile- Sometimes. 

Edited March 11, 2022 by DoorMouse

[IronMike]

4 hours ago, DoorMouse said:

Anecdotally you'd have to imagine that if the weapon designed to attack and defeat massed bombers attacking a carrier was itself defeated by massed bombers flying in formation towards said carrier- that would be a real design flaw.

 

FWIW I also see this when other aircraft fire missiles and then the track diverges, and inevitably gets trashed. You can trash a TWS shot by just shooting a missile- Sometimes. 

 

Not necessarily a design flaw, fwiw, the TWS we are talking bout here has been the first of its kind and comes from an era, where computers just started becoming a thing, so it can and likely is also simply a design limitation, as in of what was capable at the time. In general the expectation of how realiable TWS should be, is too high across the board. A bomber, without escort, and when you are flying in a 4ship yourself, you do not even have to engage in TWS. Or at that range, unless you failed to spot it early enough ofc. But the primary engagement method, which will always prove as most reliable is STT. In this scenario you could even fly up to them and gun them one by one for all that matters, if that makes sense. We're just very used in DCS to use TWS as our primary attack method.

Thank you for the track @Biggus - we'll look into it.

[DoorMouse]

20 hours ago, IronMike said:

Not necessarily a design flaw, fwiw, the TWS we are talking bout here has been the first of its kind and comes from an era, where computers just started becoming a thing, so it can and likely is also simply a design limitation, as in of what was capable at the time. In general the expectation of how realiable TWS should be, is too high across the board. A bomber, without escort, and when you are flying in a 4ship yourself, you do not even have to engage in TWS. Or at that range, unless you failed to spot it early enough ofc. But the primary engagement method, which will always prove as most reliable is STT. In this scenario you could even fly up to them and gun them one by one for all that matters, if that makes sense. We're just very used in DCS to use TWS as our primary attack method.

Thank you for the track @Biggus - we'll look into it.

One of the biggest issues is that TWS Tracks do not correlate properly, and I understand from a game/code perspective its not really possible.  In real life the WCS would likely see this all as a single massive radar return and allow you to guide the missiles to target and pitbull in the general vicinity. In game they are 4 discrete targets and because the in-game WCS cannot properly correlate tracks it actually instead forces them to drop, which I'd suggest is the wrong compromise.  But even if you get a hold track it will often just not work with its ~3nm work around that was created.  Additionally, TWS at any sort of range is a complete gamble due to the issues presented in this thread, TWS weighting issues, Missile RCS causing tracks to diverge, or just general game/network performance.

If you aren't going to use TWS then there are not a lot of reliable options. Currently PDSTT with PH active with fallback SAHR is not available, also due to game limitations. your only remaining options are PD STT or PulseSTT.  The practical options you have are: 

• PDSTT: which has problems dropping if the target turns to the beam. Even if you stay below them, even with MLC out, even with all sorts of RIO wizardry. Its probably the least reliable mode available, but at least you can re-lock with PAL and hopefully guide it in. Forget trying this at any significant range.
• PH active of some kind (ACM, PH, or PulseSTT) within ~10 miles - and hope it will start tracking the target (it usually does). Otherwise you just made a big angry sky torpedo, I feel like a submarine commander when I fire in this mode.
• TWS target size large/normal within <30 miles and hope to God one of the various issues with TWS doesn't spoil your shot. This is currently the most lethal way to use the phoenix due to getting some mid course guidance... which I know is not how it is intended to be used. 

I've heard all sorts of aircrew interviews that PDSTT was their primary means of engagement... But the limitation not being able to set PH Active on a Pulse Doppler STT make the Phoenix essentially a WVR missile unless you are shooting in TWS. Having a proper Fox 3 with PH Active in PD so you could get mid course guidance and SAHR fallback would be a welcome addition - But I know there is no timeline for that and the current game cannot handle the actual behavior of the missile.  

As it is now, in multiplayer at least, you can presume 3-4 of your missiles wont ever go Pitbull for various reasons each flight, and you'll need to get within 10 miles and STT or Maddog phoenixes at targets.  Just getting the missile to actually go active feels like a magical event, and half the battle of flying the Tomcat.

Edited March 12, 2022 by DoorMouse

[Biggus]

I agree with your suggestion about the dropping of tracks, @DoorMouse, but I'm finding TWS shots with Mk60s at least to generally have a higher PK than ever before with this current patch.  This sort of scenario (nose-hot striker AI group flying trail or six feet from each other) is the only one I've yet found where TWS isn't going to be my default engagement mode.  That would not be the case if the fighter AI were to adopt similar formations.  Those AI don't care much if you launch a PDSTT shot at them, they fly straight and level and die.

[EnDSchultz]

The issue I've reported does seem to be related to radar resolution... an AI flight of 4 Flankers doesn't seem to get differentiated any better whether they're forced into a trail or echelon formation, but when allowed to diverge into their default combat stagger they are spotted just fine. I think a lot of the crazy behavior I've seen here comes from launching and/or guiding while tracks of closely spaced aircraft are being picked up and/or lost.

[draconus]

10 hours ago, EnDSchultz said:

The issue I've reported does seem to be related to radar resolution...

That does not explain why RWS has no problem seeing targets separately.

[Biggus]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

That does not explain why RWS has no problem seeing targets separately.

If it's not literally a difference in resolution between the two modes, then it's something that presents itself as such.  It could be a problem with building trackfiles.  It could be something else entirely.

[Zaphael]

Having the same problem but mostly in multiplayer games. 

The WCS for some reason shows a broken track shortly after a Phoenix was fired. A "new" (actually the same contact), would pop up under the original broken track. 

Naturally this results in a thrashed shot.

It's just weird, sometimes the WCS is fine, sometimes it's wonky.

 

@HB, perhaps just recode the WCS "all seeing" and forget about "simulating" the thing accurately on how it correlates etc etc. That is, the TID track will always be where the target is. After the WCS is "all seeing", then throw in some target parameters that MAY increase probability of de-correlation. 

[scommander2]

I have the similar issue in DCS 2.7.11.22211 but even strange.

I had the object was blinking in TID, and I fired an AIM-54c.  AIM-54c flied very high, and it exploded self but the object was still shown the tracking.  Hit F10 to check the map, the AIM-54c was gone.

This issue did not happen in DCS 2.7.10.19473 even AIM-54c missing the target.