The Aim 54 is confounding me

[Callsign JoNay]

On 9/2/2022 at 10:48 AM, Callsign JoNay said:

With the new September 2nd patch we can probably forget my old 1.5 rule. It's probably closer to 1:1 now, judging by the data we're seeing. If the bandit is at 30k, shoot at 30NM, 20 for 20, 10 for 10, etc. Testing needed to confirm, of course.

Still lots of testing needed, but I've come to the conclusion that BVR shots on 4th gen maneuvering targets are no longer likely to result in kills, from any speed, altitude, or range beyond 20-ish nm. The challenge is the AI performs a spit-S at 10nm, and I haven't been able to come up with any conditions that allow me to put enough smash on the missile for the terminal phase. There's never enough speed on the missile to chase down and intercept a split-Sing target. I think all longer range shots (40-60nm) should be considered posture shots, with the intention of making your opponents dive and defend so that you can close the range for a <20 nm kill shot with another Phoenix. 10-15 nm shots at medium-low altitudes are effective, but the trade off is dipping your toes into that R-27 ET WEZ. So you better split-S immediately after the shot and flare your butt off. That's my two cents until someone shows me Tacview that indicates otherwise.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Callsign JoNay

[Digitalvole]

9 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Still lots of testing needed, but I've come to the conclusion that BVR shots on 4th gen maneuvering targets are no longer likely to result in kills, from any speed, altitude, or range beyond 20-ish nm. The challenge is the AI performs a spit-S at 10nm, and I haven't been able to come up with any conditions that allow me to put enough smash on the missile for the terminal phase. There's never enough speed on the missile to chase down and intercept a split-Sing target. I think all longer range shots (40-60nm) should be considered posture shots, with the intention of making your opponents dive and defend so that you can close the range for a <20 nm kill shot with another Phoenix. 10-15 nm shots at medium-low altitudes are effective, but the trade off is dipping your toes into that R-27 ET WEZ. So you better split-S immediately after the shot and flare your butt off. That's my two cents until someone shows me Tacview that indicates otherwise.

 

This sounds like what I’m seeing, but I’m just using the F10 map so it’s a bit of a guess. Seeing lots of misses and bandits turning cold. 

This morning I’m going to see if I can get my AI wingman to fire at 40nm, let the AI do there split S shinanagins whilst I keep closing in, then I’ll shoot within 20nm and hopefully bag them. 

One problem I foresee is that there is 6 of them vs 2 of us, but you don’t know until you try, right?
 

 

[KlarSnow]

Get higher, get faster. If the targets elect to turn around, they aren't shooting you. Either way. Higher, and faster are your friends. You have a mondo radar that can see them well before they can see you, use it to get up to altitude and fast and shoot longer rather than shorter.

Phoenix47C_cleansweep.zip.acmi

[Digitalvole]

What is a good height and speed? I’ve been aiming at 41k feet, 1.1 Mach  (finding it hard to get faster with 4x aim 54) and shooting at about 50miles on a hot target who’s at 30k feet. No luck so far, should I be higher/faster?

If you had 2x ai flying at you, in a regular formation (by which I mean the default one) at what distance can TWS work out there’s two targets instead of just one? I have a feeling this might be one of the mistakesI’m making.

 

[KlarSnow]

How close are the targets, if they are close and then split after you fire that will very likely trash your phoenixes due to the track extrapolating. If you are concerned about it, shoot with a 54C in PD-STT. That will not have track extrapolation issues and will go active if they break your lock or you need to defend. The AI still defends at 10 miles from the missile just like in TWS. Shoot further, kill one or force it to turn around, and then the track will split for the second one.

Or wait a few miles closer IIRC its usually around the 40 mile region where the res cell of TWS starts to breakout into azimuth.

[Digitalvole]

Excellent, thanks. 

After I fire I just turn a little, just so I’m not head on and point my nose down a little. I assumed it lost the lock because the radar had suddenly realised it was two targets not one.

I get it quite often where halfway to the target (so still a good way to go, 20 miles plus) the missile decides to do its own thing. Bound to be user error, I just need to work out what that error(s) is.

Also is it likely that the ai going defensive as soon as a missile is 10 miles out gonna get fixed? I don’t think I could see a missile 10 miles away. Maybe they should behave this cautiously after there wingman disappears in a puff of smoke, but not before surely?

Maybe there all reluctant conscripts? 

[IronMike]

29 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

Excellent, thanks. 

After I fire I just turn a little, just so I’m not head on and point my nose down a little. I assumed it lost the lock because the radar had suddenly realised it was two targets not one.

I get it quite often where halfway to the target (so still a good way to go, 20 miles plus) the missile decides to do its own thing. Bound to be user error, I just need to work out what that error(s) is.

Also is it likely that the ai going defensive as soon as a missile is 10 miles out gonna get fixed? I don’t think I could see a missile 10 miles away. Maybe they should behave this cautiously after there wingman disappears in a puff of smoke, but not before surely?

Maybe there all reluctant conscripts? 

It's due to the current limitations of ARH missiles in DCS going active at a set range (10nm), hence the AI gets the active missile warning at 10nm.

Only against players and with the -A, you can make the tgt size switch set to small have an effect of "late surprise". However, given that tgt size switch set to normal is 10nm, and what you would generally use, the AI defending at 10nm always is not as big of an issue as many make it look imo. IRL setting this switch would represent less of a sneaky tactic, but more of an estimate of where you would expect the missile to be able to see its target (hence larger targets further out and smaller targets further in). This however is not reflected in DCS.

[Spurts]

3 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

What is a good height and speed? I’ve been aiming at 41k feet, 1.1 Mach  (finding it hard to get faster with 4x aim 54) and shooting at about 50miles on a hot target who’s at 30k feet. No luck so far, should I be higher/faster?

If you had 2x ai flying at you, in a regular formation (by which I mean the default one) at what distance can TWS work out there’s two targets instead of just one? I have a feeling this might be one of the mistakesI’m making.

 

Do subsonic climb to 30k, then accelerate to 1.4M, then hold ~550KIAS as best you can as you climb.  With 6 Sparrows this will get up to 2M+ and 50k+, with 4 Phoenix you may top out at 1.6M and 42k.  If you can get to 50K at/above 1.4M then do it.  

[Digitalvole]

49 minutes ago, Spurts said:

Do subsonic climb to 30k, then accelerate to 1.4M, then hold ~550KIAS as best you can as you climb.  With 6 Sparrows this will get up to 2M+ and 50k+, with 4 Phoenix you may top out at 1.6M and 42k.  If you can get to 50K at/above 1.4M then do it.  

I’ll try this tonight. I’ve been wondering what the best climb profiles are, thank you!

May I ask what is the most common climb profile to get to 30k for getting on station for a barcap?

[Spurts]

14 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

I’ll try this tonight. I’ve been wondering what the best climb profiles are, thank you!

May I ask what is the most common climb profile to get to 30k for getting on station for a barcap?

350KIAS up to .75M, then .75M to 30k.

[Digitalvole]

Brilliant, thanks. 

[Prez]

21 hours ago, DSplayer said:

For the new terminal guidance properties of the AIM-54C, due to DCS limitations it goes active no matter what at 10 nm (even if you're in PD-STT or you changed your target size setting accordingly). This was mentioned in the latest AIM-54 thread but is, of course, buried.

I had talked to someone about this, but I didn't mention it partly because it didn't cross my mind when writing the script for the video and partly because I would like it to be a little future proof whenever HB are actually able to model proper guidance like that lol

[Callsign JoNay]

3 hours ago, Spurts said:

Do subsonic climb to 30k, then accelerate to 1.4M, then hold ~550KIAS as best you can as you climb.  With 6 Sparrows this will get up to 2M+ and 50k+, with 4 Phoenix you may top out at 1.6M and 42k.  If you can get to 50K at/above 1.4M then do it.  

IMO, getting fast is a waste of fuel. With a 2x2x4 loadout, you'll be lucky to get to Mach 1.2 tops, and it will take you many long minutes and thousands of lbs of gas to get there from a mil power cruise at 0.95 Mach, and it doesn't add much to the missiles. They'll still miss on modern fighters, and do little more than get your targets to turn defensive, which you can do at 0.95 Mach anyway. Save your fuel for the Bonzai, IMHO.

[Prez]

2 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

IMO, getting fast is a waste of fuel. With a 2x2x4 loadout, you'll be lucky to get to Mach 1.2 tops, and it will take you many long minutes and thousands of lbs of gas to get there from a mil power cruise at 0.95 Mach, and it doesn't add much to the missiles. They'll still miss on modern fighters, and do little more than get your targets to turn defensive, which you can do at 0.95 Mach anyway. Save your fuel for the Bonzai, IMHO.

If you're going purely from an intercept and kill mission statement, then you can easily hit M1.4-1.6 with a 4PH/2SP/2SW loadout. You will have to dump your ext tanks, however. They add the most drag and will restrict you. You can achieve M1.4, 45kft with >10k lbs of fuel to spare in as little as 65NM and <5min from a shorefield if you drop the ext tanks as you level out for the +30kft acceleration. 

This is obviously not achievable if your SOP is to not drop the tanks.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Prez

[Callsign JoNay]

6 hours ago, Prez said:

If you're going purely from an intercept and kill mission statement, then you can easily hit M1.4-1.6 with a 4PH/2SP/2SW loadout. You will have to dump your ext tanks, however. They add the most drag and will restrict you. You can achieve M1.4, 45kft with >10k lbs of fuel to spare in as little as 65NM and <5min from a shorefield if you drop the ext tanks as you level out for the +30kft acceleration. 

This is obviously not achievable if your SOP is to not drop the tanks.

 

I was so ready to tell you that it still wouldn't matter, and that maneuvering targets would still defeat the missiles, but it looks like you're on to something. I still think Mach 1.1-1.2 is not effective and you're better off saving your fuel if that's the best speed you can manage, but I did some testing and I'm getting long range kills with around M 1.5. (Tacview attached). The speed of the missile at impact is still iffy at around M 1.7, but I am getting about a 50% PK with this strategy. 65 nm kill on a J-11 in a split-S.

The downside is it takes incredibly long to accelerate to M 1.5. (Maybe it's a B thing). And the distance you cover is an even bigger challenge. You can't wait for radar contact at 85nm to start sprinting. You need to be in a sprint way before that. Probably 120+ miles. So you need a good long range vector from AWACS, or a link-4, or use some kind of semi-beam/drag aspect to build speed up before you turn hot. And it burns a ton of fuel. I started the Tacview with 100% internal fuel, and empty bags. Had about 7k remaining after the 2nd bandit splashed.

Another nice benefit though, is when you bring that much speed to the bonzai you don't have to worry about zero doppler notch. 

[KlarSnow]

So just look at what you are competing with, against a smaller RCS target like the JF-17 with a modern 21st century AAM, none of what you just described is unreasonable for the tomcat and the phoenix. Why should it be able to compete head to head like to like. Your advantages as always lie in early detect, which when you combine with a datalink picture (absolutely not unreasonable in a scenario with a JF-17) You should be maximizing that in order to get your shots off earlier since you will be able to shoot at a longer range than they will.

Like this is legit probably the toughest fight in DCS right now for the tomcat, and is showcasing vastly different generations of capability.

The fact that you can still employ and shape your tactics to affect what is happening in a 40 year older fighter with a 30 year older missile than your opponents speaks to how good it was, but you definitely shouldn't expect to dominate at all envelopes.

Against what the tomcat was primarily intending to employ against, including all the way up to a SU-27 with an R-27ER, or a Mig-31 with an R-33 (the most potent threats until the tomcats retirement in 2006) the AWG-9/AIM-54C combo in particular would have been utterly dominant, much like it still is in DCS.

If you are thinking you should be able to dominate an AMRAAM or SD-10 shooter inside their employment envelope I think you are starting to see why the AIM-54 was not continued and the AMRAAM took over as the employment weapon of choice.
 

Edited September 6, 2022 by KlarSnow

[Digitalvole]

I’m using the 54C mk47 against a Russian force from the 90s.

If M1.5 is required for hitting a Jeff, what do you need to hit a Mig 29 at 30k feet hot, me being at 41k, at say 60 miles? Or is 60 miles just too far? If I let them get much closer (40 miles) it rarely ends well for me (I end up with a missile up my nostril.)

If you have a scale of targets, with a slow moving bomber at one end and the Jeff at the other, where does the Mig 29 (and su33) sit? 

That I’m not having much success with it is understandable as I’m still learning how to use it properly. But watching the AI fail to use it effectively (few kills lots of deaths, skill level: Ace) has me wondering what on earth is expected of me, a lowly human. Then again, I’m not sure the “I” in “AI” is always present in DCS.

In the Hornet with an AMRAM it seems one can crank far more effectively and not lose lock. Meaning a missile with inferior range is actually much safer to use. Not saying that’s wrong, just an observation and ofc that’s using much more modern tech.

Is it a case of the Phoenix just being a bit crap against anything other than a bomber in the any setting post 90s? Hence the need for the AMRAM. If the Phoenix could effectively splash fighters at 60 miles (or even 40 miles for that matter) why bother making the AMRAM?

Alternatively are some DCSisms making an accurately modelled missile unrealistically rubbish? ls it all straight up user error or a combination of all/some of the above? 

Edit: Sorry, that turned into a bit of a brain dump and I missed the post above. I have to say I feel anything BUT dominant in the f14 against su27s and Mig 29s. But I’m new to all this.

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Digitalvole

[okopanja]

23 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

In the Hornet with an AMRAM it seems one can crank far more effectively and not lose lock. Meaning a missile with inferior range is actually much safer to use. Not saying that’s wrong, just an observation and ofc that’s using much more modern tech.

There is huge technological and age gap between F-18/AMRAAM and AWG-9/Phoenix. AWG/Phoenix come from late 60s. They were supposed to be used on cancelled F-111B. Still in 80s the F14 pretty much on the top of the food chain, likely due to the others not being even close in range or even aware of the power and range of the radar and missile. The opponents learned better later (also got better RWRs and ECM) and avoided being a tomcat food.

Still this powerful combination required a RIO to perform the tasks that were later allocated to computers. In this respect technology advances made the tomcat obsolete, despite the range it had.

[Digitalvole]

18 minutes ago, okopanja said:

There is huge technological and age gap between F-18/AMRAAM and AWG-9/Phoenix. AWG/Phoenix come from late 60s. They were supposed to be used on cancelled F-111B. Still in 80s the F14 pretty much on the top of the food chain, likely due to the others not being even close in range or even aware of the power and range of the radar and missile. The opponents learned better later (also got better RWRs and ECM) and avoided being a tomcat food.

Still this powerful combination required a RIO to perform the tasks that were later allocated to computers. In this respect technology advances made the tomcat obsolete, despite the range it had.

Indeed, so me with an AI RIO going against multiple Mig 29s from the 90s maybe puts me pretty low down the food chain?

Edit: Maybe that’s part of the answer to this. It’s easy to feel like you are God’s own wrath and judgment in the F14, but maybe I should be thinking I’m actually the underdog.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Digitalvole

[The_Tau]

Against AI its crucial for bandit to stay high. As AI now mimics your altitude if you stay at 40-45k even after you fire I would rather switch MLC off than dive below the bandit. If bandit stays at 40k when missile is 10nm  away I noticed there is much higher chance of 54 having enough energy to hit them

But that is kinda pure DCSism AI

Edited September 6, 2022 by The_Tau

[okopanja]

6 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

Indeed, so me with an AI RIO going against multiple Mig 29s from the 90s maybe puts me pretty low down the food chain?

If these 29s are supported by GCI they will have better SA than you. You still outrange them heavily.

[Noctrach]

48 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

I’m using the 54C mk47 against a Russian force from the 90s.

If M1.5 is required for hitting a Jeff, what do you need to hit a Mig 29 at 30k feet hot, me being at 41k, at say 60 miles? Or is 60 miles just too far? If I let them get much closer (40 miles) it rarely ends well for me (I end up with a missile up my nostril.)

If you have a scale of targets, with a slow moving bomber at one end and the Jeff at the other, where does the Mig 29 (and su33) sit?

I was testing exactly these scenarios against Su-27s/MiG-29s flying at 30k that would go into a 50 degree crank at around 50-55 miles. Launched from 75 miles (Mach 0.9, 45,000 feet), the targets had to do some pretty aggressive manoeuvring to not get hit. With a split-S defence, missiles generally made it inside 3 miles. Remember, this is after the missile correcting for a significant heading change. 60 miles is a good shooting range to balance missile lethality and target spacing for follow-up manoeuvres.

Mind you, these are long range shots so by definitions the probability of a hit isn't too high against an aware target, but this is identical to firing an AMRAAM/SD-10 at 40-or-so miles. Even if the missiles do not directly impact, they grant you a huge range advantage and will force the targets to react.

MiG-29 and Su-27/33 have vastly inferior A2A capabilities to the Jeff, so Tomcats have a pretty significant advantage. You should never be engaging multiples as a single ship, but against MiG-29s you're not entirely defenceless either.

[Digitalvole]

2 minutes ago, The_Tau said:

Against AI its crucial for bandit to stay high. As AI now mimics your altitude if you stay at 40-45k even after you fire I would rather switch MLC off than dive below the bandit. If bandit stays at 40k when missile is 10nm  away I noticed there is much higher chance of 54 having enough energy to hit them

What kind of range are you shooting at?

Also i apologise if my profile pic try’s to purge your Xenos scum profile pic For the Emperor!

[Karon]

13 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

Indeed, so me with an AI RIO going against multiple Mig 29s from the 90s maybe puts me pretty low down the food chain?

Edit: Maybe that’s part of the answer to this. It’s easy to feel like you are God’s own wrath and judgment in the F14, but maybe I should be thinking I’m actually the underdog.

 

Key point: look at Jester as your interface to the AWG-9 WCS. He is not an autonomous, proactive intelligence that tells you what to do. He helps you to play as a "lite RIO" by taking away most of the switchology and replacing it with a pretty good interface.
However, at the end of the day, you are in control.

[KlarSnow]

2 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

What kind of range are you shooting at?

Also i apologise if my profile pic try’s to purge your Xenos scum profile pic For the Emperor!

The Clean Sweep Tacview I posted above I Started shooting at 50 Nautical miles and just fired as fast as I could after that, so closest shot was at 50, furthest was somewhere around 60. I didnt crank and due to the high closure you can see one of the Mig-29s (with an R27R) barely gets a shot off on me before my missile went active and he elected to defend, trashing his missile. An additional fulcrum also managed to get a shot off. If I had done a proper idle descent crank after my last missile was off the rail, they would have never been remotely close to being able to shoot at me.

They all chose to do some form of hard drag maneuver, and all died. I got lucky in that none of my missiles missed, I could run the same thing over and have every single one of the missiles whiff if the variables change a little bit in how and when the AI maneuvers. You cannot control that, and no missile no matter how fast or high or close you shoot it is guaranteed to kill your target. Work in probabilities, not guarantees. I alsways assume an average of 50% Pk if I meet my wickets of good employment, doesnt mean if less happens I think something is broken, doenst mean if more happens I did particularly well. But there are many variables at play here and you can only control so many of them.