DCS: F-14 Development Update - AIM-54 Phoenix Improvements & Overhaul - Guided Discussion

[No_Brain]

Okay so i was able to make further tests...
I launched at different distances --> every missile did loft (even at 19 nm), the lofting behaviour wasnt the same (the further the distance the further the loft),
which is not suprising. But for me the amount the missiles are lofting is! For a shot of round about 20nm at 41k ft with 0.97 M the missile did loft to 58k ft.
I just feel like the loft is to strong and wasting to much energy and time. I have no experience in this area but i would think an phoenix missile would be able to 
fly 40nm at 40k ft without lofting?
For the 2v2 engagements it was interesting for me because it seems with lower altitude the loft gets more extreme...

Also i did record some tacview files (fifth missile i shot in active mode just for the fun of it)
 

Tacview-20221108-105454-DCS-F-14B_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi Tacview-20221108-110150-DCS-F14 Phoenix.zip.acmi Tacview-20221108-110743-DCS-F14 Phoenix.zip.acmi Tacview-20221108-105158-DCS-F-14B_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi Tacview-20221108-104821-DCS-F-14B_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi

Edited November 8, 2022 by No_Brain

[The_Tau]

1 hour ago, No_Brain said:

 but i would think an phoenix missile would be able to 
fly 40nm at 40k ft without lofting?

Not with energy to hit anything. Its fat missile, lot of drag, it was said here that max speed it can achieve is like mach 4 (and that was in very special civilian NASA experiments) but then it loses speed very fast, and that's without taking account energy wasted while turning.  
 

1 hour ago, No_Brain said:

For the 2v2 engagements it was interesting for me because it seems with lower altitude the loft gets more extreme...

 

Yep, that's why you don't fire at bandits more then 20nm (and even then it will be a stretch) when you are low. It will be a waste of missile. 54 tries its best in the bad launch parameters it was in. Learn the limitations, learn the effective ranges. 

 

1 hour ago, No_Brain said:

Tacview-20221108-110743-DCS-F14 Phoenix.zip.acmi

Notice that in this scenario missile climbed highest from all but it arrived with most energy at 10nm from bandit. Even though you fired at furthest targets in all scenarios.  

Big limiting factor of AIM54 performance in DCS is that AI is extremely good at dodging now and it got unrealistic good SA. For example it always notices the missile 10nm away from it, no matter if that missile is triggering its RWR or not. 

Tip:

If you make AI climb to match your alt (if you launch at 40k, and bandits matches you at 40k dont dive as it will mirror your alt until your missile goes active) then aim 54 has much easier job hitting them

Does lofting need tuning? Yeah it does, but as HB said, its ED who control the missile and as I understand, there is only one-fit-all loft logic in DCS and HB don't have access to it

Edited November 8, 2022 by The_Tau

[No_Brain]

16 minutes ago, The_Tau said:

Not with energy to hit anything. Its fat missile, lot of drag, it was said here that max speed it can achieve is like mach 4 (and that was in very special civilian NASA experiments) but then it loses speed very fast, and that's without taking account energy wasted while turning.  
 

Yep, that's why you don't fire at bandits more then 20nm (and even then it will be a stretch) when you are low. It will be a waste of missile. 54 tries its best in the bad launch parameters it was in. Learn the limitations, learn the effective ranges. 

 

Notice that in this scenario missile climbed highest from all but it arrived with most energy at 10nm from bandit. Even though you fired at furthest targets in all scenarios.  

Big limiting factor of AIM54 performance in DCS is that AI is extremely good at dodging now and it got unrealistic good SA. For example it always notices the missile 10nm away from it, no matter if that missile is triggering its RWR or not. 

Tip:

If you make AI climb to match your alt (if you launch at 40k, and bandits matches you at 40k dont dive as it will mirror your alt until your missile goes active) then aim 54 has much easier job hitting them

Does lofting need tuning? Yeah it does, but as HB said, its ED who control the missile and as I understand, there is only one-fit-all loft logic in DCS and HB don't have access to it

 

Okay i just wanted to make sure whats the current state on that. I guess it needs fine tuning, as i made this test i realised too, that it seems to work better for longer distances and higher altitudes. I guess it needs more fine tuning for lower altitudes and smaller distances as i am pretty sure it is wasting more energy this way as it preserves. For now i will just try to keep these aspects at their optimum (alt, speed, angle etc.) But yeah the energy state got much better with this update!

[Skarp]

40K plus I wouldn’t shoot till 50nm on a bandit. Anything beyond that will be a miss.   30-36k shoot at 30nm. 20-30k I’d say 25nm. On the deck 8nm. In these scenarios you’ll need to be above m1.  The chance of a kill is pretty high as well.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Skarp

[IronMike]

Currently the lofting is pretty much as it should be in most cases for the phoenix. The idea of more shallow loft = more energy, is simply wrong in the 54's case. It is supposed to loft high, which helps it with terminal velocity. Could lofting logic overall be improved in DCS? Likely, but that is not a 54 specific problem, and it wouldn't make it loft less necessarily.

On 11/8/2022 at 12:00 PM, No_Brain said:

I guess it needs more fine tuning for lower altitudes and smaller distances as i am pretty sure it is wasting more energy this way as it preserves.

It really doesn't. Just compare a 25nm shot with and without loft. It's a thick missile struggling in thick air, so any higher altitude it can get, generally helps it. The mid to short range overlofting has been fixed couple patches ago. It seems counterintuitive, but isn't. 

Also, if you are shooting closer ranges top down, then STT is the way to go anyway. PSTT your target, and you get a) an active missile off the rails and b) no loft. But anything above 20nm the loft will still help.

Edited November 9, 2022 by IronMike

[Exorcet]

11 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Currently the lofting is pretty much as it should be in most cases for the phoenix. The idea of more shallow loft = more energy, is simply wrong in the 54's case. It is supposed to loft high, which helps it with terminal velocity. Could lofting logic overall be improved in DCS? Likely, but that is not a 54 specific problem, and it wouldn't make it loft less necessarily.

I don't know where we are exactly with Phoenix lofting at this point since I've been distracted by other things, but while I agree that a high loft is good - and you can clearly see the effects of a steep dive angle on energy when the missile decides to maneuver in a specific way - steep climb angles combined with aggressive steering logic do cause the missile to bleed a lot of energy. I guess it's possible that a steep climb out is fine if the missile is less aggressive when turning into its terminal phase. From memory I don't think I've seen many recent launches end at or above 30 degrees dive. 40-50 degrees, I think, will allow the missile to actually accelerate as it comes down from ~100k feet.

It's an issue very similar to that of HARM missiles when they were being tweaked. They would take a shallow dive and lose all their speed trying to glide through thick air instead of coming down vertically. Anyway, this might all be besides the point, was the real Phoenix loft "perfect" in the first place? That I don't know, although I'd like to think it would be slightly more effective than it is now.

11 minutes ago, IronMike said:

But anything above 20nm the loft will still help.

 

Indeed, the acceleration of the Phoenix is very low in thick air. All the thrust goes toward fighting drag rather than imparting kinetic energy to the missile. Not to mention that part of lofting is energy conversion. What you put into potential energy, you get back in the end, minus drag losses.

[IronMike]

4 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I don't know where we are exactly with Phoenix lofting at this point since I've been distracted by other things, but while I agree that a high loft is good - and you can clearly see the effects of a steep dive angle on energy when the missile decides to maneuver in a specific way - steep climb angles combined with aggressive steering logic do cause the missile to bleed a lot of energy. I guess it's possible that a steep climb out is fine if the missile is less aggressive when turning into its terminal phase. From memory I don't think I've seen many recent launches end at or above 30 degrees dive. 40-50 degrees, I think, will allow the missile to actually accelerate as it comes down from ~100k feet.

It's an issue very similar to that of HARM missiles when they were being tweaked. They would take a shallow dive and lose all their speed trying to glide through thick air instead of coming down vertically. Anyway, this might all be besides the point, was the real Phoenix loft "perfect" in the first place? That I don't know, although I'd like to think it would be slightly more effective than it is now.

Indeed, the acceleration of the Phoenix is very low in thick air. All the thrust goes toward fighting drag rather than imparting kinetic energy to the missile. Not to mention that part of lofting is energy conversion. What you put into potential energy, you get back in the end, minus drag losses.

If your missile is turning during climb out, you did something wrong. As our SME advised everyone here: fire on the T, precisely. Nothing else. And if it is turning because the target is maneuvering, means you are close range, and you should have been in STT anyway.

There is no such thing as full gimbal shots in the phoenix, it is not an amraam. If there is, it is pilot error.

[SmeagleGoneWild]

55 minutes ago, IronMike said:

There is no such thing as full gimbal shots in the phoenix, it is not an amraam. If there is, it is pilot error.

I'd imagine its bad for an amraam to do that as well. I'm under the impression you fire on the T (if there were one in lets say the F16) regardless. You're forcing the missile to turn and pull through thick air.

[Comstedt86]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

If your missile is turning during climb out, you did something wrong. As our SME advised everyone here: fire on the T, precisely. Nothing else. And if it is turning because the target is maneuvering, means you are close range, and you should have been in STT anyway.

There is no such thing as full gimbal shots in the phoenix, it is not an amraam. If there is, it is pilot error.

In TWS doesn't the T point to centroid of the TWS "focus" point or do I have that mixed up. 

[Noctrach]

AMRAAMs have the ASE cue for this, their thrust profile is entirely different and it allows off boresight shots to much greater extent.

That said, for a Phoenix, a higher loft than we'd currently see could make sense from a deployment perspective against fighters. I notice manually lofted shots tend to gain/maintain more energy in the descent due to the steeper angle. A steeper descent angle also makes them slightly less vulnerable to a defensive tactic like a split-S, which currently bleeds a ton of energy due to the ED's terminal guidance profile being so aggressive at capturing lead in the vertical (also applies to AIM-120, but this incurs significantly less drag). Downside is that the seeker would be suffering more from clutter.

It's hard to say which trade-offs would be favoured irl, but I definitely know which one I'd favour in the sim

[WarthogOsl]

5 hours ago, Comstedt86 said:

In TWS doesn't the T point to centroid of the TWS "focus" point or do I have that mixed up. 

I thought it was...so firing on the T when multiple targets are prioritized might not be ideal.  I try and just line up the target on the TID.

[IronMike]

25 minutes ago, WarthogOsl said:

I thought it was...so firing on the T when multiple targets are prioritized might not be ideal.  I try and just line up the target on the TID.

It is on the centroid, which is the ideal lead for all targets. Ofc an experienced RIO can optimize this by using functions like mand attack and do not attack to optimize the weighting and thus centroid, or, in absence of that, centering the priority target on the TID ofc can help as well. However on long distance targets and normal prio cues, that are not on the opposite gimbals, it is usually good enough vs something like firing completely off the steering cue or from full gimbal, etc.

[captain_dalan]

On 11/8/2022 at 1:00 PM, No_Brain said:

Okay i just wanted to make sure whats the current state on that. I guess it needs fine tuning, as i made this test i realised too, that it seems to work better for longer distances and higher altitudes. I guess it needs more fine tuning for lower altitudes and smaller distances as i am pretty sure it is wasting more energy this way as it preserves. For now i will just try to keep these aspects at their optimum (alt, speed, angle etc.) But yeah the energy state got much better with this update!

Did you actually test the missile in the previous patch? With the lofting logic being severely flattened? 

[Noctrach]

In terms of Phoenix Pk the way ED's AI evaluates defensive manoeuvres against missiles is also an enormous culprit.

A AIM-54 and AIM-120 fired at the same parameters will have the AI do a split-S defence against the AIM-54 90+% of the time, whereas vs the AIM-120 they will almost always do some attempt at cranking and notching. For long-range shots (35+ nmi) AIM-54 almost always arrives at 10 nmi with 0.5-0.8 excess mach compared to the AIM-120, but this doesn't matter in the slightest due to differences in AI manoeuvring.

[Callsign JoNay]

4 hours ago, Noctrach said:

In terms of Phoenix Pk the way ED's AI evaluates defensive manoeuvres against missiles is also an enormous culprit.

A AIM-54 and AIM-120 fired at the same parameters will have the AI do a split-S defence against the AIM-54 90+% of the time, whereas vs the AIM-120 they will almost always do some attempt at cranking and notching. For long-range shots (35+ nmi) AIM-54 almost always arrives at 10 nmi with 0.5-0.8 excess mach compared to the AIM-120, but this doesn't matter in the slightest due to differences in AI manoeuvring.

It might depend on the opponent's airframe, but I don't agree. If you test against a difficult opponent like a Viper, they don't split-s very often. I actually wish the AI would split-s against the Phoenix, because then I could bonsai and pressure the opponent while it's cold.

In my experience the AI just cranks, notches in the last few miles before impact, the missile goes stupid after the first moment of notch, and never reacquires. Meanwhile the AI is back hot immediately and pressuring me instead forcing a bug out. See the video I shared in this thread.

And it's not just an AI issue, humans can notch the 54 just as easily, and turn back in offensively without wasting any time dragging/pumping, which compresses the OODA loop in their favor.

The notch susceptibility and the weird avoidance pull-up maneuver the missile makes is the biggest factor in the 54's low PK% and the Tomcat's inability to pressure after the initial posture shot.

[captain_dalan]

9 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

It might depend on the opponent's airframe, but I don't agree. If you test against a difficult opponent like a Viper, they don't split-s very often. I actually wish the AI would split-s against the Phoenix, because then I could bonsai and pressure the opponent while it's cold.

In my experience the AI just cranks, notches in the last few miles before impact, the missile goes stupid after the first moment of notch, and never reacquires. Meanwhile the AI is back hot immediately and pressuring me instead forcing a bug out. See the video I shared in this thread.

And it's not just an AI issue, humans can notch the 54 just as easily, and turn back in offensively without wasting any time dragging/pumping, which compresses the OODA loop in their favor.

The notch susceptibility and the weird avoidance pull-up maneuver the missile makes is the biggest factor in the 54's low PK% and the Tomcat's inability to pressure after the initial posture shot.

My limited sample experience is mixed. Say the Fulcrums in the PG BVR have a slightly greater then 50% probability of performing a split-s as a preferred defensive move. And one of them almost always does it. Sometimes both of them. The MiG-31 in my own training BVR scenario almost always opts for a split-s and if not that, a vertical notch that sometimes ends in it merging with the floor. The F-15 in the same training mission on the other hand opts for notching more then it does the split-s routine, but it's not beyond turning cold either about 1/3rd of the cases.  That's mostly the AI's i've tested against. No idea how Vipers, Flankers or Bugs act, even less Tigers and balalaikas.  

[Exorcet]

The AI knows how much energy a given missile has. That decides whether they split S or not. There might be some other factors, but I think that's the primary.

[tavarish palkovnik]

On 9/5/2022 at 10:57 AM, KlarSnow said:

 

 

Today for fun I modeled this flight, for fun and relaxation. Are we close with other variables of this flight? Just from curiosity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Noctrach]

10 hours ago, Exorcet said:

The AI knows how much energy a given missile has. That decides whether they split S or not. There might be some other factors, but I think that's the primary.

Yeah this seems to be the case, given a missile's altitude and speed the AI will have a very strong preference for either tactic.

[tavarish palkovnik]

Can anyone help with translating this? 
 

[The_Tau]

47 minutes ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

Can anyone help with translating this? 
 

according to 

https://translate.yandex.com/ocr

 

[tavarish palkovnik]

Thanks The_Tau, it has sense and it is more correct than many fairytales that can be found on Internet 

[tavarish palkovnik]

I have something else in addition to ask. This could be more tougher.

This is the only one cutaway model that can be found on the net. I’m the most interested in motors and it would be fantastic to be able to see it in real in close look…but…not possible 

So what I wanted to ask, did anyone perhaps visited this museum and have pictures not blurred like this. 
This motor could be MK60, seems like cylindrical grain inhibited on outside in 2/3 length, burning from inside, from up and back heads and from outside on uninhibited surface. From geometry it should be roughly 200kg of fuel and with some very regular burning rate of 7mm/s that gives 20 seconds of active

[Machalot]

59 minutes ago, The_Tau said:

according to 

https://translate.yandex.com/ocr

 

State of the art Lemur Guidance!

 

[Machalot]

27 minutes ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

I have something else in addition to ask. This could be more tougher.

This is the only one cutaway model that can be found on the net. I’m the most interested in motors and it would be fantastic to be able to see it in real in close look…but…not possible 

So what I wanted to ask, did anyone perhaps visited this museum and have pictures not blurred like this. 
This motor could be MK60, seems like cylindrical grain inhibited on outside in 2/3 length, burning from inside, from up and back heads and from outside on uninhibited surface. From geometry it should be roughly 200kg of fuel and with some very regular burning rate of 7mm/s that gives 20 seconds of active

Goleta Air and Space Museum is just the name of that guy's website with photos from museums all over. You could try contacting him to see if there is a higher resolution version of that image. See the contact link at the bottom of his homepage:

https://www.air-and-space.com/home.htm