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

[TomcatFan1976]

Does DCS or Heatblur have any intentions on improving the Phoenix missile? or are they just gonna leave it for now?

[RustBelt]

4 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Intentions sure, as far as the DCS engine allows it. The move to the "new" API may or may not improve some areas. The current issues are basically a lack of an adaptive loft angle and terminal guidence filtering. 

 

Which are ED side issues. 

[captain_dalan]

On the topic of manual lofting, just did some mini-tests tonight as well, 50NM shots, launcher at  mach 0.8. 30000ft, not non defending target at mach 0.75 23000dt:

1. A level shot results in a 2 minutes flat time to impact (1:13-3:13), missile loft apex at 66994ft and mach at impact 1.29;
2. A 30 degree loft results 2 minutes 1 second time to impact (1:16-2:17), missile loft apex at 88534ft and mach at impact 1.68.

Just dropping my 2 cents for what is worth. Tacviews attached bellow:
 

Tacview-20230118-225806-DCS-1 on1 loft test mk47 -30 degree.zip.acmi Tacview-20230118-231536-DCS-1 on1 loft test mk47 -00 degree.zip.acmi

[Karon]

I have collected about 1600 datapoints, with 40/50 charts like this:

This is the speed at impact of an AIM-54A Mk47 in one of my testing scenarios: Mach vs range.

I'm in the process of putting together a short video showing the results. There are a few nuances with the Phoenix, is much more interesting and complex than the AIM-7, for example.

 

Yesterday I pushed the introduction, which aims to clarify some of the points necessary for the Phoenix to work. Moreover, manual loft is just that "bit more" over an appropriate geometry and employment parameters: I still see so many players launching down in the weeds at target 50 nm away and cold or flanking. No missile will ever catch those targets.

In a couple of days, or early next week, I should have the Part II out, showing sweet spots for the different variants, tests vs low / offset targets and a couple of interesting observations. As I said, it's a bit more complex than the loft of the AIM-7.

And I reiterate: this is not some sort of holy grail or hidden secret, this has been a thing since LOMAC, but it was not always necessary (ah, the old Mk60.. ).
Manual loft won't make your missile perform better if you do not know what you are doing, actually, it is the simplest way to trash your missiles.

[The_Tau]

@KaronVery interesting graph, what was your angels and altitude of bandit drone?

[Callsign JoNay]

@KaronThat's super cool, thanks for shaeing. Are you collecting/charting data on the time of the intercept too?

For example in your 20 mile data, the missiles you loft at 40-deg are intercepting the bandit with a higher speed at impact than the missiles lofted at 10-deg and auto lofted, but surely the time of flight of the missiles was longer. No?

[cheezit]

I wonder proportionally how much of the benefit is from each of the following:

a) Having a vertical component of the launch platform's velocity vector is more efficient than not when the missile is going to climb anyways

b) The loft profile on v1 of the missile API is bad for the Phoenix's burn profile and aerodynamics, and manual loft forces a less-bad loft profile

c) The transition to the terminal phase of the intercept on v1 of the missile API is bad for the phoenix (though not as bad as it was before Heatblur tweaked some things on their end), and the parameters during this transition are more in line with what the API can handle without bleeding a bunch of speed when manually lofting than with the default loft profile

 

 

I also wonder whether it is necessary to over-lead the "T" when manually lofting against offset targets, since the time of flight will be slightly longer than what the WCS expects.

Edited January 19, 2023 by cheezit
Mistakenly said 'lift vector' where I meant 'velocity vector'

[WarthogOsl]

7 hours ago, cheezit said:

a) Having a vertical component of the launch platform's velocity vector is more efficient than not when the missile is going to climb anyways

 

I was wondering about this as well, but keep in mind that even if manually lofted, the missile still spends some energy to further increase the loft angle by another 20 degrees or so (which I think further increases missile altitude).  I'd imagine that when HB has the new API, they might make it so the loft angle is absolute, regardless of loft assist.  If so, it'll be interesting to see how much an assist really helps.

[DSplayer]

18 hours ago, Karon said:

I have collected about 1600 datapoints, with 40/50 charts like this:

This is the speed at impact of an AIM-54A Mk47 in one of my testing scenarios: Mach vs range.

I'm in the process of putting together a short video showing the results. There are a few nuances with the Phoenix, is much more interesting and complex than the AIM-7, for example.

 

Yesterday I pushed the introduction, which aims to clarify some of the points necessary for the Phoenix to work. Moreover, manual loft is just that "bit more" over an appropriate geometry and employment parameters: I still see so many players launching down in the weeds at target 50 nm away and cold or flanking. No missile will ever catch those targets.

In a couple of days, or early next week, I should have the Part II out, showing sweet spots for the different variants, tests vs low / offset targets and a couple of interesting observations. As I said, it's a bit more complex than the loft of the AIM-7.

And I reiterate: this is not some sort of holy grail or hidden secret, this has been a thing since LOMAC, but it was not always necessary (ah, the old Mk60.. ).
Manual loft won't make your missile perform better if you do not know what you are doing, actually, it is the simplest way to trash your missiles.

Do you have time of flight for the missiles in each of those tests? From my experience, the TOF drastically increases also you manually loft the Phoenix higher and higher.

[Karon]

This is a very short analysis, there are many more things to say about the data collected. However, no one will ever watch a 2h-long slideshow of charts. Thus, the proper dissertation will be posted only on the website.
The video instead focuses on a general look, some of the neat stuff I have seen, and some of the issues. The final part gives you a few points worth remembering and using, imo.

Needless to say, manual loft is pointless or even counterproductive if the geometry is off, or in other conditions discussed in the video. Use it well and it will help you. Abuse it, and you will end up trashing your own missiles.

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Karon

[Callsign JoNay]

Random Phoenix question...

There's been so many changes to the missile in the last year, it's hard for me to keep track. Do any of the Phoenix variants HOJ now? Can you get sneaky passive tracking kills like you can with the Sparrow? Or does it just burn through at a certain range and go active like normal? 

[DSplayer]

2 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Random Phoenix question...

There's been so many changes to the missile in the last year, it's hard for me to keep track. Do any of the Phoenix variants HOJ now? Can you get sneaky passive tracking kills like you can with the Sparrow? Or does it just burn through at a certain range and go active like normal? 

I think all the AIM-54s can HOJ but they go HOJ like any other Fox-3. They'll get a missile warning once it goes active on them but they also get a missile launch warning as well but you can try to mitigate that with using PH ACT or something.

[Callsign JoNay]

OK, so it basically just burns through, not really HOJ.

[The_Tau]

9 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

OK, so it basically just burns through, not really HOJ.

Idk about 54A in STT mode though. It may have silent HOJ. Years back it surely had silent HOJ as I died to it once

[Naquaii]

12 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

OK, so it basically just burns through, not really HOJ.

No, the missile should HoJ. Being silent or not doesn't make it HoJ or not. Active missiles will HoJ but continuously try to also reaquire actively with own radar.

[WolfHound009]

wot is HoJ?

[draconus]

26 minutes ago, WolfHound009 said:

wot is HoJ?

Home on Jamming mode for a radar guided missile.

[Xl-45]

I tested the AIM-54 HoJ capacity, here is what i found:
 

- Target doesn't JAM initially but JAMS after the AIM-54 is fired: -1) Missile fired in TWS: Missile gets an initial loft since the target is not jamming at the time, once the target starts jamming, the missile is trashed (it will try to get to the last known position of the target before it started jamming, but it will never go active).

                                                                                                                        -2) Missile fired in PD-STT: Missile gets an initial loft since the target is not jamming at the time, once the target starts jamming, the missile goes in HOJ mode, keeping its initial loft and making path corrections using target jamming emissions and impacts target if within good parameters.

 

- Target JAMS initially but stop JAMMING after the AIM-54 is fired: -1) Missile fired in STT-JAT: The missile does not launch with a loft (unless manually lofted) as it is unable to determine the range of the target. If a lock on the target's jamming emissions (STT-JAT) is not maintained, the missile tracks the jamming emissions passively. When the target stops jamming, the missile is unable to detect any emissions and becomes active (it does not make any course corrections until it detects the target at a maximum range of 10 nautical miles, which is the maximum detection range for the Phoenix missile in DCS). If the target begins jamming again, the missile will not regain a lock on the jamming emissions. If a lock on the target's jamming emissions is maintained, the missile can transition between HoJ and PD-STT depending on whether the target starts or stops jamming.

PH Active / Norm doesn't matter when it comes to HoJ, the behaviour is the same: the missile will use target's jamming emissions to determine its trajectory.

 

- RWR Behaviour of jamming target: Based on my personal testing in multiple multiplayer environments, utilizing both the F/A-18 and JF-17 aircraft, I have determined that the RWR behaviour is consistent between the two aircrafts. It is reasonable to assume that this behaviour would be similar for all fourth-generation aircraft.

When locking the target in STT-JAT, it will get a lock warning like in P/D-STT. Once an AIM-54 missile is fired, the target will receive a missile launch warning, EVEN if the STT-JAT lock is no longer maintained and the AIM-54 seeker is passively tracking the target's emissions.

 

Conclusion:

It is possible to fire passive-tracking AIM-54 at jamming targets, but the use is extremely limited since the target will receive RWR warning of a missile launch and could just deactivate and reactivate the jammer to trash the missile.

However, it's a particularly useful tool if you keep your STT-JAT / PD-STT lock since the PH will make transitions between HoJ and PD-STT automatically depending on whether the target is jamming or not, thus making you able to push jamming targets well beyond their jammer's burnthrough range, especially with manual lofting.

TWS firing is weird, the PH doesn't get into any kind of HoJ if target starts jamming and is trashed directly when the target starts to jam, the missile doesn't even go active.

 

I hope that the TWS issues will be fixed (unless that's realistic) and i would also have some questions about PH behaviour in P-STT:

When firing in P-STT, the Phoenix isn't capable of being guided by the radar. However, i thought that it would receive at least target's heading/altitude. In my testing, it will just go active, and if it sees the target within its gimbal (and within 10nm), then it goes at it. If it doesn't, then it just continues the path is being fired on, even if the target is 30° on the left as an example. Is it a normal behaviour?

 

I have another question. In my testing, the TgT Size Switch did not have any effects on the AIM-54C missile, which is consistent with what IronMike stated when the last major update for the AIM-54 was released. However, when flying the JF-17, I noticed that there is a TgT Size option that can be selected (large, small, or normal) which affects the range at which the SD-10 missile becomes active. This may be different for the AIM-54C variant? But in the case of the AIM-54A, the maximum range at which the missile could track a target is 10 nautical miles, and this is a limitation imposed by the API.

However, the SD-10 missile can become active at a range of 13 nautical miles, and it can track targets at this range, not just become active. Can we expect a similar capability for the Phoenix missiles, specifically the A variant?

[GGTharos]

26 minutes ago, Xl-45 said:

- RWR Behaviour of jamming target: Based on my personal testing in multiple multiplayer environments, utilizing both the F/A-18 and JF-17 aircraft, I have determined that the RWR behaviour is consistent between the two aircrafts. It is reasonable to assume that this behaviour would be similar for all fourth-generation aircraft.

 

When locking the target in STT-JAT, it will get a lock warning like in P/D-STT. Once an AIM-54 missile is fired, the target will receive a missile launch warning, EVEN if the STT-JAT lock is no longer maintained and the AIM-54 seeker is passively tracking the target's emissions.

There should be no passive tracking if you drop the lock.  There's nothing for the jammer to jam, therefore the RWR ringing is incorrect (you dropped the lock) and the missile tracking is also incorrect (jammer should shut down or at least stop jamming that channel - and no, the missile shouldn't just pick up and track any willy nilly ECM emission)

26 minutes ago, Xl-45 said:

Conclusion:

It is possible to fire passive-tracking AIM-54 at jamming targets, but the use is extremely limited since the target will receive RWR warning of a missile launch and could just deactivate and reactivate the jammer to trash the missile.

Incorrect functioning in all respects.  If you're not locking that target the jammer has no reason to operate.

26 minutes ago, Xl-45 said:

TWS firing is weird, the PH doesn't get into any kind of HoJ if target starts jamming and is trashed directly when the target starts to jam, the missile doesn't even go active.

May or may not be correct.  If your contact maneuvers after enaging ECM, the track may be considered 'dead' and will not be correlated again.  The missile should fly to that track and attempt to track its target, but exactly how all of this would be mechanized in-flight for the missile with respect to its own seeker trying to track an ECM contact is unknown.

 

26 minutes ago, Xl-45 said:

When firing in P-STT, the Phoenix isn't capable of being guided by the radar. However, i thought that it would receive at least target's heading/altitude. In my testing, it will just go active, and if it sees the target within its gimbal (and within 10nm), then it goes at it. If it doesn't, then it just continues the path is being fired on, even if the target is 30° on the left as an example. Is it a normal behaviour?

P-STT is for older sparrows, don't quote me on this but I believe the radar in P-STT doesn't generate data-link signals for the phoenix, and the phoenix seeker cannot use P-STT so it'll just go active off the rail.

[Xl-45]

I apologize if there were any misunderstandings regarding the information I shared. My focus was on how the jammer affects the AIM-54, and how the RWR behaves against HoJ AIM-54 in DCS, and I do not have sufficient expertise to speak on the topic in a real-life context. Allow me to clarify my points in a more precise manner:

20 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

There should be no passive tracking if you drop the lock.  There's nothing for the jammer to jam, therefore the RWR ringing is incorrect (you dropped the lock) and the missile tracking is also incorrect (jammer should shut down or at least stop jamming that channel - and no, the missile shouldn't just pick up and track any willy nilly ECM emission)

I used a JF-17 equipped with the KG-600 jamming pod as the jamming target in my testing. The JF-17, when equipped with this jamming pod, can jam in all conditions, even when not locked on. This is also true for other aircrafts such as the F-14, M-2000, FC3 aircrafts (F-15C, Su-27, etc.), and JF-17. So even if I do not maintain a lock on the target, it continues to jam, providing the AIM-54 missile with a jamming source to track. I want to emphasize that I am not sure if this is realistic or not but it's in line with the HoJ implementation of every missile in DCS. As an example, the M-2000C's R530D missile have the same behaviour and track passively (without RWR warnings and M-2000's radar support) on a F-14 that's jamming, you can try it out. I want to make it clear that I am not discussing how the AIM-54 missile should or should not behave against jamming in real life, I am discussing how it behaves in DCS compared to other missiles.

 

28 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Incorrect functioning in all respects.  If you're not locking that target the jammer has no reason to operate.

I am reiterating the same point as previously stated. Most fourth-generation aircraft in DCS are equipped with internal jammers or pods that can jam even when not locked on. Whether this is realistic or not, I cannot say, but I am only discussing how it works within the DCS, which is known to be simplified in comparison to real-life.

 

30 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

May or may not be correct.  If your contact maneuvers after enaging ECM, the track may be considered 'dead' and will not be correlated again.  The missile should fly to that track and attempt to track its target, but exactly how all of this would be mechanized in-flight for the missile with respect to its own seeker trying to track an ECM contact is unknown.

When the AWG-9 radar loses a track, it does not consider it to be "dead". In the case of the AIM-54C missile, it even goes active. The issue here is that when the target starts jamming, the AIM-54 should similarly go active (or switch to HoJ) as it would when losing a track in TWS, because in both cases the AWG-9 is losing the track. Currently, the missile is not behaving in this way. It may be realistic, but I want to be sure and would like Heatblur to look into this if they haven't done so already.

 

36 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

P-STT is for older sparrows, don't quote me on this but I believe the radar in P-STT doesn't generate data-link signals for the phoenix, and the phoenix seeker cannot use P-STT so it'll just go active off the rail.

I am aware that the P-STT mode does not guide Phoenix missiles. However, I am curious to know if the AWG-9 radar is able to provide at least heading and/or altitude information to the Phoenix before it is fired, thus providing it with a direction to follow even if it's active. This is simply a question and I do not intend to suggest that it should be implemented in this manner.

[GGTharos]

3 hours ago, Xl-45 said:

I used a JF-17 equipped with the KG-600 jamming pod as the jamming target in my testing. The JF-17, when equipped with this jamming pod, can jam in all conditions, even when not locked on. This is also true for other aircrafts such as the F-14, M-2000, FC3 aircrafts (F-15C, Su-27, etc.), and JF-17. So even if I do not maintain a lock on the target, it continues to jam, providing the AIM-54 missile with a jamming source to track. I want to emphasize that I am not sure if this is realistic or not but it's in line with the HoJ implementation of every missile in DCS. As an example, the M-2000C's R530D missile have the same behaviour and track passively (without RWR warnings and M-2000's radar support) on a F-14 that's jamming, you can try it out. I want to make it clear that I am not discussing how the AIM-54 missile should or should not behave against jamming in real life, I am discussing how it behaves in DCS compared to other missiles.

Right, this is a DCSism.  Passive attacks on ECM emitters are a DCSism and shouldn't exist for the classes of weapons we're using.

3 hours ago, Xl-45 said:

When the AWG-9 radar loses a track, it does not consider it to be "dead".

The track is dead (but not deleted), because the target is lost - the 'x' on it tells you so, but just in case the track and its relevant data continue to be displayed and transmitted to the missile and so is the active signal.

3 hours ago, Xl-45 said:

The issue here is that when the target starts jamming, the AIM-54 should similarly go active (or switch to HoJ) as it would when losing a track in TWS, because in both cases the AWG-9 is losing the track. Currently, the missile is not behaving in this way. It may be realistic, but I want to be sure and would like Heatblur to look into this if they haven't done so already.

I agree that if it cannot be correlated anymore it should act exactly like the lost target track above.  Depending on the emitted jamming signal the missile seeker could continue tracking the target, possible with more ease than tracking the reflections from the tomcat's radar in TWS  (but then again if that target maneuvers, the AWG-9 is still telling the missile to look on the wrong place).   Same for STT.

[Callsign JoNay]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

Right, this is a DCSism.  Passive attacks on ECM emitters are a DCSism and shouldn't exist for the classes of weapons we're using.

AIM-7M or P should not be able to passively home on a jammer?

[Comstedt86]

9 hours ago, Xl-45 said:

 I have another question. In my testing, the TgT Size Switch did not have any effects on the AIM-54C missile

I did some testing with the C variant some weeks ago, judging by map measuring when TID starts flashing and the behaviour of the missile TGT size switch seems to work again.

[Rinz1er]

28 minutes ago, Comstedt86 said:

I did some testing with the C variant some weeks ago, judging by map measuring when TID starts flashing and the behaviour of the missile TGT size switch seems to work again.

I have definitely not found this to be true.

[The_Tau]

6 minutes ago, Rinz1er said:

I have definitely not found this to be true.

What were you shooting at? AI in DCS is all seeing detecting all tracking missiles at 10nm, even MiG21. 

VS people though target switch for 54C seem to work too as bandits I splashed do seem to react later on tacviews...

Edited January 23, 2023 by The_Tau