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

[The_Doktor]

a little Test......

Nevada Creech, me F-14B 35000 ft 0.95M and a SU-27 30000 ft 0.8M no armament and rookie skill.

distance approx. 111NM

RADAR contact approx. 88NM

TWSA

launch AIM-54C MK60 at 60NM

active approx. 8,6NM

hit approx. 24NM

distance in between Creech and hit is 66NM. All good.

now with a AIM-7P

RADAR contact approx. 90NM

PD-STT at 70NM

launch AIM-7P at 15NM twice

hit approx. 5NM

distance in between Creech and hit is 59NM........

that's a difference of only 7NM! Whole millions of dollars for 7NM... I don't know. either the missile is too slow to 
make a significant difference in game or it was like this in real life.

if it was real, why don't build a cheaper missile with the properties of the AIM-54 and a bit more range than AIM-7 but fox3?

....like the AIM-120?

 

[DD_Fenrir]

59 minutes ago, The_Doktor said:

a little Test......

Nevada Creech, me F-14B 35000 ft 0.95M and a SU-27 30000 ft 0.8M no armament and rookie skill.

distance approx. 111NM

RADAR contact approx. 88NM

TWSA

launch AIM-54C MK60 at 60NM

active approx. 8,6NM

hit approx. 24NM

distance in between Creech and hit is 66NM. All good.

now with a AIM-7P

RADAR contact approx. 90NM

PD-STT at 70NM

launch AIM-7P at 15NM twice

hit approx. 5NM

distance in between Creech and hit is 59NM........

that's a difference of only 7NM! Whole millions of dollars for 7NM... I don't know. either the missile is too slow to 
make a significant difference in game or it was like this in real life.

if it was real, why don't build a cheaper missile with the properties of the AIM-54 and a bit more range than AIM-7 but fox3?

....like the AIM-120?

 

Seriously?!?

Hint: what can the AIM-54 do that the Sparrow can’t?

Follow up rhetorical question: do you think they made the Phoenix as big as it was just on a whim?

[lunaticfringe]

1 hour ago, The_Doktor said:

a little Test......

Nevada Creech, me F-14B 35000 ft 0.95M and a SU-27 30000 ft 0.8M no armament and rookie skill.

distance approx. 111NM

RADAR contact approx. 88NM

TWSA

launch AIM-54C MK60 at 60NM

active approx. 8,6NM

hit approx. 24NM

distance in between Creech and hit is 66NM. All good.

now with a AIM-7P

RADAR contact approx. 90NM

PD-STT at 70NM

launch AIM-7P at 15NM twice

hit approx. 5NM

distance in between Creech and hit is 59NM........

that's a difference of only 7NM! Whole millions of dollars for 7NM... I don't know. either the missile is too slow to 
make a significant difference in game or it was like this in real life.

if it was real, why don't build a cheaper missile with the properties of the AIM-54 and a bit more range than AIM-7 but fox3?

....like the AIM-120?

 

 

What's the distance to Creech got to do with anything?  What matters is the distance to you, the shooter.

You launched on one target at 60 miles, and it it at a range of 25 miles. 

You launched on another target at 15 miles, and the round hit at a distance of 5 miles.  

The difference in range is 20 miles.  And that difference in range is the difference between him getting multiple shots off and him never getting a shot off at all.

[Karon]

12 hours ago, The_Doktor said:

a little Test......

Nevada Creech, me F-14B 35000 ft 0.95M and a SU-27 30000 ft 0.8M no armament and rookie skill.

distance approx. 111NM

RADAR contact approx. 88NM

TWSA

launch AIM-54C MK60 at 60NM

active approx. 8,6NM

hit approx. 24NM

distance in between Creech and hit is 66NM. All good.

now with a AIM-7P

RADAR contact approx. 90NM

PD-STT at 70NM

launch AIM-7P at 15NM twice

hit approx. 5NM

distance in between Creech and hit is 59NM........

that's a difference of only 7NM! Whole millions of dollars for 7NM... I don't know. either the missile is too slow to 
make a significant difference in game or it was like this in real life.

if it was real, why don't build a cheaper missile with the properties of the AIM-54 and a bit more range than AIM-7 but fox3?

....like the AIM-120?

 

What did you do post launch? Cranked? Reduced speed? Went Out at activation? There are several means to increase separation whilst the missile is flying, and you can push the performance of the missile even more, if needed.

I see what you mean with Creech, but 7 nm Vs a striker can still be relevant. Also, let's say their objective is close to the border or a SAM site: you can throw a missile that intercepts them as they are crossing or out of the SAM envelope, but if you have to sustain a Sparrow, this may not be feasible. I don't know if you see where I'm going.

Then we can talk geometry: your example may partially prove a point in a hot scenario, but if the intercept is colder and you need to stop the target, only the Phoenix will get to the target (have a look at WEZ and LAR).

As you can see, the matter is much more complex than you put it.

Also, yep, the AIM-120 is a much modern missile. But, you know, to name the two we have in-game, the AIM-120B was introduced 20 years after the 54A, the C-5 was introduced 26 years later. I understand was Mr Einstein said, but time, experience, technological advancements, can't really be bent as we can do in a videogame. But I'm sure the Brits during the Battle of Britain wouldn't have minded a good stock of Meteor missiles. They would have closed the matter much sooner

EDIT: actually, this is an interesting topic, especially when it comes to the geometrical aspect. I'll put something together next week, if I have time.

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Karon

[The_Doktor]

1 hour ago, Karon said:

What did you do post launch? Cranked? Reduced speed? Went Out at activation? There are several means to increase separation whilst the missile is flying, and you can push the performance of the missile even more, if needed.

I see what you mean with Creech, but 7 nm Vs a striker can still be relevant. Also, let's say their objective is close to the border or a SAM site: you can throw a missile that intercepts them as they are crossing or out of the SAM envelope, but if you have to sustain a Sparrow, this may not be feasible. I don't know if you see where I'm going.

Then we can talk geometry: your example may partially prove a point in a hot scenario, but if the intercept is colder and you need to stop the target, only the Phoenix will get to the target (have a look at WEZ and LAR).

As you can see, the matter is much more complex than you put it.

Also, yep, the AIM-120 is a much modern missile. But, you know, to name the two we have in-game, the AIM-120B was introduced 20 years after the 54A, the C-5 was introduced 26 years later. I understand was Mr Einstein said, but time, experience, technological advancements, can't really be bent as we can do in a videogame. But I'm sure the Brits during the Battle of Britain wouldn't have minded a good stock of Meteor missiles. They would have closed the matter much sooner

EDIT: actually, this is an interesting topic, especially when it comes to the geometrical aspect. I'll put something together next week, if I have time.

 

 

 

thank you Karon, 
you understood what i wanted to say.

my scenario was purposely to be as simple as possible to show the difference in range.

imagine how long the air force used only the AIM-7. despite the possibilities of the 54. maybe because of the cost? 
tactically, the air force can simply use more aircraft......

I'm glad I could inspire you

 

[Karon]

12 hours ago, The_Doktor said:

 

thank you Karon, 
you understood what i wanted to say.

my scenario was purposely to be as simple as possible to show the difference in range.

imagine how long the air force used only the AIM-7. despite the possibilities of the 54. maybe because of the cost? 
tactically, the air force can simply use more aircraft......

I'm glad I could inspire you

 

No problem! It is actually an interesting point but, if I can be totally honest, the point you were making was not very clear. I understood it just because I worked on the separation at impact data recently.

About why the USAF did not adopt it, I am not qualified enough to answer. Perhaps one cause is its initial task: taking down long-range threats, so Fleet defence. In fact, until mid/late 80s, the AIM-7 was the go-to weapon against fighters. Perhaps another cause is the fact that only two radars, as far as I know, guide it: the AWG-9 and its successor, the APG-71. The AIM-7 instead was employed by dozens of different aircraft and their radars: F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18; just to mention what is in DCS or coming soon™. Perhaps is just a matter of how different military branches operate. I pass the ball to others on this.

Back to your original point, I exhumed a study I made about the AIM-7 a few months ago. Attached you find the separation at impact for the AIM-7F, launched at 25,000ft, M.9 vs hot, flanking targets, both standard employment and 30° loft. The second chart is the separation for the AIM-54C Mk47 launched at 35,000ft at M.9 for various level of manual loft. nullIn both cases, I did not crank. Unfortunately, the scenarios are not the same, but they give some ideas. Disregarding manual loft for the moment, you see that an AIM-54 launched at 60nm impacts when the Tomcat is at 25nm. This means that, even without cranking, going Out or doing anything post seeker activation, you are at the perfect range to prepare for an AIM-7 employment.
So, imagine we want to hit a pack of bombers, and we have the usual 4/2/2 setup: we launch 4x AIM-54 TWS at 60nm, they are activated by the WCS and timeout when separation is 25nm. Now we can set up for the first AIM-7 at 25nm. It impacts at 7/8 nm, and we follow up with the second AIM-7. It impacts at 3/4 nm, now we can employ a front quarter AIM-9. As you can see, even without doing anything to reduce closure because perhaps we want to get close ASAP, before the merge we have launched 7 missiles, and we are left with one AIM-9, even if both the AIM-54 and the AIM-7 are quite slow missiles.

I know this example is very simplistic and quite idiotic, but please let me know if it makes sense to you. Also, remember that the AWG-9 is stuff from the 60s: technology, doctrine, tactics, threats changed a lot since then. However, if you take this in the context of the era, with the F-14s located 100+ nm from the carrier between the threat and the CV group, I don't see the speed of the AIM-54 as a big deal, tbh.

[RustBelt]

On 1/27/2023 at 4:17 PM, lunaticfringe said:

 

What's the distance to Creech got to do with anything?  What matters is the distance to you, the shooter.

You launched on one target at 60 miles, and it it at a range of 25 miles. 

You launched on another target at 15 miles, and the round hit at a distance of 5 miles.  

The difference in range is 20 miles.  And that difference in range is the difference between him getting multiple shots off and him never getting a shot off at all.

I think they're measuring the distance of the "Attacker" to the USS Creech Land Based Carrier Strike Group they started at. meaning the Attacker was only stopped 7 NM farther away with the Phoenix than the Sparrow. 

 

Which Ignores the fact that you can shoot at 6 targets at once with the Phoenix, and it will go to fully active for terminal phase. Because there would never be ONE SU-27 attacking a CSG because that's crazy.

[lunaticfringe]

5 hours ago, RustBelt said:

I think they're measuring the distance of the "Attacker" to the USS Creech Land Based Carrier Strike Group they started at. meaning the Attacker was only stopped 7 NM farther away with the Phoenix than the Sparrow. 

 

Which Ignores the fact that you can shoot at 6 targets at once with the Phoenix, and it will go to fully active for terminal phase. Because there would never be ONE SU-27 attacking a CSG because that's crazy.

 

It also ignores the fact that the comparative math is flat out wrong.  Useful range comparisons are based on the point the shots are taken at the target, not some other reference- unless they're fired from the exact same position.  Let's equivocate: 

Ex 1: 60 mile shot, 25 mile range at arrival- 35 miles flown by the two aircraft, roughly 5:4 ratio makes that about 19.5/15.5 range flown from the F-14 vs Su-27, meaning the missile went about 45 miles itself.  If the target was at 66 miles from Creech when it got hit, and our interceptor was running on a hot vector from it, the F-14 shot at ~21 miles out from Creech. 

Ex 2: 15 mile shot, 5 mile range at arrival- 10 miles flown by the two aircraft; 5.5/4.5 flown by the F-14 vs Su-27, respectively; Sparrow went about 11 miles on its own. Same situation- hot vector out of Creech and a target at 59 miles when it's downed, the F-14 fired at the Su-27 at 48 miles out from Creech. 

See the problem?  The Tomcat in example 2 literally had to fly out the 35 mile difference between the two weapons in travelled range itself.  

To illustrate it more fully, reverse the shot positions:

Phoenix shot at 48 miles outside Creech?  Bad guy blows up at 93 miles from the land based carrier.  
Sparrow shot at 21 miles outside Creech?  You better hope that round hits, because if it doesn't- that Flanker and all his friends are inside the group.  

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by lunaticfringe

[The_Doktor]

10 hours ago, Karon said:

No problem! It is actually an interesting point but, if I can be totally honest, the point you were making was not very clear. I understood it just because I worked on the separation at impact data recently.

About why the USAF did not adopt it, I am not qualified enough to answer. Perhaps one cause is its initial task: taking down long-range threats, so Fleet defence. In fact, until mid/late 80s, the AIM-7 was the go-to weapon against fighters. Perhaps another cause is the fact that only two radars, as far as I know, guide it: the AWG-9 and its successor, the APG-71. The AIM-7 instead was employed by dozens of different aircraft and their radars: F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18; just to mention what is in DCS or coming soon™. Perhaps is just a matter of how different military branches operate. I pass the ball to others on this.

Back to your original point, I exhumed a study I made about the AIM-7 a few months ago. Attached you find the separation at impact for the AIM-7F, launched at 25,000ft, M.9 vs hot, flanking targets, both standard employment and 30° loft. The second chart is the separation for the AIM-54C Mk47 launched at 35,000ft at M.9 for various level of manual loft. nullIn both cases, I did not crank. Unfortunately, the scenarios are not the same, but they give some ideas. Disregarding manual loft for the moment, you see that an AIM-54 launched at 60nm impacts when the Tomcat is at 25nm. This means that, even without cranking, going Out or doing anything post seeker activation, you are at the perfect range to prepare for an AIM-7 employment.
So, imagine we want to hit a pack of bombers, and we have the usual 4/2/2 setup: we launch 4x AIM-54 TWS at 60nm, they are activated by the WCS and timeout when separation is 25nm. Now we can set up for the first AIM-7 at 25nm. It impacts at 7/8 nm, and we follow up with the second AIM-7. It impacts at 3/4 nm, now we can employ a front quarter AIM-9. As you can see, even without doing anything to reduce closure because perhaps we want to get close ASAP, before the merge we have launched 7 missiles, and we are left with one AIM-9, even if both the AIM-54 and the AIM-7 are quite slow missiles.

I know this example is very simplistic and quite idiotic, but please let me know if it makes sense to you. Also, remember that the AWG-9 is stuff from the 60s: technology, doctrine, tactics, threats changed a lot since then. However, if you take this in the context of the era, with the F-14s located 100+ nm from the carrier between the threat and the CV group, I don't see the speed of the AIM-54 as a big deal, tbh.

 

thanks again

Yes, the example makes perfect sense. No military aircraft flies around alone, nor does it simply appear in the air over the location it is tasked with defending.

As I said, I wasn't concerned with tactics but only with distances.

Thank you for your valuable data and the time you put into your analyses

my english is not the best i hope you can understand it a bit.

 

[The_Doktor]

2 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

It also ignores the fact that the comparative math is flat out wrong.  Useful range comparisons are based on the point the shots are taken at the target, not some other reference- unless they're fired from the exact same position.  Let's equivocate: 

Ex 1: 60 mile shot, 25 mile range at arrival- 35 miles flown by the two aircraft, roughly 5:4 ratio makes that about 19.5/15.5 range flown from the F-14 vs Su-27, meaning the missile went about 45 miles itself.  If the target was at 66 miles from Creech when it got hit, and our interceptor was running on a hot vector from it, the F-14 shot at ~21 miles out from Creech. 

Ex 2: 15 mile shot, 5 mile range at arrival- 10 miles flown by the two aircraft; 5.5/4.5 flown by the F-14 vs Su-27, respectively; Sparrow went about 11 miles on its own. Same situation- hot vector out of Creech and a target at 59 miles when it's downed, the F-14 fired at the Su-27 at 48 miles out from Creech. 

See the problem?  The Tomcat in example 2 literally had to fly out the 35 mile difference between the two weapons in travelled range itself.  

To illustrate it more fully, reverse the shot positions:

Phoenix shot at 48 miles outside Creech?  Bad guy blows up at 93 miles from the land based carrier.  
Sparrow shot at 21 miles outside Creech?  You better hope that round hits, because if it doesn't- that Flanker and all his friends are inside the group.  

 

 

my example is intentionally entirely fictional. the su27 is just a drone nothing else. it wobbles a bit left and right.
it's not about tactics. no fighter flies alone through the air.
I wanted to show the fact that in this example the difference is only 7 miles.

It doesn't matter here that a piece of virtual metal costing 5 million fantasy dollars has flown 40 miles. the fantasy plane flew the route for only $50,000

 

edit:

sorry, I exaggerated massively  AIM 54 cost in wiki 477K

What is $477k in 1974 worth in today's money? Adjusted for inflation, $477,000 in 1974 is equal to $2,878,540 in 2022.

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by The_Doktor

[RustBelt]

3 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

It also ignores the fact that the comparative math is flat out wrong.  Useful range comparisons are based on the point the shots are taken at the target, not some other reference- unless they're fired from the exact same position.  Let's equivocate: 

Ex 1: 60 mile shot, 25 mile range at arrival- 35 miles flown by the two aircraft, roughly 5:4 ratio makes that about 19.5/15.5 range flown from the F-14 vs Su-27, meaning the missile went about 45 miles itself.  If the target was at 66 miles from Creech when it got hit, and our interceptor was running on a hot vector from it, the F-14 shot at ~21 miles out from Creech. 

Ex 2: 15 mile shot, 5 mile range at arrival- 10 miles flown by the two aircraft; 5.5/4.5 flown by the F-14 vs Su-27, respectively; Sparrow went about 11 miles on its own. Same situation- hot vector out of Creech and a target at 59 miles when it's downed, the F-14 fired at the Su-27 at 48 miles out from Creech. 

See the problem?  The Tomcat in example 2 literally had to fly out the 35 mile difference between the two weapons in travelled range itself.  

To illustrate it more fully, reverse the shot positions:

Phoenix shot at 48 miles outside Creech?  Bad guy blows up at 93 miles from the land based carrier.  
Sparrow shot at 21 miles outside Creech?  You better hope that round hits, because if it doesn't- that Flanker and all his friends are inside the group.  

 

 

And that makes even less sense. The SU-27 must have sped up or something for those numbers to work, or their Phoenix was only averaging what? M1.2 at a 35,000 foot launch? The Tomcat was only going M0.9 and it practically BEAT the Phoenix to the Flanker by flying out the difference in launch distance when shooting the AIM-7. 

Edit: Mathed it. 

Re mathing. Order of magnitude fail

Ok so the times seem weird.

Using DCS Standard Atmosphere/temp The F-14 was going 519 KTAS and the SU-27 was going 471 KTAS.

For the Phoenix shot the F-14 fired at T+ 2m25s. and the Flanker was hit at T+ 5m43s the Phoenix was in the air for 3m18s and going form 35,000' to 30,000'.

So it only averaged M1.4 for a 45NM flight?

For the AIM-7

Tomcat T+ 5m32s to shot, and Flanker T+ 7m30s hit. meaning the Sparrow flew for 1m58s? over 11NM, so 335KTAS or M0.57? Were you shooting a Sparrow or a CirrusJet?

the heck?

Edited January 29, 2023 by RustBelt

[Lurker]

On 1/28/2023 at 11:21 PM, Karon said:

About why the USAF did not adopt it, I am not qualified enough to answer. 

 

We can make very good educated guesses as to why the AF didn't adopt the Phoenix. First of all the AF didn't have a platform that could carry it, the F4 "might" have been modified to carry the phoenix but the phoenix system was a system, it wasn't just the missile. I don't think that the F4 would have been able to mount the AWG9 or the expense of the upgrades simply wasn't worth it. Another thing to consider was the rules of engagement that the AF operated with at the time (and all the way up to and including the early 90s). Engagement of any potential enemy required visual ID. A big heavy BVR missile simply didn't fit the bill here. By the time the F15 hit the scene, the sparrow's reliability and pk had gone way up since the vietnam era days, it would have been a "good enough" interim missile until the AF developed a BVR Fox3 missile of their own. 

[TomcatFan1976]

The speed of the Phoenix was Mach 5 and range was over 100nm. We are not getting anywhere near that in DCS. Again, you can reference the 6 on 6 test they performed during the development stage of the Tomcat. We can also reference the amazing accuracy and deadliness during the Iraq-Iran war where Iran had amazing kill rates with the very early model of the Phoenix's.

[ValhallaAB]

18 minutes ago, TomcatFan1976 said:

The speed of the Phoenix was Mach 5 and range was over 100nm. We are not getting anywhere near that in DCS. Again, you can reference the 6 on 6 test they performed during the development stage of the Tomcat. We can also reference the amazing accuracy and deadliness during the Iraq-Iran war where Iran had amazing kill rates with the very early model of the Phoenix's.

We have gone over this hundreds of times, that was the NASA test which had different parameters and a lighter weight if I'm not mistaken and maybe even a different motor... The reason why the Iranian F-14's AIM-54's performed so well was mostly to do with the lack of awareness the Iraqi pilots older airframes RWR and SA and that data is very much up in the air because who trusts Iranian kill counts, while alot of it is not even confirmed by second sources other than the Iranians themselfs.

 

DD_Fenrir did a good post here: 

''An "AIM-54" did reach Mach 5... sort of.

The Mach 5 figure comes from here:

NASA's plan to use an F-15 to launch hypersonic Phoenix missiles - Sandboxx

But when you read just how many modifications NASA made to the missile to get it to reach Mach 5 you start to understand just how little this test missile has in common with a US Navy fleet missile.

1. All of the internal components related to the missile’s guidance system and explosive payload were completely removed, including its guidance computer and radar tracker, leaving just its propulsion and control sections at the rear of the missile intact
2. a new nose with slightly more sloping angles was added to what would now be primary and secondary payload sections with the same 15″ diameter as the original components. The primary payload section measured about 57 inches long and, based on the weight of the guidance section it replaced, could carry approximately 184 pounds worth of testing equipment.

It's an AIM-54 in name only.

Then there's the flight profile - the fact that the launch was committed at Mach 2 and that the missile was not required to make any steering corrections as it had no target widens the gap between it and a fleet Phoenix; there's so little in common here with an operational launch of an AIM-54 that it might as well be a completely different missile.''

[DSplayer]

2 hours ago, ValhallaAB said:

We have gone over this hundreds of times, that was the NASA test which had different parameters and a lighter weight if I'm not mistaken and maybe even a different motor... The reason why the Iranian F-14's AIM-54's performed so well was mostly to do with the lack of awareness the Iraqi pilots older airframes RWR and SA and that data is very much up in the air because who trusts Iranian kill counts, while alot of it is not even confirmed by second sources other than the Iranians themselfs.

 

DD_Fenrir did a good post here: 

''An "AIM-54" did reach Mach 5... sort of.

The Mach 5 figure comes from here:

NASA's plan to use an F-15 to launch hypersonic Phoenix missiles - Sandboxx

But when you read just how many modifications NASA made to the missile to get it to reach Mach 5 you start to understand just how little this test missile has in common with a US Navy fleet missile.

1. All of the internal components related to the missile’s guidance system and explosive payload were completely removed, including its guidance computer and radar tracker, leaving just its propulsion and control sections at the rear of the missile intact
2. a new nose with slightly more sloping angles was added to what would now be primary and secondary payload sections with the same 15″ diameter as the original components. The primary payload section measured about 57 inches long and, based on the weight of the guidance section it replaced, could carry approximately 184 pounds worth of testing equipment.

It's an AIM-54 in name only.

Then there's the flight profile - the fact that the launch was committed at Mach 2 and that the missile was not required to make any steering corrections as it had no target widens the gap between it and a fleet Phoenix; there's so little in common here with an operational launch of an AIM-54 that it might as well be a completely different missile.''

Btw the USN did state a Mach 5 speed figure for the 54C to Congress prior to the proposed NASA tests. However, I do think the motor values we have know are the most accurate values we can get with the information that is available.

[RustBelt]

11 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

We can make very good educated guesses as to why the AF didn't adopt the Phoenix. First of all the AF didn't have a platform that could carry it, the F4 "might" have been modified to carry the phoenix but the phoenix system was a system, it wasn't just the missile. I don't think that the F4 would have been able to mount the AWG9 or the expense of the upgrades simply wasn't worth it. Another thing to consider was the rules of engagement that the AF operated with at the time (and all the way up to and including the early 90s). Engagement of any potential enemy required visual ID. A big heavy BVR missile simply didn't fit the bill here. By the time the F15 hit the scene, the sparrow's reliability and pk had gone way up since the vietnam era days, it would have been a "good enough" interim missile until the AF developed a BVR Fox3 missile of their own. 

Also the air force, in their primary defense mission had SAM missiles like Nike and such unlike a navy ship at sea.

[Jonay]

On 1/25/2023 at 6:14 AM, Rinz1er said:

Thank you to @Callsign JoNay for assisting in testing this. Two tomcats flying at each other. Taking a AIM54C-MK47 shot at ~60nm with the target switch settings in the following profile.

1st launch -> Target Size Switch "Normal"
2nd launch -> Target Size Switch "Small"
3rd launch -> Target Size Switch "Large"

When the launched-on F14 flares, it signifies the RWR is warning of an active guided missile. When the launching F14 flares, it signifies when the TID ticker starts flashing.

What we found was that the TID ticker flashed at different times directly related to the setting of the Target Size Switch. For example, when the Target Size Switch was set to "small", the TID ticker would begin flashing <15s. When the Target Size Switch was set to "large", the TID ticker would begin flashing at >20s.

However, no matter the Target Size Switch setting the missile ALWAYS went active at ~7nm. This is a bit different than the AI defending ALWAYS at ~10nm which may be why some folks saw improvements in their PVP engagements over their PVE engagements.

TLDR: Nothing has changed with the Target Size Switch recently. It is still non-functioning in changing the go-active distance of the missile. It only seem to affect the TID ticker.

Attached the TacView of this encounter for your viewing pleasure.

Tacview-20230124-202744-DCS-51st_Syria_Training_Map-48.zip.acmi 2.67 MB · 7 downloads

 

you must've tagged me by accident in the OP - I got a notification and was like 'eh?!'

I don't have the Tomcat, wish I did, but I don't have the time to learn it

[Karon]

14 hours ago, TomcatFan1976 said:

The speed of the Phoenix was Mach 5 and range was over 100nm. We are not getting anywhere near that in DCS. Again, you can reference the 6 on 6 test they performed during the development stage of the Tomcat. We can also reference the amazing accuracy and deadliness during the Iraq-Iran war where Iran had amazing kill rates with the very early model of the Phoenix's.

HB has shown several times that they are willing to change things if they can be proven. So, do you have an actual study showing that the Phoenix can reach those numbers? If not, one of the better alternatives we have, as mentioned by @ValhallaAB and many others, is the study made by NASA that, although focused on a different goal, provides some details about the behaviour of the Phoenix.

This is the study, straight from NASA itself: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060004771/downloads/20060004771.pdf

Do you have a better and reliable source? If not, there is nothing to fix (with some caveats, not strictly dependent on HB).
Moreover, any car seller can say that their cars are the best in the world, it does not mean it is true. That's why devs need primarily numbers, not anecdotes.

@Lurkergood points as usual, thanks mate!

Edited January 31, 2023 by Karon

[Alicatt]

9 hours ago, Karon said:

HB has shown several times that they are willing to change things if they can be proven. So, do you have an actual study showing that the Phoenix can reach those numbers? If not, one of the better alternatives we have, as mentioned by @ValhallaAB and many others, is the study made by NASA that, although focused on a different goal, provides some details about the behaviour of the Phoenix.

This is the study, straight from NASA itself: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060004771/downloads/20060004771.pdf

Do you have a better and reliable source? If not, there is nothing to fix (with some caveats, not strictly dependent on HB).
Moreover, any car seller can say that their cars are the best in the world, it does not mean it is true. That's why devs need primarily numbers, not anecdotes.

@Lurkergood points as usual, thanks mate!

 

That's a proposal for a future test series, it is not an actual physical test, there are no actual figures in that document from a test that NASA has done, it is using figures plucked from public sources, are those figures overstating or understating the performance of the missile for propaganda purposes?

[Alicatt]

4 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

What?

The document linked to in the post by  @Karon is a proposal ie. seaking permission to do tests for a hypersonic missile components.

IT IS NOT A TEST RESULT 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Alicatt

[turkeydriver]

11 hours ago, Karon said:

HB has shown several times that they are willing to change things if they can be proven. So, do you have an actual study showing that the Phoenix can reach those numbers? If not, one of the better alternatives we have, as mentioned by @ValhallaAB and many others, is the study made by NASA that, although focused on a different goal, provides some details about the behaviour of the Phoenix.

This is the study, straight from NASA itself: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060004771/downloads/20060004771.pdf

Do you have a better and reliable source? If not, there is nothing to fix (with some caveats, not strictly dependent on HB).
Moreover, any car seller can say that their cars are the best in the world, it does not mean it is true. That's why devs need primarily numbers, not anecdotes.

@Lurkergood points as usual, thanks mate!

 

 Most of the Iraqi targets did not have any RWR or only rudimentary.   No one in the world had experience against an active radar missile during the Iran-Iraq War.  You fly against AI in DCS that incorporates tactics against active radar missiles.  It is that simple.  If we could set AI by training depth and calendar year instead of "novice" and "ace" you would have the results you are looking for.  An Iranian tomcat against a MiG-23S in 1979 vice against a Su-27 in 1998 are very different scenarios.

[Spurts]

16 minutes ago, turkeydriver said:

 No one in the world had experience against an active radar missile during the Iran-Iraq War.  

This little bit right here speaks volumes.  Even pilots in RWR equipped planes with all the training and experience in the world would KNOW that until the RWR screams the tones for LOCK and LAUNCH then you are safe and even then you have a minute to figure things out.  Enter a war where the RWR (if you had one that was tuned for the signals of that missile) only screams LOCK about 16s before you explode and you have nothing on radar yet.

[Karon]

13 hours ago, Alicatt said:

The document linked to in the post by  @Karon is a proposal ie. seaking permission to do tests for a hypersonic missile components.

IT IS NOT A TEST RESULT 

 

I may have linked the correct one, I picked the first one from Google, IIRC it had some comparisons and charts: if you manage to replicate those in a coherent, scalable system, you have the closest model we can get. That being said, only devs can give you the correct doc.

 

EDIT: just to be extra clear, what I mean that, if NASA uses data for a test paper, those are good enough for a videogame imo. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Karon

[Karon]

2 hours ago, turkeydriver said:

 Most of the Iraqi targets did not have any RWR or only rudimentary.   No one in the world had experience against an active radar missile during the Iran-Iraq War.  You fly against AI in DCS that incorporates tactics against active radar missiles.  It is that simple.  If we could set AI by training depth and calendar year instead of "novice" and "ace" you would have the results you are looking for.  An Iranian tomcat against a MiG-23S in 1979 vice against a Su-27 in 1998 are very different scenarios.

Not sure why you are quoting me, but yes, that is well known and one of the points I have been stressing for years: in DCS, you can fly a full intercept using only the RWR of an F/A-18.
Ref the Iran v Iraq war, for example, according to Tom Cooper, the Mirage F1's RWR couldn't pick the AWG-9. Not good if you are an Iraqi pilot. Players can adjust their scenarios to simulate this and give more variety, but it requires manual labour. E.g. the campaign I made set in Iran '86 has a mix of randomised behaviour when engaged to mimic the issues of Iraqi avionics.

The AI in DCS does not incorporate tactics vs active radar missile, on the contrary. It knows where the missile is at all time and, at 10nm, it defends. Defending from something that may have been launched involves more than a perfect notch at 10nm. Interestingly enough, the AI It defends in a similar way even when engaged in PDSTT. Unfortunately, this is the status quo, but I don't see how this is related to the AIM-54 Phoenix: every missile is affected, the Phoenix surely more, but it is not something HB can fix on their own. Thus, this is OT here. What we can do, whilst this gets fixed and improved by ED, is using workarounds as the one I mentioned before, and skipping Ace AI.

[The_Tau]

14 hours ago, Spurts said:

This little bit right here speaks volumes.  Even pilots in RWR equipped planes with all the training and experience in the world would KNOW that until the RWR screams the tones for LOCK and LAUNCH then you are safe and even then you have a minute to figure things out.  Enter a war where the RWR (if you had one that was tuned for the signals of that missile) only screams LOCK about 16s before you explode and you have nothing on radar yet.

Thats assuming Iraqi Signal Intelligence did its job and acquired AWG9/AIM54 radar signals for scan/track/lock to add to RWR threat library. It may only happened later in war, as Iran had a lot of 54 success early in war but later them and USN in '91 had much less glamorous track record ('91 Iraqis were running away as soon F14 radar was detected)

Edited February 1, 2023 by The_Tau