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

[DoorMouse]

41 minutes ago, Viper33 said:

Indeed. And there has been seemingly no improvement over those 4 years. AMRAAM's still fly formation with a cold target or switch to pure pursuit when a target does a hard 180 turn instead of aiming for the rate centroid. Not to mention the lack of actuall mass and inertia simulation making the missile pull way too much instant AOA and G for no reason.

 

I had an aim120 last week make a 16g turn at mach 3 to correct 40 degrees to a target that I was tracking for 40 miles in TWS the entire way to Pitbull. Working as intended thread closed.  

[Katsu]

8 hours ago, DoorMouse said:

Fixing the Phoenix would require ED finishing their work on the aim-120 and new API that has been in development for.... Checks notes.... Four years?

 

So. Nearly almost not finished 

I really hope that at some point they stop to review the data.

I've bought the F-14 since pre-order, and I remember that it's been several years since this "new" API was promised, 
i believe the API may improve the missile's behavior to be smoother, but i dont see how it fix the unrealistically lacking of thrust:

From unclassified data: 


Convertion to N: 


Actual game thrust: 


Convertion of game total impulse to LB: 


 @tavarish palkovnik calculations again very close to the unclassified data:



even in the worst-case scenario, we should have a higher thrust than the current one. 



 

Edited October 2, 2024 by Katsu

[Machalot]

5 hours ago, Katsu said:

From unclassified data: 


Convertion to N: 


Actual game thrust: 


Convertion of game total impulse to LB: 

Interesting thing about the mass table in that source is that the propellant and all expendables are (978 lbm - 602 lbm ) / (2.2 lbm/kg) = 171 kg compared to 163 kg in the DCS lua.  (Are there other expendables like coolant or hydraulic fluid?  I wouldn't expect motor insulation and nozzle erosion to account for 8 kg.)

The public source also suggests an Isp of 97,000 lbf-s / 376 lbf = 258 s, compared to (13,595 N * 27 s) / 163 kg = 230 s for DCS.  The problem is we don't know what altitude that 97,000 lb-s total impulse and 4,000 lbf thrust pertain to.  In Tavarish's table it would be somewhere around 30,000 ft.

If 4,000 lbf is the average thrust, it suggests a nominal burn time of 97,000 lbf-s / 4,000 lbf = 24.25 s.

 

[tavarish palkovnik]

A bit more mathematics and numbers in one fiction...

 

 

What if...everything inside of motor remain same, same configuration, same throat diameter, same propellant, same heat ratio etc...of course burning process would remain same with same average chamber pressure of 45 bar and average burn time of 23,7 seconds. But nozzle is cut off so that nozzle area ratio is different. I made fiction in way that nozzle should be optimized to sea level altitude, to make full expansion there, meaning pressure at nozzle exit to be equal to atmospheric pressure of 1,013 bar.

And that is the one below, now with expansion ratio only 6,455 or exit diameter 140,68mm. For such nozzle thrust coefficients are different of course and now it is 1,68 in vacuum condition and 1,5347 at sea level, so average thrust at sea level would be 0,987*1,5347*4,5*55,372˄2*PI/4=16406 N or total impulse 388822 Ns or average specific impulse 236s. And that is minimal thrust, with every kilometre of altitude thrust gain will be achieved...but not even close as with nozzle with expansion ratio 18,5

 

   

 

At 25km it reaches 17940 N what is 9,35% gain or for all 25km differential average 6,7% tanananana 

Also it is interesting to see situation with Isp which is now between 236 and 258 s

 

 

Joy of numbers, I just hope nobody will take these numbers anyhow related to Phoenix, this is just a fiction in way ''what if''

Edited October 4, 2024 by tavarish palkovnik

[G.J.S]

3 minutes ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

A bit more mathematics and numbers in one fiction...

 

 

What if...everything inside of motor remain same, same configuration, same throat diameter, same propellant, same heat ratio etc...of course burning process would remain same with same average chamber pressure of 45 bar and average burn time of 23,7 seconds. But nozzle is cut off so that nozzle area ratio is different. I made fiction in way that nozzle should be optimized to sea level altitude, to make full expansion there, meaning pressure at nozzle exit to be equal to atmospheric pressure of 1,013 bar.

And that is the one below, now with expansion ratio only 6,455 or exit diameter 140,68mm. For such nozzle thrust coefficients are different of course and now it 1,68 in vacuum condition and 1,5347 at sea level, so average thrust at sea level would 0,987*1,5347*4,5*55,372˄PI/4=16406 N or total impulse 388822 Ns or average specific impulse 236s. And that is minimal thrust, with every kilometre of altitude thrust gain will be achieved...but not even close as with nozzle with expansion ratio 18,5

 

   

 

At 25km it reaches 17940 N what is 9,35% gain or for all 25km differential average 6,7% tanananana 

Also it is interesting to see situation with Isp which is now between 236 and 258 s

 

 

Joy of numbers, a just hope nobody will take these numbers anyhow related to Phoenix, this is just a fiction in way ''what if''

Your sea level pressure is a bit high!! Think (hope) you mean millibars!

[tavarish palkovnik]

2 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

Your sea level pressure is a bit high!! Think (hope) you mean millibars!

1,013 bar = 1013 mbar = 101300 Pa = 14,7 psi ...

I think you something mixed up

[G.J.S]

13 minutes ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

1,013 bar = 1013 mbar = 101300 Pa = 14,7 psi ...

I think you something mixed up

Hangover still in effect . Oops.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

1,013 bar = 1013 mbar = 101300 Pa = 14,7 psi ...

I think you something mixed up

It's a bit misleading because west uses the dot for decimals and coma (or apostrophe) is for easier thousands differentiation. So 1,013 is often just 1013 while in the east we read that as 1 and 13/1000.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

36 minutes ago, draconus said:

It's a bit misleading because west uses the dot for decimals and coma (or apostrophe) is for easier thousands differentiation. So 1,013 is often just 1013 while in the east we read that as 1 and 13/1000.

Do you consider Western Europe to be “east”, then?

[draconus]

7 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Do you consider Western Europe to be “east”, then?

Idk, every western I watched was about cowboys in North America

[tavarish palkovnik]

It’s only important that we understand each other, dot or coma it doesn’t matter…you didn’t see when I do hand written calculations  that sometimes even myself can’t decode a day after

But let’s go in further demystification of Phoenix, now through geometrical features. You saw how much important nozzle configuration is to motor output, change it and results are totally different. But let’s that be second point.

First, just shortly one more time about burn time. Because of various factors, facts and necessities, propellant grain is “showing” that burning web is something like 6” (152mm). We have facts from Rocketdyne that burning rate of that propellant at 1000 psi (69 bar) was 0,3” (7,62mm) and at 700 psi (48 bar) 0,255” (6,477mm). Enough to define burning rate law as 1,4*p^0,4 to be close enough.

I’ve got average pressure 45 bar so burning speed is 6,42mm/s and at 20degC web of 152mm will burn for 23,7 seconds.

At -40degC burning will be slower because of minus what will also consequently decrease pressure so total final burning speed will be smaller because of combining influences and will be 0,8734*1,4*36^0,4=5,13mm/s

At +70degC same story only now average pressure rises to 53 bar and results with 1,1055*1,4*53^0,4=7,58mm/s

So limes numbers are 152/5,13 and 152/7,58 or 29,6 and 20 seconds respectively, max and min burn time.

OK, this was not just geometrical features but numbers again, sorry.

Second point, I think I didn’t write about it here on this forum. Strictly geometrically to show that Mk47 and Mk60 should not be much different in output, if at all, and I believe not at all.

NASA in their handbook about nozzles gave two graphics, first one undersigned as Phoenix nozzle 

 

and second one explaining pyrolytic graphite throat inserts 

 

 

Obviously from external geometric features first one fits to Mk47 and second is very sure of Mk60, especially because in same handbook given parameters are of Mk60. Graphics are not exactly in scaled proportions but we already have enough geometrical values of Mk47

 

 

When having all this, and when set some of dimensions as referenced, it is easy to draw it in scale enough precisely
 

 

From top to down, external view of Mk47 nozzle, Mk60 nozzle overwritten on it, Mk47 interior over it…and combined!

Turn it upside down, twist it all around, but conclusion is just there

[BubiHUN]

Would be nice to have the 54s back in a state what we can call "useful"

[Karon]

*coff* skill issue
/s

Besides random bugs that appear now and then, the Phoenix is always the Phoenix: the most challenging missile to use in DCS. It needs the right conditions and effort to make it work.

I am working on a brief series about ARH missiles. Sure that many would have complained about the results, I put together this timeline. It should right away tell you a lot about how the geopolitical conditions changed after the mid-80s, how old the Phoenix is, both tech-wise and perspective-wise, and why comparing it to anything past the early '90s makes zero sense.

Charts and numbers will come later because, apparently, there is still a need to reiterate the same things all the time

[RustBelt]

But Karon, why shouldn’t we expect late 60’s and early 70’s computer systems to work as perfectly as our 2024 cell phones? You act like a Phoenix doesn’t have the computing power to run pacman. Oh yea, it DOESN’T. An Arduino would run circles around it. 
 

Why should we expect it to work like janky early computers, it’s running on the fastest computer I could afford, so it should be that good /s

[cheezit]

 

17 hours ago, RustBelt said:

But Karon, why shouldn’t we expect late 60’s and early 70’s computer systems to work as perfectly as our 2024 cell phones? You act like a Phoenix doesn’t have the computing power to run pacman. Oh yea, it DOESN’T. An Arduino would run circles around it. 
 

Why should we expect it to work like janky early computers, it’s running on the fastest computer I could afford, so it should be that good /s

 

For the 54A, sure.

The 54C we have in-game, roughly representative of the ones from the TECHEVAL and OPEVAL circa 1984-1985, is early 80s purely digital computer tech, the most they could stuff at the time into a circuit board ~15 inches in diameter and < 150 lbs in weight.  Substantially better than the IBM-compatible PC you might have bought at the time, though less powerful than the early UNIX-on-custom-chips workstations and VAX/PDP-whatever type minicomputers it would have been designed on.

The 54C ECCM/Sealed, 54C+, and "54C++"(basically-but-not-exactly a combination of the prior two listed items) from the late 80s and early 90s, as well as regular 54Cs with the reprogrammable program- and data-nonvolatile memory having been reprogrammed in service (a capability the early AMRAAM didn't have, because space and cost and power constraints didn't allow Hughes (who developed the 54C and 120A simultaneously) to fit it in there) are of course not represented in-game; keep that in mind if you're trying to represent a scenario after about 1986.  Although of course the QA problems from the mid-1980s production 54C are also not represented in-game, so maybe we count our blessings.  Unless you want to say the Phoenixes that go to the moon or turn backwards represent units with bad solder joints between components and the PCB :V

[Karon]

1 hour ago, cheezit said:

For the 54A, sure.

The 54C we have in-game, roughly representative of the ones from the TECHEVAL and OPEVAL circa 1984-1985, is early 80s purely digital computer tech, the most they could stuff at the time into a circuit board ~15 inches in diameter and < 150 lbs in weight.  Substantially better than the IBM-compatible PC you might have bought at the time, though less powerful than the early UNIX-on-custom-chips workstations and VAX/PDP-whatever type minicomputers it would have been designed on.

The 54C ECCM/Sealed, 54C+, and "54C++"(basically-but-not-exactly a combination of the prior two listed items) from the late 80s and early 90s, as well as regular 54Cs with the reprogrammable program- and data-nonvolatile memory having been reprogrammed in service (a capability the early AMRAAM didn't have, because space and cost and power constraints didn't allow Hughes (who developed the 54C and 120A simultaneously) to fit it in there) are of course not represented in-game; keep that in mind if you're trying to represent a scenario after about 1986.  Although of course the QA problems from the mid-1980s production 54C are also not represented in-game, so maybe we count our blessings.  Unless you want to say the Phoenixes that go to the moon or turn backwards represent units with bad solder joints between components and the PCB :V

The problem is that DCS lacks the means to provide effective differentiation. As long as CM are not physicalised, EW is still in the same status, the 2019-announced (or 2020?) missile API is still AWOL, a nanosecond in the notch defeats even laser beams, and so on, there is little justification to simply not get the one that has better kinematics. Blatant example: the old AIM-54A Mk60.
I am really looking forward to seeing all the pieces in place to finally provide variety, facets, depth and peculiarities to air combat. I am just a bit disheartened by the fact that we will hardly get anything meaningful before the end or at least the last part of this decade.

 

Anyway, back in topic, AIM-54 güd mizzle, but requires a bit of brain and effort to make it work

[Karon]

Sorry for the double-post and self-plug, but here you can see the first part of a study about ARH missiles, a parenthesis from my usual CW stuff. The Phoenix is included and the videos should make how it works a bit more understandable. Part II will have a direct comparison between the missiles at the same range.

We can talk for days about how the Phoenix works and how it should go faster, slower, or higher, but the vast majority of the time, it is the lack of understanding that dooms it.

[Noctrach]

Apparently the AIM-54 is such a terrible missile that multiplayer mission makers won't allow even a single 54A to touch an F-14 pylon unless everyone can shoot AMRAAM at it Limiting a 70s missile to 90s scenarios sure seems like the hallmark of a useless bomber-only weapon.

Looking at Tavarish' posts there might still be some improvements to be made, on top of guidance refinements if the missile API ever ends up supporting such tweaks.

Other than that, folks like Karon have created many pages detailing the best parameters for launching phoenixes. Yes the 1996 AIM-120-C is a better weapon, mostly owing to the seeker and the speed advantages below 25k, but if you keep your altitude and energy high, the AIM-54 is still a great, somewhat competitive missile.

Bigger issue would be the way platforms around the game interact with ECM. You don't have much opportunities to gain tactical advantages if everyone has Link-16 and is limited to a 23 nmi hardcoded burnthrough range. (Guess which missile is in it's peak 1996 performance envelope at that range?). Not to touch upon the hyper-accurate RWR in modern modules and the power of notching with those things.

 

My point with all this rambling: Even if Heatblur somehow magically found 20% additional speed for the missile, it would still not make it an AMRAAM.

 

Edited November 19, 2024 by Noctrach

[Katsu]

On 11/19/2024 at 7:20 AM, Noctrach said:

Apparently the AIM-54 is such a terrible missile that multiplayer mission makers won't allow even a single 54A to touch an F-14 pylon unless everyone can shoot AMRAAM at it Limiting a 70s missile to 90s scenarios sure seems like the hallmark of a useless bomber-only weapon.

Looking at Tavarish' posts there might still be some improvements to be made, on top of guidance refinements if the missile API ever ends up supporting such tweaks.

Other than that, folks like Karon have created many pages detailing the best parameters for launching phoenixes. Yes the 1996 AIM-120-C is a better weapon, mostly owing to the seeker and the speed advantages below 25k, but if you keep your altitude and energy high, the AIM-54 is still a great, somewhat competitive missile.

Bigger issue would be the way platforms around the game interact with ECM. You don't have much opportunities to gain tactical advantages if everyone has Link-16 and is limited to a 23 nmi hardcoded burnthrough range. (Guess which missile is in it's peak 1996 performance envelope at that range?). Not to touch upon the hyper-accurate RWR in modern modules and the power of notching with those things.

 

My point with all this rambling: Even if Heatblur somehow magically found 20% additional speed for the missile, it would still not make it an AMRAAM.

 

I think I've caught all your irony...

But I don't remember anyone saying here that the Phoenix should be better than the 120C5

I believe that the objective here is to get a more faithful representation of the missile, at least from the available documentation and not a " muuuh better than 120 missile "

If the phoenix was better than the 120, the navy would be using Phoenix and not 120s...

However, where the missile should in theory perform better is in high-flying situations with low air density, the missile doesn't have the thrust to properly accelerate (according to various documents previously published here) what it should accelerate. (and no, I'm not talking about the mach 5 nonsense.)

i made my own version of the missile with the total thrust very close to the documentation. 

And apart from everything you've said about the ECM,RWR about the state of the game, and etc, you have to remember one thing: The less reaction time the less the enemy will be able to defend, bot or player, mutiplayer or pve.

The thrust that is “missing” from the missile gives it almost 1 mach in its peak speed in high shots, but its maximum speed in deck launches remains practically unchanged (which according to the documentation is correct due to the drag area) 

Any missing thrust makes the missile slower, the slower a missile, the more time the target has to defend, the more time to defend the more time for the game's other problems to have time to be potentiated.

If there is data, if there are sources, why not review it? if is there 20% or whatever, it's fair that missile have this.

Tavarish's research data was used in some corrections of other missiles in the game, what is different about phoenix that invalidates its data? 
 

Edited November 21, 2024 by Katsu

[tavarish palkovnik]

On 11/20/2024 at 4:31 PM, Katsu said:

However, where the missile should in theory perform better is in high-flying situations with low air density, the missile doesn't have the thrust to properly accelerate (according to various documents previously published here) what it should accelerate. (and no, I'm not talking about the mach 5 nonsense.)

Nice to see discussion didn’t “die” and fight for truth is continuing 

Katsu, I don’t agree with this 5 Mach nonsense statement, actually I see 5 Mach as reality for missile’s top speed in launching conditions at maximal limits, maximal altitude and maximal velocity when launched (58kft and with 2M)

And you are right for this about high flying situations and low air density. Let’s make one test, up there, to see how much drag coefficient influences over there. Let’s make Phoenix to be in shape of wood log…

 

 

Drag coefficient of such cylinder shape nose is the worst one, let’s take it as continuous 1,6 from 2M to higher. I will not include body friction and also will not add some wings on this wood log, this nose of log will be enough, worse than this can’t be of course. So, let’s see how Phoenix in such shape with continuous drag coefficient of 1,6 would fly if launched ballistically with 20 deg elevation from 58000ft at 2M

And in two thrust configurations, the one I’m giving to it and other what you have in game

 

So let’s see what speed wood log would reach…

 

 

Hmmm, 5 Mach is not so far away, even wood log up there if have good push from bottom reaches respectable speed

 

 

Fiction of course, neither Phoenix is wood log neither pilot attempting such  suicidal launch at upper maximal limits is fool, but normal Phoenix launched from this launching point, horizontally, with missile’s overload to grab even thinner atmosphere will reach 5 Mach for sure

[cheezit]

On 11/20/2024 at 10:31 AM, Katsu said:

If the phoenix was better than the 120, the navy would be using Phoenix and not 120s...
 

 

Forgive the nitpick of one line of your otherwise very good post, but I don't think this is the case.  Even if a magic wand had been waved and a hypothetical AIM-54E with a 200NM max range and 50NM no-escape zone had existed at the time the decisions were made to sunset both the Tomcat and the Phoenix, both still would have been toast.  The S-3 wasn't replaced because the Navy found a better carrier-based sub hunter or tanker, the A-6 & KA-6D weren't replaced because the Navy found better all-weather attack jets or tankers, the EA-6B wasn't replaced because the Navy found a better standoff jammer, etc.  As in these analogous scenarios, the -120 and its launch platforms would have been retained *and nothing else would have* regardless of whether they were better (either in the weaker sense of 'better overall' or the stronger sense of 'better in all scenarios/every regard'), because they were newer, cheaper both for initial costs and ongoing costs, and good enough for a world without 400 divisions champing at the bit to rush through the Fulda Gap.  That the AMRAAM program office and Hughes/Raytheon managed to continue to iteratively improve the missile over the ensuing decades and bring it to a very high level of capability in a nice small package was lagniappe.

[Karon]

The Phoenix was considered obsolete by the mid-late 80s. That's where the 1980s AIM-152 project comes in. Then, no more Cold War, long-range not needed anymore plus budget cuts equal project cancelled.

The F-14 was tested with the AIM-120, but due to money constraints and cuts, they had to choose and go for the LANTIRN. Without such a capability, and with a "better Hornet" from day one, the F-14 would have probably been retired by the mid-90s. Instead, it became the Bombcat, de facto a different platform for an era when war was much different than the theorised Third World War.

At the end of the day, it's always a matter of money and geopolitics. Problem is, games badly replicate these factors, and it's usually players' fault.

 

@tavarish palkovnik I really enjoy reading your findings, but until the new missile API is applied across the board, and devs have greater and more granular control over every phase of the envelope, I would not expect any major change.

[Katsu]

On 11/21/2024 at 2:27 PM, tavarish palkovnik said:

 

Katsu, I don’t agree with this 5 Mach nonsense statement, actually I see 5 Mach as reality for missile’s top speed in launching conditions at maximal limits, maximal altitude and maximal velocity when launched (58kft and with 2M)

 

 

I understand your point Tavarish, I don't doubt it either.

What I mean is that it's very difficult for the missile to reach that in normal combat conditions, an F-14B loaded in the DCS with 4 AIM-54 on average can accelerate to 1.4/1.6 mach with a lot of effort using a very smooth climb profile to 40k.

Maybe you don't know I'll give you a summary of what happened to the Phoenix in this game (And why i'm still here):

First the missile arrived with CFD data that generated a white paper that was made available, but due to flaws in the game engine the missile had a kind of “ convulsion ” when it activated its radar and drained almost all of its energy.

What did the developer do with the missile? add a lot of thrust to compensate for this, where the missile became in game terms “overpowered” and above all made the missile very unrealistic with a no escape zone in the deck of almost 10nm, quickly the Phoenix and the F-14 became a nightmare in “multiplayer online matches” as it clearly had a “wonder-weapon” all this generated animosity against the AIM-54.

After some time and many complaints, corrections were made returning the missile to the state of the initial CFD studies (these studies were later deleted by the developer) then new corrections were made according to the NASA simulations we saw earlier in this thread, making the missile perhaps more realistic. However, after the adjustments that brought the missile closer to the NASA documents, more and more adjustments were made, reducing the missile's thrust to the point where NASA's own study was no longer valid.

These later adjustments were made on a “trust me, bro” basis, with no public data available for validation. 

I don't want to use the “I work with this” card because I don't exactly work in the aerospace industry, but in my work we also use precision data, and when the information varies a lot and we don't have a reliable source (which seems to be happening with the AIM-54) the only thing that can save us are studies and mathematics 

That's where you come into the discussion, because so far you're the only one who has brought data, formulas and something that can be validated here.

That's when I decided to continue “fighting” for the truth so that the missile is as close to the real thing as possible.

But from the amount of attacks and argumentative fights I suffer here, it seems that this is more of a developer's fan club then an actual discussion topic about a Improvements & Overhaul. (at least here it's more civilized than discord where I was almost lynched)I don't remember the exact term, but your whole study there was called something like “Russian reverse engineering delusion”

I don't care about the arguments, I just want the science behind it, If the missile is proven to be right the way it is, that's fine with me, As an enthusiast I'm here looking for the best experience I can get and to know where it came from.

Again thanks for you, for your effort here.

And as long as I'm allowed to, or when the data is released so that the current performance can be validated, I'll say that the game's current missile is a “guesswork-based delusion”

I even apologize for this, but after so many attacks for simply questioning something I can't just stay on the defensive.

Edited November 24, 2024 by Katsu

[tavarish palkovnik]

@Katsu

Russian reverse engineering delusion they said  Where it was, why you didn’t call me to participate in that nice conversation 

Internet is such a great thing, so many valuable things you can find and learn on it (in my time I had to go in library and wait my time to get a books when return from others), but like in wrongly “used” democracy where everyone has rights to “open mouth” , also so many rubbish, unfortunately rubbish long time ago overtook it. I like your point, the one when having no solid answers in written form, to find it using same principles used by developers of that thing of interest, in this case rocket motor. Although rocket motors are not simple to understand, still everything inside of it are just simple physical processes…fun fact…those are same on east and on west 

Indeed I use some formulas described by one Russian scientist long time ago, before these guys called that as delusion, most probably haven’t been born. 
I was reading recently Warthunder forum, mostly same discussion about Phoenix and motor particularly because motors are of highest interest of mine. There were some good things to read there…unfortunately I was not able to write there because that forum is just for those playing that game  …but also so many…hmmm…how to say and to be polite.

Few weeks it’s silence there, and they have been so close to figure it out. Of course, over there is like you described, discussion between developers “fan club” and those who questioning  One guy was so close, it was topic for who knows how many times started and never ended, specific impulse of motor…and on literally next page from literature he shared everything is crystal clear, how specific impulse is changing with altitude, pressures and nozzle expansion ratio…but fan club concluded…it is same old motor like early Mk36 of Sidewinder and old motors are…just old  and having low specific impulse of something about 230s or 240s…OMG 

Fun fact again…even propellant in historically old HVAR rocket had 235s impulse, but propellant useless for wide temperature range. What I want to say…actually I will not…it can’t be said shortly and there are so many variables.

Phoenix…why it’s vanished…because war theater (threat) is changed. One of primary tasks of Phoenix was fighting fast flying high altitude targets no other missile can reach (Phoenix was designed that way to have such possibilities…nozzle expansion ratio etc etc) but low flying cruise missiles also appeared, local conflicts with targets of different kinds…Phoenix became unnecessary assets…of course traditional American sense of business made its job as well 

So, no matter of anything, Phoenix deserves truth. This motor although I’m not huge fan of American principles of building rocket motors is actually really nice piece of work 

 

Edited November 24, 2024 by tavarish palkovnik

[TomcatFan1976]

On 11/23/2024 at 5:12 AM, Karon said:

The Phoenix was considered obsolete by the mid-late 80s. That's where the 1980s AIM-152 project comes in. Then, no more Cold War, long-range not needed anymore plus budget cuts equal project cancelled.

The F-14 was tested with the AIM-120, but due to money constraints and cuts, they had to choose and go for the LANTIRN. Without such a capability, and with a "better Hornet" from day one, the F-14 would have probably been retired by the mid-90s. Instead, it became the Bombcat, de facto a different platform for an era when war was much different than the theorised Third World War.

At the end of the day, it's always a matter of money and geopolitics. Problem is, games badly replicate these factors, and it's usually players' fault.

 

@tavarish palkovnik I really enjoy reading your findings, but until the new missile API is applied across the board, and devs have greater and more granular control over every phase of the envelope, I would not expect any major change.

Actually the AIM-120 testing was changed to the lantern due to Dale Snodgrass and his team presenting it to congress that the Tomcat had the Phoenix and didn't need the AIM-120 so they spent the money on making it the Bombcat with the lantern capabilities. I can't find the video right now of him describing the plan, It was in the Tomcat Tales on YouTube. it wasn't cause of money constraints and cuts, they were going to ungrade to AIM-120, but took that money for bombing capabilities....