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

[Karon]

Last time I checked, the TID blinks correctly depending on the option selected, but the AI defends at the same distance every time. Also, this is a DCSism, the purpose of the switch should not be how stealth you want to be. I wouldn't mind seeing the missile thrashed if the wrong parameters are set, it would make IDing the target even more relevant.

Ref jamming, see if this helps (video about engaging jamming targets I made in November. The theory is in this video). You can easily kill jamming targets at 60+ nm, and this works for the AIM-120 as well, albeit at a shorter range. The AI launches HOJ lofting missiles as well, so the whole jamming experience leaves a bit of a sour taste.
I tested vs blinking jammer (albeit at a larger interval) in TWS and out of a dozen tests I scored no hits. Apparently, a test made in 1973 worked instead (but the source does not say how many failed ). JAT-STT switching to PD-STT at burnthrough works like a charm, at least versus AI. This, however, opens up the can of other issues, but this is off-topic and irrelevant here.

[Hymlee]

2小时前，The_Tau说：

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...

 

I tested by shooting Aim54C mk47 in TWS at AI F18, target size set to small.

In the cockpit, the TID flashes at 12seconds instead of the usual 16 seconds, but the AI still reacts at 10nm.

Is this correctly implemented, or will it be corrected in future?

tacview is attached.

Thanks.

Tacview-20230123-173239-DCS-f14 test.txt.acmi

[Comstedt86]

3 hours ago, Hymlee said:

I tested by shooting Aim54C mk47 in TWS at AI F18, target size set to small.

In the cockpit, the TID flashes at 12seconds instead of the usual 16 seconds, but the AI still reacts at 10nm.

Is this correctly implemented, or will it be corrected in future?

tacview is attached.

Thanks.

Tacview-20230123-173239-DCS-f14 test.txt.acmi 1008 kB · 0 downloads

As stated previously, AI defends at 10nm irregardless of when any missile goes active. If it will be changed or not defends on ED.

[Hymlee]

1小时前，Comstedt86说：

As stated previously, AI defends at 10nm irregardless of when any missile goes active. If it will be changed or not defends on ED.

But AI doesnt react to aim120 at 10nm.

Does the 10nm reaction distance apply to aim54 exclusively?

[GGTharos]

11 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

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

As in without the shooter illuminating it?  IMHO no, at least not in DCS.   Not for the 7, 27, 120, 77, etc. etc.  The SARH missile is tuned to the shooter's radar, and it will HoJ (which is by far the simplest interpretation of HoJ and it's not a good one) by attacking the jammer because it reproduces that same signal.  ARH have a slightly different operating philosophy, they'll run their own radar.

[The_Tau]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

As in without the shooter illuminating it?  IMHO no, at least not in DCS.   Not for the 7, 27, 120, 77, etc. etc.  The SARH missile is tuned to the shooter's radar, and it will HoJ (which is by far the simplest interpretation of HoJ and it's not a good one) by attacking the jammer because it reproduces that same signal.  ARH have a slightly different operating philosophy, they'll run their own radar.

Well as indicated with RL blinking Jammer 54 test HoJ seem to be a thing. Its just I think in DCS its waaay too good. IMO missiles with HoJ should just fly in general direction towards jammer, hoping for launcher aircraft to achieve burnthrough or missile own radar to acquire target and not tracking it passively perfectly with leading how it is currently in DCS. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by The_Tau

[Callsign JoNay]

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

As in without the shooter illuminating it?  IMHO no, at least not in DCS.

47 minutes ago, The_Tau said:

IMO missiles with HoJ should just fly in general direction towards jammer, hoping for launcher aircraft to achieve burnthrough or missile own radar to acquire target and not tracking it passively perfectly with leading how it is currently in DCS.

I'm curious why you guys have those opinions? Passive-tracking anti radiation missiles have been a thing since the 60s, no?

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, The_Tau said:

IMO missiles with HoJ should just fly in general direction towards jammer, hoping for launcher aircraft to achieve burnthrough or missile own radar to acquire target and not tracking it passively perfectly with leading how it is currently in DCS. 

There's a bit more to HoJ than this but let's say that's hat it would look like.

[GGTharos]

29 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

I'm curious why you guys have those opinions? Passive-tracking anti radiation missiles have been a thing since the 60s, no?

HoJ is not actually 'Homing' on the ECM emitter.  It might, but the idea behind HOJ is to allow you to attack a target that's trying to completely remove your ability to do so.  These AAMs are tuned to your radar for launch and they're not just going to pick up 'whatever' to attack.  They are looking for your specific radar signal.  When the ECM is used against you, it is repeating that particular signal and HoJ is just a very catch-all name for ECCM trying to allow you fire on that target.  You might never burn through, and the ECM can also be so good that you won't even know it's operating unless you double check some things (eg. an ECM suite might jam your Vc by providing a false value...you radar won't know any better, your missile will use that Vc and fly somewhere where your target isn't).  

Understanding why HoJ isn't just 'home on some radio signal' has a lot to do with understanding how these missiles operate.  You'll notice there are SAMs that can attack SoJs, but those are aircraft that will transmit constantly, trying to jam the SAMs.   And here we're talking about the high altitude SAMs like S300, PATRIOT etc.  You're no doubt aware that a HARM hit a B-52 by homing in on its tail gun radar...but that was a non-maneuvering aircraft, and you'll find that any passive ARMs that are designed to be thrown at aircraft are thrown at big and not very maneuverable things, like AWACS.  Even so, those theoretical designs pretty much always give way to an active radar seeker.

ECM in DCS is very simplified, and so is HoJ.  Let's just say that the level at which we play the basic idea of ECM is to reduce Pk, and nothing else.   For the weapons used, the ECM needs to be jamming that weapon system specifically.  This isn't represented in DCS< thus why you have this fake passive guidance thing.

[cheezit]

e: I hadn't seen GGTharos's posts when I wrote this

 

The scenarios are entirely different kettles of fish in terms of what the missile might try to do:

 

• A SARH or ARH air-to-air missile going into home-on-jam mode against a target with a self-protection jammer trying to jam the fire-control radar that is guiding the missile, where the self-protection jammer is probably not emitting anything when the fire-control radar isn't illuminating it
• An anti-radiation air-to-ground missile passively tracking an emissions source in either search or fire-control mode, such as a SAM antenna
• A SARH or ARH air-to-air missile going into home-on-jam mode against a standoff jammer (cf. Wahoo's story about an AIM-54A switching to HoJ against an EA-3B in flight ) where the jammer *may* be emitting noise or what we will call "something that isn't merely noise" constantly, even if there's no fire control radar illuminating either it or whatever it's trying to protect

Edited January 23, 2023 by cheezit

[Callsign JoNay]

41 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

You're no doubt aware that a HARM hit a B-52 by homing in on its tail gun radar...but that was a non-maneuvering aircraft

One thing I'll say to that, is that fighters that don't know there is a passive-tracking missile inbound often fly in a non-maneuvering way that allows them to be hit by weapons they might've evaded if they knew they were inbound. Russians have an anti-radiation version of R-27 and Shrikes/Harms have been a thing forever. It seems like a simple enough technology for a Sparrow to go into an HOJ mode that would theoretically allow it to track passively to a jammer. Is there a source that specifies the AIM-7 could not do this? I know ED is questionable sometimes, but I assume they gave the Sparrow a passive-tracking HOJ ability based on some type of semi-reliable information. (Or do I have too much faith in them? )

[Callsign JoNay]

47 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Regarding those passive R-27's (P/EP) - those were designed for large, not maneuvering targets like an AWACS.

Sure, and many also say the AIM-54 was designed to counter non-maneuvering bombers. That does not mean it can't be used against other types of targets when employed correctly.  As I said in the post you quoted, fighters that don't know they are being tracked by a passive missile often do not maneuver, and fly in a similar way to an AWACS or bomber. Whether or not the missile can intercept a maneuvering target is not really what is being questioned.

[The_Tau]

If home on Jam would so good in RL then everyone would developed dedicated missiles for it wouldnt it? USA, French, British, Indian, Chinese, Israeli? And not just mythical R27P which from I recall never was actually used or even mounted on anything. 

Attacking E3s with their super powerful 360 degree coverage emissions is one thing but targeting small, self-defense fighter ECMs is very much different in RL. They have much less power and have limited coverage. Its very much DCSism that they are 360, noise barrage functionality. 

Besides how HoJ could calculate Lead on fast targets? Wouldnt just simply go pure pursuit on jamming source in best scenario? Or just simply fly past the cone of jammer coverage... 

[Spurts]

1 hour ago, The_Tau said:

HoJ could calculate Lead on fast targets? Wouldnt just simply go pure pursuit on jamming source in best scenario? 

This is why HoJ is not an instant win.  No lead, no loft, pure pursuit.

[Callsign JoNay]

1 hour ago, The_Tau said:

If home on Jam would so good in RL then everyone would developed dedicated missiles for it wouldnt it?

Besides how HoJ could calculate Lead on fast targets? Wouldnt just simply go pure pursuit on jamming source in best scenario?

Yes, they would most likely be pure pursuit if I had to guess. I didn't say HOJ would be "so good", I am only proposing that it could exist. Most 4th gen fighters didn't use IRST or BVR Fox-2 missiles either, but they did/do exist. Most BVR missiles do not have ducted ram jets, but Meteors exist.

[GGTharos]

3 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

One thing I'll say to that, is that fighters that don't know there is a passive-tracking missile inbound often fly in a non-maneuvering way that allows them to be hit by weapons they might've evaded if they knew they were inbound. Russians have an anti-radiation version of R-27 and Shrikes/Harms have been a thing forever. It seems like a simple enough technology for a Sparrow to go into an HOJ mode that would theoretically allow it to track passively to a jammer. Is there a source that specifies the AIM-7 could not do this? I know ED is questionable sometimes, but I assume they gave the Sparrow a passive-tracking HOJ ability based on some type of semi-reliable information. (Or do I have too much faith in them? )

One thing I'll say to that is that sim players salivate constantly over such a thing while constantly ignoring that such weapons are not being operated and I will point out no real pilot has ever even hinted at such a thing.   I explained why AAMs would not be used like this, if you want a source, you can go digging through operational manuals and RF bibles or what have you so that you can decipher the reason for yourself - definitely do not take my word for it.

2 hours ago, The_Tau said:

Attacking E3s with their super powerful 360 degree coverage emissions is one thing but targeting small, self-defense fighter ECMs is very much different in RL. They have much less power and have limited coverage. Its very much DCSism that they are 360, noise barrage functionality. 

... but it really isn't a thing either.  The preference remains an ARH, not an ARM.

2 hours ago, The_Tau said:

Besides how HoJ could calculate Lead on fast targets? Wouldnt just simply go pure pursuit on jamming source in best scenario? Or just simply fly past the cone of jammer coverage... 

Proprotional navigation, just like a heat seeker.  You lose any optimization/path shaping though and you lose a lot of ECCM.

[DSplayer]

8 hours ago, Hymlee said:

But AI doesnt react to aim120 at 10nm.

Does the 10nm reaction distance apply to aim54 exclusively?

The AIM-120s doesn't have the active_radar_lock_dist parameter which causes the AI to defend the AIM-54 and other missiles (SD-10 is another one) at that parameter's set distance (which is roughly 10nm for both).

[BubiHUN]

8 hours ago, DSplayer said:

The AIM-120s doesn't have the active_radar_lock_dist parameter which causes the AI to defend the AIM-54 and other missiles (SD-10 is another one) at that parameter's set distance (which is roughly 10nm for both).

I knew it! I knew there was something about the AMRAAM. Also realized AI just doesnt defend against those missiles the same way

[AH_Solid_Snake]

15 hours ago, DSplayer said:

The AIM-120s doesn't have the active_radar_lock_dist parameter which causes the AI to defend the AIM-54 and other missiles (SD-10 is another one) at that parameter's set distance (which is roughly 10nm for both).

Are you aware of any rationale for that change applying only to the AIM-120? If its a work-around for the omniscient AI why not apply it to the SD-10 or AIM-54? If its 120 specific is there some reason that it should be "silent" compared to the other ARH missiles?

[Spurts]

The AIM-120 is on a different API than other missiles.  At its core, it just works differently for now.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

1 hour ago, Spurts said:

The AIM-120 is on a different API than other missiles.  At its core, it just works differently for now.

Sure, does that mean this parameter cannot be applied to older missiles?

[Spurts]

Not until they move to the new API.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

1 hour ago, Spurts said:

Not until they move to the new API.

Im perhaps missing something here. The one missile on the new API is the AIM120, for which this value is either unused or meaningless?

[Spurts]

6 hours ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

Im perhaps missing something here. The one missile on the new API is the AIM120, for which this value is either unused or meaningless?

Sorry, I think we got some wires crossed.  You asked if this parameter cannot be applied to older missiles.  The older missiles I are not on the new API yet so I interpreted your comment to mean some parameter of the AIM-120, but looking up a few more comments I see what you are referring to... I think.  But yes, the "active_radar_lock_dist parameter " is not in the AIM-120 API and is handled different at a code structure level.  Older missiles have to use that parameter until they are brought to the new API.  Clear as mud?

[Rinz1er]

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

Edited January 25, 2023 by Rinz1er
Adding TacView