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

[The_Tau]

8 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

This could be a very useful Jester wheel add-on as well. Say under BVR-TWS options, we can have the number of tracks generated by the AWG-9, and they can never be more then six of them, so there should always be enough room for all. Then once selecting a number, we can have DO NOT ATTACK option or BACK. Would help in saving some time for people that don't like jumping in the back seat or just for "immersion" having your RIO do it. 

Thats why I use that mod to map RIO controls, like HCU, NEXT LAUNCH, MLC, CAP NUMPAD for target data, CAP TRG DATA page and that one CAP button for DO NOT ATTACK. So I have control over all of those from front seat. And its awesome. 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3319633/

[Callsign JoNay]

8 hours ago, The_Tau said:

Thats why I use that mod to map RIO controls, like HCU, NEXT LAUNCH, MLC, CAP NUMPAD for target data, CAP TRG DATA page and that one CAP button for DO NOT ATTACK. So I have control over all of those from front seat. And its awesome. 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3319633/

I'll have to check this out. What about when you have a human RIO? Does this mod override their controls like the HCU for example? Or does their presence in the backseat block these controls from functioning?

[Biggus]

11 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

I'll have to check this out. What about when you have a human RIO? Does this mod override their controls like the HCU for example? Or does their presence in the backseat block these controls from functioning?

Not sure that 'override' is the right word, but as a front seater with HCU thumbwheel control, I can certainly confuse and/or annoy a human backseater if I move the control without warning them.

[The_Tau]

On 4/28/2023 at 6:52 PM, Callsign JoNay said:

I'll have to check this out. What about when you have a human RIO? Does this mod override their controls like the HCU for example? Or does their presence in the backseat block these controls from functioning?

You can press stuff with human RIO too so don't press them

[captain_dalan]

On 4/28/2023 at 1:41 AM, DD_Fenrir said:

I'd like the option to tell Jester to DO NOT ATTACK > from the left / from the right/ from the front / from the back > x1 / x2 / x3 etc so that I can then sort & meld either with an AI or a Multiplayer wingman without a human RIO...

Of course, but that would IMO require more work intensive changes to the Jester logic, while what i proposed is already there, it just needs interfacing with the Jester wheel, so it should be easier to implement short term? 

On 4/28/2023 at 10:35 AM, The_Tau said:

Thats why I use that mod to map RIO controls, like HCU, NEXT LAUNCH, MLC, CAP NUMPAD for target data, CAP TRG DATA page and that one CAP button for DO NOT ATTACK. So I have control over all of those from front seat. And its awesome. 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3319633/

That looks like a really neat mod, though having to override it after every update is a bit tedious. 

[eatthis]

On 4/29/2023 at 8:07 PM, The_Tau said:

You can press stuff with human RIO too so don't press them

but theyre unicorns lol

[The_Tau]

15 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Of course, but that would IMO require more work intensive changes to the Jester logic, while what i proposed is already there, it just needs interfacing with the Jester wheel, so it should be easier to implement short term? 

That looks like a really neat mod, though having to override it after every update is a bit tedious. 

I use JSGME or OvGME to manage my mods

[Schmidtfire]

Was the AIM-54C Phoenix really this... bad? IRL the missile could be used against a low level cruise missile. In DCS a Phoenix missile
that go active can pretty much be defeated with a simple turn at a medium altitude. Not an expert here, just asking if it's performance
is realistic. Seeker is very easy to notch when it's coming down and terminal speed seems... on the low side for most medium level engagements.

Im all for the most realistic representation possible! Don't get me wrong   just wondering if all the press about the AIM-54 greatness is embellished?
It's somewhat of a paper tiger in DCS (except non maneuvering aircraft, such as bombers). Against a human player? To a point it's almost better to carry AIM-7
and go for a close range STT shot. Anyways, only my observations without going into graphs and what not.

 

[Tweety777]

Sounds to me like you fire the missiles in the wrong windows. The Phoenix needs to be fired at high altitude and preferably at high speed, if this is not met it will never reach it's range potential. In my experience it can be defeated but a Phoenix missile fired in the correct window comes flying almost straight down in RWR's blindspot making it quite easy to fully surprise it's intended victim. When not firing at the absolute limit of it's range with a target track all the way it will have energy left to manouvre with the target. When the missile get's slow it has no means of regaining speed, so naturelly it can then easily be defeated by a single turn or even powering up ever so slightly. It's engine is long burned out so it's only gliding to the target.

In my opinion the Phoenix is far more reliable then the AIM-7, especially when you need to turn a lot and the target is manouvring as well. In my experience the AIM-7 tends to not work any better then any unguided rocket quite often (say like 10% of the missiles fired), I never have this issue with the Phoenix. 

[Schmidtfire]

Window should be right. AIM-54C (mk47 and mk60). Up high (30-35k ft) and at speed. Head-on Launch at 60-50-40-30nm.
Might have launched over a hundred shots  the last week and two has connected. That's with AIM-54C. 

Against AI the missile fares WAY better within the same parameters. Might be an issue with the seeker or guidance updates against
human players? When I spec the missile typically two things happen. It's either coming in at relatively good speed and defeated at the end
by a simple turn, or it coasts against the bandit  in a very slow and very shallow manner (might be due to lost trackfile).
 

[cheezit]

1 hour ago, Schmidtfire said:

Window should be right. AIM-54C (mk47 and mk60). Up high (30-35k ft) and at speed. 
 

Without getting into the lofting discussion from Karon earlier in this thread, I think you will find those parameters are in fact not great.  The AIM-54 is a really wide missile, and as a result it likes altitude more than it likes speed; in this regard, it is very different from smaller-diameter and more 'slippery' missiles like the AIM-7 and the AIM-120.

 

To make things concrete, I think you will find the launch parameters denoted as "B" on the following diagram to be better than "C", and I think you will also find "A" better than "D":

 

[Biggus]

35 is the barest minimum I'd consider launching at.

The missile is largely fine, within the limitations of the current DCS implementation.  The all-knowing AI, not so much.

[Spurts]

Anything under 40k is just too low.  I personally use 50 as my launch parameter

[Kageseigi]

11 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

Was the AIM-54C Phoenix really this... bad? IRL the missile could be used against a low level cruise missile. In DCS a Phoenix missile
that go active can pretty much be defeated with a simple turn at a medium altitude. Not an expert here, just asking if it's performance
is realistic. Seeker is very easy to notch when it's coming down and terminal speed seems... on the low side for most medium level engagements.

Im all for the most realistic representation possible! Don't get me wrong   just wondering if all the press about the AIM-54 greatness is embellished?
It's somewhat of a paper tiger in DCS (except non maneuvering aircraft, such as bombers). Against a human player? To a point it's almost better to carry AIM-7
and go for a close range STT shot. Anyways, only my observations without going into graphs and what not.

 

 

Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the lack of Phoenix success due more to ED's missile tracking implementation than due to its flight performance?

In other words, it doesn't matter how much energy and velocity the missile has, it's really up to the extent of how ED programs chaff RNG, the size of the notching envelope, the random flight path when tracking is lost, and also module developers' level of realism in their RWR systems' coverage. Combining all of those things may very well make the Phoenix perform much worse (or better if at the other extreme) than it would in real life. Kind of like when a video game has a visible red laser on every sniper rifle or when a boss flashes red before an unblockable attack... what should be a truly scary and lethal threat can be made almost negligible by simple changes (even if not intended). And that's not even taking AI omniscience into account.

[Karon]

5 hours ago, Kageseigi said:

 

Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the lack of Phoenix success due more to ED's missile tracking implementation than due to its flight performance?

In other words, it doesn't matter how much energy and velocity the missile has, it's really up to the extent of how ED programs chaff RNG, the size of the notching envelope, the random flight path when tracking is lost, and also module developers' level of realism in their RWR systems' coverage. Combining all of those things may very well make the Phoenix perform much worse (or better if at the other extreme) than it would in real life. Kind of like when a video game has a visible red laser on every sniper rifle or when a boss flashes red before an unblockable attack... what should be a truly scary and lethal threat can be made almost negligible by simple changes (even if not intended). And that's not even taking AI omniscience into account.

Correct, but there is much more to it. One of the hardest concepts for people to comprehend, for some odd reason, is that the greater the range at launch, the easier defeating a missile becomes.
For example, say I'm the target: if I introduce an offset when I'm 10nm from the F-14, the correction the missile has to make before timeout is minimal. If I'm at 100nm instead, it can be too big to ensure that the missile arrives with sufficient energy to be a threat. It gets worse: variations in speed add more parameters to compensate for, on top of variations in altitude.
The long-range factor opens up to more aleatory situations: for example, I may engage a target that it's just CAPping, so at some point it drags, and the missile is thrashed. This possibility is much lower if I engage a target at 20/30nm (silly example, but I hope it conveys the message).

Here we go back to DCS and its issues: if you look at the only conflict where the Phoenix was used in considerable quantities, you have targets splashed at all sorts of distance and totally unaware of the danger. In fact, according to some authors, the Mirage F1 at least initially, was incapable of detecting the AIM-54, making it an easier target than other aircraft.
So, if a fighter is unaware, it's an easy target. In DCS, it never happens. This exacerbates even more the whole TWS-dependency, whereas STT should be more relevant.

The list of other points goes on forever, but what you mentioned, plus the intrinsic simplicity a long-range shot is defeated, make the AIM-54 a very era-dependant missile.
The status quo was fully recognised and the AIM-152 was under development since mid-80s or something.

[Schmidtfire]

Thanks for feedback. I will try higher altitude launches at 45-50k. From memory, I read somewhere that the optimal altitude for AWG-9 detection is 22000ft IRL. Doctrine wise, it would be interesting to know if 45-50k launches was really a thing, or is more of a DCS-ism due to factors Karon covered in his post. Obviously pk go down with range. But Im starting to think that AIM-54 is hampered quite a bit by all the various DCS-isms. It adds up. I don’t know what update of the AIM-54C is modelled (since it’s quite a difference between early years and late software updates). But I find it strange that it’s quite easy to spoof. If there is something that can be tweaked on it’s terminal guidance?

Anyways, Im all for the most realistic representation possible. So not asking for better performance if it did not have it IRL.

[Karon]

10 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

 If there is something that can be tweaked on it’s terminal guidance?

Nah, not that I'm aware. Assuming you are providing the missile the best opportunities, geometry and launch parameters wise, then there is not much on your end, besides waiting for ED to overhaul this part of the simulation.

 

Btw, I usually launch at 35k top. The thing is, flying higher can give the missile a little bit more juice, but the vast majority of the time, the missile would have enough energy to hit, and it's defeated by either very prolonged dives and drags (which is fine), or notching (which is not fine, not to the extent it's represented).

[Kageseigi]

1 hour ago, Karon said:

One of the hardest concepts for people to comprehend, for some odd reason, is that the greater the range at launch, the easier defeating a missile becomes.

Speaking of range, are there any charts or details displaying the Phoenix's actual maximum range? Even theoretical or (DCS) simulated? That is, assuming the F-14 were firing at a perfectly stationary target (something like a hovering balloon or helicopter in zero wind), how far out could the missile actually travel and hit (not needing to alter intercept course)? And how long would it take to reach that target?

[Bananabrai]

8 minutes ago, Kageseigi said:

Speaking of range, are there any charts or details displaying the Phoenix's actual maximum range? Even theoretical or (DCS) simulated? That is, assuming the F-14 were firing at a perfectly stationary target (something like a hovering balloon or helicopter in zero wind), how far out could the missile actually travel and hit (not needing to alter intercept course)? And how long would it take to reach that target?

Probably all secret, still pretty sensitive topic with the Tomcat still flying for "REDFOR" these days.

On the other hand, why would a stationary target/ballon/helicopter depict the perfect target?
I see where you want to go, you just want to know the raw range, but how would you use that number then in action? This scenario will probably never happen.

You need to know the ranges & numbers for a closing, flanking or evading target. And then everything is still pretty dynamic and based on experience.

For example, I know some friends who always shot at 50-60nm, because the target is still closing. I however tend more to shot at 35ish, even for a head on target, because I know that guy will probably maneuver. 

[Karon]

12 minutes ago, Kageseigi said:

Speaking of range, are there any charts or details displaying the Phoenix's actual maximum range? Even theoretical or (DCS) simulated? That is, assuming the F-14 were firing at a perfectly stationary target (something like a hovering balloon or helicopter in zero wind), how far out could the missile actually travel and hit (not needing to alter intercept course)? And how long would it take to reach that target?

Sure, I made hundreds through the years. Put it this way: you can engage almost everything the radar sees, easily over 100nm, depending on the target size.
I did test against almost stationary targets (M < 0.2), I built a performance model for most missiles using this modus operandi. Possibly, the max range is more related to battery time and DCS oddities than anything else (in 2019, above ~140nm, the '54 flew so high it was uncapable of diving on the target).

Time wise, take a speed between M2.0 and M2.4, and use it against the range: there are too many parameters involved to have a proper, exact number.

[Kageseigi]

31 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

On the other hand, why would a stationary target/ballon/helicopter depict the perfect target?
I see where you want to go, you just want to know the raw range, but how would you use that number then in action? This scenario will probably never happen.

You need to know the ranges & numbers for a closing, flanking or evading target. And then everything is still pretty dynamic and based on experience.

Yeah, I figure if I know the theoretical max range, then I have a standard to base everything else on. Then I can start plugging in numbers to get a better sense of how much the effective range will be reduced based on conditions. Perhaps also how much I could/should manipulate the closure rate with cranking depending on the target's speed and actions. I guess to create my own personal MAR (or YOLO schedule) based on my flying style.

 

23 minutes ago, Karon said:

Sure, I made hundreds through the years. Put it this way: you can engage almost everything the radar sees, easily over 100nm, depending on the target size.
I did test against almost stationary targets (M < 0.2), I built a performance model for most missiles using this modus operandi. Possibly, the max range is more related to battery time and DCS oddities than anything else (in 2019, above ~140nm, the '54 flew so high it was uncapable of diving on the target).

Time wise, take a speed between M2.0 and M2.4, and use it against the range: there are too many parameters involved to have a proper, exact number.

Oh my, I'll remember to not take a 140nm shot, haha!
And thanks!

[Karon]

14 minutes ago, Kageseigi said:

Oh my, I'll remember to not take a 140nm shot, haha!

And thanks!

No worries!

I've never found enough time to write an article with the 50+ charts I have made from my latest study, but this video has a bunch of them:

The topic is manual lofting, but "auto loft", ergo a levelled, standard launch, is almost always included. Hope it helps!

[Schmidtfire]

Maybe Im wrong here. But in my mind, auto lofting should calculate the most optimal trajectory at launch.
 

Manual loft, while providing awesome kinematics in DCS, should probably not be the norm? Otherwise, Grumman would have implemented lofting cues for the pilot and rio.

As for overall performance, it seems like AIM-54 midcourse and final phase of flight is a bit of a hit and miss in DCS. Very difficult to get a good trajectory and RWR warning makes it relatively easy to defeat.

On another note, the old (pre-Heatblur)  ED AIM-54 for AI F-14A was a laser. Very little to no warning. Not sure if it was due to terminal speed or late active mode, but that thing was seriously terrifying

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Schmidtfire

[tavarish palkovnik]

On 4/23/2023 at 2:42 PM, tavarish palkovnik said:

I am not claiming anything, just giving my opinion, for me and I believe that, motors of AIM-54 are with dual thrust concept

 

Self-quoting is not academic but I did it anyway. 

 

 

Single dual-thrust rocket motor !

Source: ''The history of solid rocket propulsion and aerojet - Philip D.Umholtz, Consultant, Porola Valley, CA''

 

[Karon]

22 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

Maybe Im wrong here. But in my mind, auto lofting should calculate the most optimal trajectory at launch. With as much smack as possible in final phase of flight?  Manual loft, while providing awesome kinematics in DCS, should probably not be the norm? Otherwise, Grumman would have implemented lofting cues for the pilot and rio.

As for overall performance, it seems like AIM-54 midcourse and final phase of flight is a bit of a hit and miss in DCS. Very difficult to get a good trajectory and RWR warning makes it relatively easy to defeat.

On another note, the old (pre-Heatblur)  ED AIM-54 for AI F-14A was a laser. Very little to no warning. Not sure if it was due to terminal speed or late active mode, but that thing was seriously terrifying

 

Yeah, I remember the AI AIM-54, I guess they based it on anecdotal accounts from some pilots. There are still interviews around where some say it gets to Mach 5 or something
HB works on the documents they can find, and if one day something comes up concretely proving that the AIM-54 is capable of getting to Mach 27, I'm sure they'll implement it in such a way. In the meantime, to me, it looks good, and DCS is the reason why it fails more often than not (notching susceptibility, SA too easy to get, AI omniscient, and many other points).
For example, the AIM-54 peer missile era-wise, the AIM-7, is noticeably slower than the Phoenix, and even the early AIM-120 weren't really hypersonic.

The RWR consideration is more a DCS-ism than anything else. In this game, there's an obsession with stealth that it is simply not applicable to RL. At least according to several crew I had chats with. Nevertheless, I'm more than happy to use PDSTT even vs humans, especially as a follow-up shot, and I've been saying this since post overhaul of 2021 (or late 2020?). Even more so, along the new AIM-54C, which simply carries on on its own if the lock is broken - an unlikely case anyway.

Anyway, I do agree with the lofting thing. I made a couple of videos about this, and the results were hilarious:

I really hope that, once MT is stable, ED can divert more resources towards radars and missiles overhaul, and the completion of the famous API we've waiting for a few years now.