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

[The_Tau]

5 hours ago, Karon said:

I think my longest was 120-130 nm. It is not a meaningful test at all though, as any minimal offset defeats the Phoenix.

I dont know if you used any more advanced tools to calculate traveled distance. In Tacview I just added waypoint on spot where 54 ejected the F14 (40k ft, 0.9-1.1 mach) and measured straight line to the 54 impacting target (or spot where 54 gives up tracking and simply falls down ballistically) and that distance was about 80ish nm. So I talk more slant range, as its much more useful for pilot to determine when in range 

Edited May 5, 2023 by The_Tau

[Harlikwin]

On 5/1/2023 at 8:33 AM, 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.

 

Problem is that IRL most of your opponents didn't know how to deal with the missile/radar. I.e. the first year or two of the iran iraq war. In DCS every players knows exactly what DCS mechanics to use to defeat it. 

Also IIRC the phoenix seeker was HPRF only, meaning problems when dealing with beaming/cold aircraft. But again, it was fine vs bombers/kingfish/cruise missiles etc coming right for ya.

[DSplayer]

14 hours ago, tavarish palkovnik said:

Few more thoughts about Mk47 and/or Mk60. So AIM-54 is with start weight of 978 lbs (443 kg) and final of 602 lbs (273 kg). Means 170 kg of fuel. Total impulse is they said 97000 lbs (431477 N) and thrust (of some kind, I will take it as average) 4000 lbs (17793 N).

Two of several options what crosscut could present ->

 

 

First will give dual-thrust, second single thrust (or near to continuous thrust)

 

 

Such total impulse, with nozzle like it is, for me is not possible at sea-level, but only for high altitudes. Of course it is always nice to see big numbers (Americans simply like to do that), but it is also fair to explain such numbers. What DCS gives for these motors as thrust at sea level?  Not intention of anything, just to see are we near in thinking.

 

Our current DCS thrust values for the Mk47 motor is 13595 N for 27 seconds with a propellant mass of 163 kgs. The Mk60 motor has a thrust of 17793 N for 20.6 seconds with the same propellant mass.

[Dannyvandelft]

Our current DCS thrust values for the Mk47 motor is 13595 N for 27 seconds with a propellant mass of 163 kgs. The Mk60 motor has a thrust of 17793 N for 20.6 seconds with the same propellant mass.

Then in theory the mk47 is the better motor to have. Their total output is a 1000 N apart, 367,xxx vs 366,xxx but the mk60 starts decelerating 6.4 seconds earlier.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[tavarish palkovnik]

Thanks mates !

Both those two variants (numbers) are realistic and achievable. I've tried with my model (the second one with slots) to get something close, with two different burning rates

 

 

And got one with 21 seconds and other with 26 seconds. In both 170 kg of fuel identical properties except burning rates. Values at sea level 343100 Ns (16338 N) and 323448 Ns (12440 N). There is some slight difference in total impulse but at 15km it is more or less equal 420881 Ns vs 419749 Ns

Also I've tried external ballistic with these numbers of thrust

 

 

 

Both options launched at 15km at 500 m/s (1,695 M), and then after first second of flight I've turned rockets in kinematic overload all their active time, to get altitude pick at 27km and stopped there. As you can see both variants managed it in 60 seconds and slower burning motor resulted with slightly more speed at the end

 

 

 

Dashed lines are overloaded flight (angle of attack 4,6 deg and 4 deg respectively) and at the end of counting (27km, 60 seconds) difference in travel is slightly in benefit of faster burning motor. But these differences in speed and travel are really negligible 

[Timo Niemelä]

On 5/1/2023 at 9:38 PM, cheezit said:

 

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":

 

Where did you get this graph? Can I find similar ones somewhere with different loadouts or for different aircraft? I'd love to compare the Tomcats performance with something like the F-15 or especially the Super Hornet...

[eatthis]

iv heard several pilots mention 54 was near hypersonic, anybody got anywhere near that in game? 

[draconus]

7 hours ago, eatthis said:

iv heard several pilots mention 54 was near hypersonic, anybody got anywhere near that in game? 

Yeah, no. You didn't read previous posts, did you?

[DSplayer]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Yeah, no. You didn't read previous posts, did you?

I must add that AIM-54C was advertised as Mach 5 capable to Congress at least once. Will the AIM-54 actually get to those speeds in normal engagements though? I don't think so.

[eatthis]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

Yeah, no. You didn't read previous posts, did you?

i havnt read every post on 45 pages no 

[CarbonFox]

Still getting many instances of the AIM-54 not going into a loft profile when firing on targets over 35nm away. The missile simply flies straight and level towards the target regardless of  flying above 35k. Almost always in TWS but I've experienced it in STT as well. I've only tested in the AIM-54C, both Mk47 and Mk60.

[Hector45]

1 hour ago, CarbonFox said:

Still getting many instances of the AIM-54 not going into a loft profile when firing on targets over 35nm away. The missile simply flies straight and level towards the target regardless of  flying above 35k. Almost always in TWS but I've experienced it in STT as well. I've only tested in the AIM-54C, both Mk47 and Mk60.

Are you certain the ACM cover wasn't flipped up during those no loft shots?

[captain_dalan]

7 hours ago, CarbonFox said:

Still getting many instances of the AIM-54 not going into a loft profile when firing on targets over 35nm away. The missile simply flies straight and level towards the target regardless of  flying above 35k. Almost always in TWS but I've experienced it in STT as well. I've only tested in the AIM-54C, both Mk47 and Mk60.

More details might help, Tacview track if possible, or in absence of those, detailed description of the engagements? 

 

[CarbonFox]

8 hours ago, Hector45 said:

Are you certain the ACM cover wasn't flipped up during those no loft shots?

Nope. 

How do you get a tacview track?

[draconus]

4 hours ago, CarbonFox said:

How do you get a tacview track?

It's external app: https://www.tacview.net/download/latest/en/

[Tweety777]

17 hours ago, CarbonFox said:

Still getting many instances of the AIM-54 not going into a loft profile when firing on targets over 35nm away. The missile simply flies straight and level towards the target regardless of  flying above 35k. Almost always in TWS but I've experienced it in STT as well. I've only tested in the AIM-54C, both Mk47 and Mk60.

I had this yesterday too with a shot over 50NM. When I was flying level the plane went straight ahead. Upon noticing A pulled up about 15 degrees and launched a second missile at the same target which then did loft though not as high as needed for this cold target. 

[Dannyvandelft]

I had this yesterday too with a shot over 50NM. When I was flying level the plane went straight ahead. Upon noticing A pulled up about 15 degrees and launched a second missile at the same target which then did loft though not as high as needed for this cold target. 

A 50nm shot at a cold target???

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Tweety777]

44 minutes ago, Dannyvandelft said:

A 50nm shot at a cold target???

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

I thought I'd try, he was already low and defensive. At that range the missile should definitaly loft up to above 80K ft but neither missiles did that. Missiles were fired within a minute apart.

[Dannyvandelft]

I thought I'd try, he was already low and defensive. At that range the missile should definitaly loft up to above 80K ft but neither missiles did that. Missiles were fired within a minute apart.

Should've never fired that to begin with. A 50nm shot is for targets coming at you, at similar altitude. Moving away and at low altitude was never going to happen, no matter the loft profile.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Schmidtfire]

After some more testing the main performance issues seems go be:

AWG-9 inability to hold tracks until missile goes active, combined with relatively low kinematics and easily defeated missile seeker.

Tested over and over in PvP multiplayer against other fighter sized aircraft. My verdict is that Phoenix is a near useless missile in that scenario. The pk under most conditions will be too low. From a realism standpoint it’s hard to reach a conclusion. If it suffers from DCS-isms, server lag, flawed missile code or if it’s actually right on the money in it’s representation. But unless running scripted PvE scenarios, it’s not something I would use if the target can A; get an RWR warning and B; pull >5g

[captain_dalan]

3 hours ago, Tweety777 said:

I thought I'd try, he was already low and defensive. At that range the missile should definitaly loft up to above 80K ft but neither missiles did that. Missiles were fired within a minute apart.

Guidance failure, jamming and low flying targets are the first 3 things that come to mind when missiles fail to loft. I have no idea how being outside max range and with low or negative closure would effect the shot. In this case the scenario seems to involve at least one. Was the target jamming as well?

[Tweety777]

16 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Guidance failure, jamming and low flying targets are the first 3 things that come to mind when missiles fail to loft. I have no idea how being outside max range and with low or negative closure would effect the shot. In this case the scenario seems to involve at least one. Was the target jamming as well?

The target itself was not jamming, there was another target jamming (though that was not locked at that moment) within the radar range, not quite close to the locked target. The target was at 2k ft altitude, I suppose that qualifies as low flying? Guidance failure I can't rule out nor confirm.

3 hours ago, Dannyvandelft said:

Should've never fired that to begin with. A 50nm shot is for targets coming at you, at similar altitude. Moving away and at low altitude was never going to happen, no matter the loft profile.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

I did see reports (from Karon) stating shots at 80NM with some kills as well. I didn't know that would only work when the target is coming towards you and flying at least somewhat high.

[Dannyvandelft]

I did see reports (from Karon) stating shots at 80NM with some kills as well. I didn't know that would only work when the target is coming towards you and flying at least somewhat high.

Well that's because targets flying at you close the distance a lot faster than targets flying away. A shot made at 80nm with a MiG-25 flying at you at 1100 kts the missile might only fly 60nm before impact. If the target is flying away, it would actually have to fly 100nm to reach it. Just rough examples. And obviously high altitude air is a lot thinner. A missile fired at 40,000 feet will fly much further than a missile fired at 20,000 feet.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Panny]

With the current missile I've killed an orbiting AWACS from 110nm away.

With the old Phoenix performance you could kill targets 60 nm away that were cold which was neat. 

At least in a pve scenario it's worth checking out since the missile lofts so aggressively

[Tweety777]

38 minutes ago, Panny said:

With the current missile I've killed an orbiting AWACS from 110nm away.

With the old Phoenix performance you could kill targets 60 nm away that were cold which was neat. 

At least in a pve scenario it's worth checking out since the missile lofts so aggressively

Do you mean to say that PVE MP is different then PVE scenario? I was in PVE MP when firing the 2 shots mentioned above but neither lofted much if at all. I have fired shots in MP where it lofted so aggresively that I passed under the missile while it was climbing up.