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

[Sindar]

Already 20 pages of discussion. The reality is that the F-14 has almost completely disappeared from PvP servers. I've been playing 6-8 hours every day for 2 years. Aircraft for collectors.

[RustBelt]

PvP is for jocks.

[WarthogOsl]

I don't play PVP, but I wonder how this is going to affect existing and future single player missions and campaigns.  I have a little BVR training mission, and even with the skill level dialed down to veteran (second lowest), fighters are easily evading the Phoenix on 60 miles shots from 40k/Mach 1 launches..  In at least 3 of the 4 single player campaigns I've finished, there are quite a few missions that rely on the Phoenix working.  I don't think I could finish them in the current state.

I know HB is working on a new campaign, so hopefully this becomes apparent in testing (not that I really know what can be done about it).

[Biggus]

2 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

I don't play PVP, but I wonder how this is going to affect existing and future single player missions and campaigns.  I have a little BVR training mission, and even with the skill level dialed down to veteran (second lowest), fighters are easily evading the Phoenix on 60 miles shots from 40k/Mach 1 launches..  In at least 3 of the 4 single player campaigns I've finished, there are quite a few missions that rely on the Phoenix working.  I don't think I could finish them in the current state.

I know HB is working on a new campaign, so hopefully this becomes apparent in testing (not that I really know what can be done about it).

That's not a Phoenix problem though, that's an AI and mission design issue.

[Top Jockey]

On 9/30/2022 at 10:07 AM, Drangoll said:

Is it normal that the missile cannot even go beyond mach 3.1 when fired in optimal conditions ?
I've read that the aim-54 achieved mach 4.3 at 24 km when fired in optimal conditions.

I've seen multiple videos comparing phoenixes pre-update and post update behavior. 
When launched at 30k feet a mach 1.0 (sounds pretty optimal if not best conditions to me ) they reach mach 3.1 at best (reached 1782 knots at 63000 feet)
Is this accurate or not ?
Not trying to discredit devs work/research , just curiosity

Thanks

 

 

Last week this subject, specifically the part concerning the AIM-54 max speed caught my attention.

So today I've done some little tests without much effort, and after some calculations, let me tell you - I didn't get disappointed !

 

Started an edited mission, performing long range intercept of a Tu-95 Bomber, on the conditions at missile launch moment:

- launching aircraft speed: ~ 1.8 Mach

- launching aircraft altitude: ~ 45.000 ft, in a ~ 15º pitch-up climb

 

Results:

When still climbing at roughly 80.000 ft, the AIM-54 achieved aproximately 2.450 kts (True Air Speed).

Which, if I'm not mistaken after the due calculations, equates to: Mach 4.27

 

From my perspective, the AIM-54's speed performance in DCS do match the officially known figures.

( Even more, when considering I'm not the most proficicent guy to employ the best test conditions. )

Edited October 1, 2022 by Top Jockey

[WarthogOsl]

12 hours ago, Biggus said:

That's not a Phoenix problem though, that's an AI and mission design issue.

My point being that there was nothing wrong with the mission design when these missions were created.  But it seems like the creators may very well have to go back and redesign them now, as I'm not even sure reducing the AI skill level will help that much ("Hunting the Jeff" comes to mind).

6 hours ago, Top Jockey said:

- launching aircraft speed: ~ 1.8 Mach

- launching aircraft altitude: ~ 45.000 ft, in a ~ 15º pitch-up climb

 

Were any real life tests done with those launch parameters?  Mach 1.8 at 45K seems super optimistic for an F-14A carrying Phoenixes, for example.

[Biggus]

2 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

My point being that there was nothing wrong with the mission design when these missions were created.  But it seems like the creators may very well have to go back and redesign them now, as I'm not even sure reducing the AI skill level will help that much ("Hunting the Jeff" comes to mind).

Game-altering changes happen all the time.  Missions are updated to account for those changes, or are not updated and end falling into disuse.  Players adapt to the changes by altering their tactics or finding something else to fly.  That's just life, and it's true of every module.  Just look at the Viper.  Six months ago I could be confident of getting five or six kills per sortie with a full load of -120s.  Today it's closer to two. 

Changing AI skill settings in the editor won't make an appreciable difference until and unless ED do some further work on the AI's ability to defend.  No more perfectly timed split S, no more hitting the notch with precision.  AI needs to defend to be believable, but needs to do it without perfect situational awareness.  To ED's credit, it's far better today than it was a year ago and I'm confident that this will continue to improve.

[captain_dalan]

10 hours ago, Top Jockey said:

 

Last week this subject, specifically the part concerning the AIM-54 max speed caught my attention.

So today I've done some little tests without much effort, and after some calculations, let me tell you - I didn't get disappointed !

 

Started an edited mission, performing long range intercept of a Tu-95 Bomber, on the conditions at missile launch moment:

- launching aircraft speed: ~ 1.8 Mach

- launching aircraft altitude: ~ 45.000 ft, in a ~ 15º pitch-up climb

 

Results:

When still climbing at roughly 80.000 ft, the AIM-54 achieved aproximately 2.450 kts (True Air Speed).

Which, if I'm not mistaken after the due calculations, equates to: Mach 4.27

 

From my perspective, the AIM-54's speed performance in DCS do match the officially known figures.

( Even more, when considering I'm not the most proficicent guy to employ the best test conditions. )

 

And to follow the scientific process, reproduce the same shot with say an AMRAAM C-5 carrying Eagle or Viper. What results do you get?

[Sindar]

14 часов назад, Бойовий Сокіл сказал:

I mean - do you have actual data to prove that or is it just your obersvation? People generally prefer the 16 and 18 because they are more modern and easier to use. There is always a "meta" plane for PvP. It's true that the Tomcat has its limitations and requires more skill to use effectively in PvP. And I am sure once the Eurofighter comes out people will flock to that like moths to lamps.

 

Online data is hard to collect in numbers. But I will give one example from the last month. One of the squads, which played strictly on the f-14 (4 people) all year, unanimously switched to the f-18.
I completely agree with you on Eurofighter.

 

[Top Jockey]

10 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

...

Were any real life tests done with those launch parameters?  Mach 1.8 at 45K seems super optimistic for an F-14A carrying Phoenixes, for example.

 

About real life tests, I don't have the slightest idea.

Sure, the conditions are optimistic (only 2 Phoenixes left, no external fuel tanks, low internal fuel); but what I was testing is the maximum achievable speeds of the missile.

And regarding speed, indeed it is somewhat 'easy' to attain the known figures: ~ Mach 4.3.

[Noctrach]

I don't know why people keep pulling the aerodynamic performance of the missile into question when it's so close to the NASA diagram.

The one thing I do feel can still make massive improvements is the loft/guidance when shooting at targets that are not co-altitude.

Example are look-down shots from 45k, 40-45 nmi to targets at 10,000 or below. The missile will barely use its energy to loft, rather choosing to only go up about 8-10,000 feet and then perform a shallow glide to target, all the way cruising through thick air burning off pretty much all its energy on sheer drag. Result is that even such a high-and-fast missile ends up with nowhere near the necessary energy to intercept its target. A higher loft would allow it incur much less drag during both the cruise and terminal phases and come down at a much sharper angle to benefit from gravity. It would be a much more sensible geometry for preserving energy for a heavy missile with a relatively weak, long-burning motor.

I'm not saying these shots should actually hit, because evading such a shot at 10,000 is generally a matter of turning cold. The other aspect is that such a sharp descent makes it a bit more vulnerable to ground clutter. (Though on an SPO-15 the geometry makes that a very hard notch to read properly, not that the AI cares ofc...)

There's a balance to be struck, but loft tweaks is definitely something I'd hope to see at least for the 54C

Edited October 2, 2022 by Noctrach

[lunaticfringe]

Loft tweaks are going to require eventual shift to the new guidance API when ED makes it available for Phoenix. The issue is that the loft gain only has one option, and needs to be set in relation to making actual long range performance shots possible.  There is no ability to "bucket" a set of loft gain responses based on altitude, speed, or range, and there is no moderation of the value once set.  Thus, to make certain the 54 can function effectively at its signature ranges comes the expense of mid-range (25-45 mile) shots folks *think* it should easily make.  But as crews have expressed- there are reasons that particular region had cutouts and shot holds, not simply including the Phoenix performance itself.

And, to be frank, even if loft bucketing or gain moderation comes after a guidance API change, there's still going to be a reduction in comparative performance in the noted ranges.  It's Big Chungus, missile body and impulse designed to carry initial velocity and inertia out to the 60-100 mile region to intercept all targets- large, small, and maneuvering.  That design requirement implies limitations that pure impulse and maneuvering authority can't overcome as it works in higher (relative) density air when it has to come back down too early in the profile.  

Use Phoenix like a Phoenix.  The implications of controlling the fight are unavailable to any other weapon in DCS, just as it was unavailable to any other weapon prior to Meteor.  While the target is deciding if he wants to live and surrendering all their SA to do so, you're setting up the followup- all while they're not getting to use the envelope where they're superior. 

And be warned: jamming is soon going to reinforce this, with the Tomcat having the only method of positive target ID prior to burn through when operating without AWACS. An F-14 that didn't used to jam because of the resulting becon effect can now do so- and unlike you: he can still tell what you are at valid HOJ range.

[Noctrach]

36 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

Loft tweaks are going to require eventual shift to the new guidance API when ED makes it available for Phoenix. The issue is that the loft gain only has one option, and needs to be set in relation to making actual long range performance shots possible.  There is no ability to "bucket" a set of loft gain responses based on altitude, speed, or range, and there is no moderation of the value once set.  Thus, to make certain the 54 can function effectively at its signature ranges comes the expense of mid-range (25-45 mile) shots folks *think* it should easily make.  But as crews have expressed- there are reasons that particular region had cutouts and shot holds, not simply including the Phoenix performance itself.

And, to be frank, even if loft bucketing or gain moderation comes after a guidance API change, there's still going to be a reduction in comparative performance in the noted ranges.  It's Big Chungus, missile body and impulse designed to carry initial velocity and inertia out to the 60-100 mile region to intercept all targets- large, small, and maneuvering.  That design requirement implies limitations that pure impulse and maneuvering authority can't overcome as it works in higher (relative) density air when it has to come back down too early in the profile.  

Use Phoenix like a Phoenix.  The implications of controlling the fight are unavailable to any other weapon in DCS, just as it was unavailable to any other weapon prior to Meteor.  While the target is deciding if he wants to live and surrendering all their SA to do so, you're setting up the followup- all while they're not getting to use the envelope where they're superior. 

And be warned: jamming is soon going to reinforce this, with the Tomcat having the only method of positive target ID prior to burn through when operating without AWACS. An F-14 that didn't used to jam because of the resulting becon effect can now do so- and unlike you: he can still tell what you are at valid HOJ range.

I'm aware. In that sense the missile is in an alright place. My point is more, people are focusing so intensely on a Mach 4+ speed that the missile pretty much provably would not achieve irl, while the real performance gains would exist in loft geometry. With a trade-off as you mentioned in the mid-range shot.

The thing is that in the sim right now, the 20-30 nmi "bucket" simply isn't there, as the loft is so smooth/shallow. From the snippets I've read/heard, combined with what would make sense physics-wise, the bucket mostly existed because the missile would loft so aggressively, meaning that below about 30 nmi you are spending as much energy on the transition through the top of the arc as you gained from the initial loft itself. Prior iteration was better in this regard. (y'know, the one where the missile went to space if fired at poor parameters)

In its current state the loft at 20-30 nmi does not detrimentally affect the shot in a significant way, and the mentioned range gap doesn't really exist. At 25 miles it's pretty much a slightly obese AMRAAM. In return, this means it performs sub-optimally when launching high-to-low.

Right now, you use the Phoenix either high-to-high, or like an old-school AIM-120B. (Including the whole 2019-DCS-launch-and-immediately-turn-cold routine)

Edited October 2, 2022 by Noctrach

[falcon_120]

The reality is that the F-14 has almost completely disappeared from PvP servers.

What is your point? In the context of a Simulator? This is not war thunder

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[skywalker22]

On 10/1/2022 at 9:40 AM, WarthogOsl said:

I don't play PVP, but I wonder how this is going to affect existing and future single player missions and campaigns.  I have a little BVR training mission, and even with the skill level dialed down to veteran (second lowest), fighters are easily evading the Phoenix on 60 miles shots from 40k/Mach 1 launches..  In at least 3 of the 4 single player campaigns I've finished, there are quite a few missions that rely on the Phoenix working.  I don't think I could finish them in the current state.

I know HB is working on a new campaign, so hopefully this becomes apparent in testing (not that I really know what can be done about it).

Don't you get a wrong impression of this now almost antique missile. DCS versions and now becoming capable of what the real ones used to be - pretty bad actually. IRL USN did not have a single confirmed kill (Iran has 78, out of I don't-know-how-many, but not sure how much of this is true).

You/we should know the main purpose of real AIM-54, it was designed for one thing only, and this was to intercept (slow maneuvering) Soviet bombers, not agile fighters and cruse missiles. Phoenix was never intended to be an anti-fighter weapon.

Besides, Phoenix missile was designed in 1960s with full analog tecnology, which means it just cannot be compared to technology which came 20 or more years later. We can say, it's successor which is practically AIM-120 (which has directly replaced AIM-7) is much more sophistictacted missile and therefore better in all aspects, except it's range, but the D variant has now almost the same range as AIM-54 used to have (98 vs 100nm). Besides, AIM-120D has also a proven track record (10 confirmed kills).

My point is, do not expect from AIM-54 too much, it's is/was not designed to fight with fighterjetst, specially not gen4 and even less with gen5. 

I suggest to read more about it here. So you will get an idea what AIM-54 Phoenix was all about.

Edited October 3, 2022 by skywalker22

[AH_Solid_Snake]

2 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

Don't you get a wrong impression of this now almost antique missile. DCS versions and now becoming capable of what the real ones used to be - pretty bad actually. IRL USN did not have a single confirmed kill (Iran has 78, out of I don't-know-how-many, but not sure how much of this is true).

You/we should know the main purpose of real AIM-54, it was designed for one thing only, and this was to intercept (slow maneuvering) Soviet bombers, not agile fighters and cruse missiles. Phoenix was never intended to be an anti-fighter weapon.

Besides, Phoenix missile was designed in 1960s with full analog tecnology, which means it just cannot be compared to technology which came 20 or more years later. We can say, it's successor which is practically AIM-120 (which has directly replaced AIM-7) is much more sophistictacted missile and therefore better in all aspects, except it's range, but the D variant has now almost the same range as AIM-54 used to have (98 vs 100nm). Besides, AIM-120D has also a proven track record (10 confirmed kills).

My point is, do not expect from AIM-54 too much, it's is/was not designed to fight with fighterjetst, specially not gen4 and even less with gen5. 

I suggest to read more about it here. So you will get an idea what AIM-54 Phoenix was all about.

 

Please not this tangent again. There is a lightyear of nuance between a barely capable brick that only ever hit bombers in testing and a 100nm laser beam of death. The Phoenix is neither extreme. Like most of the guys here - I'm really pleased with where the missile is kinematically. If you can show me NASA documentation vs in-game that close - I got nothing.

I do expect some range / terminal velocity can be found in tweaking loft profiles, so let's see where that takes us in time.

[draconus]

5 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

You/we should know the main purpose of real AIM-54, it was designed for one thing only, and this was to intercept (slow maneuvering) Soviet bombers and cruse missiles.

Right, so the evasive 6G pulled by diving QF-86 or some QF-4 tests were supposed to simulate a cruising Bear?

Edited October 3, 2022 by draconus

[Zaphael]

6 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

Don't you get a wrong impression of this now almost antique missile. DCS versions and now becoming capable of what the real ones used to be - pretty bad actually. IRL USN did not have a single confirmed kill (Iran has 78, out of I don't-know-how-many, but not sure how much of this is true).

You/we should know the main purpose of real AIM-54, it was designed for one thing only, and this was to intercept (slow maneuvering) Soviet bombers, not agile fighters and cruse missiles. Phoenix was never intended to be an anti-fighter weapon.

Besides, Phoenix missile was designed in 1960s with full analog tecnology, which means it just cannot be compared to technology which came 20 or more years later. We can say, it's successor which is practically AIM-120 (which has directly replaced AIM-7) is much more sophistictacted missile and therefore better in all aspects, except it's range, but the D variant has now almost the same range as AIM-54 used to have (98 vs 100nm). Besides, AIM-120D has also a proven track record (10 confirmed kills).

My point is, do not expect from AIM-54 too much, it's is/was not designed to fight with fighterjetst, specially not gen4 and even less with gen5. 

I suggest to read more about it here. So you will get an idea what AIM-54 Phoenix was all about.

 

IRL, no one knows how the later Phoenixes would have performed against actual 4th Gen adversaries. 

Most likely, the Phoenix's performance would be similar to what we saw in the two Gulf Wars - Abysmal.

Abysmal because the Iraqis refused to tango. They push the Tomcats but turn away when missiles are about to be fired.

In DCS, we have the benefit of Tacviews and track files to develop a good sense that of we do this and that, we bleed the Phoenix's performance to defeat them.

The Iraqis or any of their real adversaries did not have that luxury of thinking that they know the performance of the missile. 

So yeah, IRL, the Phoenix performance was abysmal. But that was because all its targets were afraid of its fiercesome reputation and ran away. 

[Timo Niemelä]

7 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

You/we should know the main purpose of real AIM-54, it was designed for one thing only, and this was to intercept (slow maneuvering) Soviet bombers, not agile fighters and cruse missiles. Phoenix was never intended to be an anti-fighter weapon.

It's a common misconception that the Phoenix couldn't be effectively used against other fighters. It was tested against small, maneuvering targets back in the 70's and again with the C-model in the 80's. Yes, it's primary role was a long range carrier defense weapon against bombers and it was reserved mainly for this role (at least the A-model) because it was large, expensive and no other missile could be effectively employed in this role. This doesn't mean it somehow cannot hit a fighter.

Here's an article where Dave "Bio" Baranek talks about the Phoenix vs fighters thing. He mentions how the Phoenix repeatedly hit fighter-sized targets in tests and that they trained using the AIM-54C against simulated Mig-29's.

https://jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279

 

"Smokin" Joe Ruzicka mentioning how remarkably agile this missile was for its size:

https://jalopnik.com/an-elite-f-14-airman-explains-why-the-tomcat-was-so-imp-1610043625

Quote:
"---They reported back that the first Phoenix was "Boola Boola", meaning a direct hit and completely destroying the drone. They said what happened next was pretty amazing. The second Phoenix quickly made an adjustment off what was left of the drone and hit the largest remaining part. Remember, this 1,000lb missile is traveling at Mach 3.0 and only a couple of miles behind the first missile, so there was very little time for the missile to react."

The two first USN Phoenix shots didn't work simply because the missiles were improperly armed and as a result, their motors never ignited. This doesn't tell anything about their actual capabilities. I don't know much about the third time the Phoenix was used in combat by the USN, but it seems the target was well outside the missiles no-escape zone when it made a U-turn and ran. 
 

[captain_dalan]

9 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

Don't you get a wrong impression of this now almost antique missile. DCS versions and now becoming capable of what the real ones used to be - pretty bad actually. IRL USN did not have a single confirmed kill (Iran has 78, out of I don't-know-how-many, but not sure how much of this is true).

You/we should know the main purpose of real AIM-54, it was designed for one thing only, and this was to intercept (slow maneuvering) Soviet bombers, not agile fighters and cruse missiles. Phoenix was never intended to be an anti-fighter weapon.

Besides, Phoenix missile was designed in 1960s with full analog tecnology, which means it just cannot be compared to technology which came 20 or more years later. We can say, it's successor which is practically AIM-120 (which has directly replaced AIM-7) is much more sophistictacted missile and therefore better in all aspects, except it's range, but the D variant has now almost the same range as AIM-54 used to have (98 vs 100nm). Besides, AIM-120D has also a proven track record (10 confirmed kills).

My point is, do not expect from AIM-54 too much, it's is/was not designed to fight with fighterjetst, specially not gen4 and even less with gen5. 

I suggest to read more about it here. So you will get an idea what AIM-54 Phoenix was all about.

 

THIS! 
Everyone knows that the Phoenix, like the Moon landings, "was a brilliant piece of propaganda, so that the Soviets bankrupted themselves, pouring resources into rockets and other useless machines..."

[LanceCriminal86]

Ah yes, the brick that can't hit fighters.

 About 7:20 shows a 54C shot against what apparently was a maneuvering F-4S drone.

[Zaphael]

Holy smokes! The way those Phoenix Cs shot off! They sure look a lot more energetic than what we are accustomed to in DCS.

35 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Ah yes, the brick that can't hit fighters.

 About 7:20 shows a 54C shot against what apparently was a maneuvering F-4S drone.

 

[LanceCriminal86]

The Phoenix absolutely can maneuver, the issues here in DCS is that we're trying to fire on fighters at extreme ranges, fighters who are aware of the missile before they realistically should be (all AI reacting at 10m apparently), and the simple reality that a fighter has a lot more capability to evade a missile than say, a bomber might. And even with the cruise missile tests, cruise missiles aren't evasive as far as I know, they're just fast.

Expectation management is the key here. If you want to kill something that you know has the ability to turn and accelerate quickly, then make sure your missile is going to be fired with the parameters to help make that happen. In reality, as repeated often here, the fired missile whether it hits or not is going to make your target react, which should give you and your wingman the time to press your advantage. If they turn and run, mission accomplished. If they don't, then you continue to press them with follow-on shots.

The hard part especially right now is the AI wingmen. Well, just AI in general. They're just not going to be able to do that kind of coordination until ED does some more work there. Having AI get into optimal firing altitude/speed for their weapons, being able to command a high-low arrangement, using the datalink, all that. There's also no "early Iran-Iraq War Iraqi pilots that have never encountered the Tomcat/Phoenix" who are going to just not know what hit them. The AI notch super perfectly, chaff is a dice roll, yadda yadda.

[Machalot]

1 hour ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Ah yes, the brick that can't hit fighters.

 About 7:20 shows a 54C shot against what apparently was a maneuvering F-4S drone.

Very noticeable in the lofting shots that there's a transition 1-2 seconds after ignition, from a "safe separation" mode where the missile flies basically straight or slightly down, to a sharp pitch up pulling positive angle of attack to climb into the loft.

[RustBelt]

On 10/2/2022 at 2:18 AM, Sindar said:

Online data is hard to collect in numbers. But I will give one example from the last month. One of the squads, which played strictly on the f-14 (4 people) all year, unanimously switched to the f-18.
I completely agree with you on Eurofighter.

 

Yea, if all the big dogs are winning with the 18, the only way to compete is with the 18. This is sports. And it’s why sports are inane. You can’t win until you min/max EVERY variable. Having to support the Phoenix ruins the one functional strategy in competition PvP, the buzz-saw. Only AIM-120’s work for that. 
 

The whole competition now is who can do a Buzz-saw better and faster than the other team.  Answer: hornet drivers.