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

[RustBelt]

6 hours ago, cmbaviator said:

yeah but in TWS, it will go active in the terminal phase so the eenmy wont be warm by a missile launch. in STT, the ennemy will now that the AIM54 have been launched

Yea, you're not a stealth fighter, and they can see you on their RWR and Radar. They know you're out there and they know you plan on shooting. This is where it becomes COMBAT not Target Shooting. Out think them, don't just try to out gun them. 

[cmbaviator]

15 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Yea, you're not a stealth fighter, and they can see you on their RWR and Radar. They know you're out there and they know you plan on shooting. This is where it becomes COMBAT not Target Shooting. Out think them, don't just try to out gun them. 

even on GS server where we are like 60-64p at all peak hour, RwR is chaotic

[Exorcet]

On 10/15/2022 at 1:09 PM, Callsign JoNay said:

I don't, not at all. Even at high altitudes the missile only lofts up to 65K max. Sometimes not even 60k. It flies a relatively flat trajectory through air that is still somewhat thick. The only way to get it into the 80-90k range (right now) is to loft. You'll get a better PK% shot by lofting at 30-deg from 25k than you will with a level shot at 40k.

I realize not assisting limits the altitude, although that's intentional. While giving it an upward angle gets it higher, it bleeds the extra energy by climbing too aggressively and then turning tighter to come out of the loft. I tested a few altitudes and angles and found that level launch at 40k+ gave me the best result. It some cases the missile even had the energy to chase down a fighter than turn and ran (when it went active, turn and run on launch is a guaranteed escape).

On 10/15/2022 at 1:09 PM, Callsign JoNay said:

But even then, the missile is so garbage right now at dealing with a notch that it doesn't matter in the end. If the target turns even somewhat close to a 90-deg aspect during the active/pitbull phase it's a trashed missile.

Edit/add: And on top of that, we are getting jamming effects next patch so it might be extra game over for the Tomcat depending on what range we get burn through. If we get burn through at the same standard 29 nm as other 4th gens then the last advantage the Tomcat has (AWG-9) will be nullified. RIP. The Tomcat seems to exist in no man's land. Too strong for 3rd gen cold war era environments, and too weak for modern 4th gen. 

 

The AIM-54 will under perform until it's moved to the new API. Remember the AMRAAM before it was able to properly loft, you could barely fight BVR with it. Until the missile gets the latest code, I'm considering it firmly WIP.

As far as the Tomcat's strengths and weaknesses go, I think that's always solvable through mission design. Aircraft availability can be tweaked on each side, and you can always try to cooperate with other planes that can cover your weaknesses. Until we get a F-15 or something, all the more modern fighters have much weaker radars than the Tomcat. If I'm in a F-16 I'd love to have a F-14 looking over my shoulder.

[Callsign JoNay]

1 minute ago, Exorcet said:

I realize not assisting limits the altitude, although that's intentional. While giving it an upward angle gets it higher, it bleeds the extra energy by climbing too aggressively and then turning tighter to come out of the loft.

I don't think it's intentional, and I don't think you're right about it losing energy. See my comment on Oct 4. The missile is losing over half a mach at impact when you do apples to apples tests against the original Phoenix overhaul on Sept 2.

 

[WarthogOsl]

I think the problem is that the missile is spending a good portion of it's burn time (like 10%) flying straight and level in the thicker atmosphere before it starts to self-loft.  On my last few flights, I've been launching at 45k with a 30 degree loft.  The missile gets up to well over 800,000 feet, and gets back down to the intercept at 25k still at M1.5, which I think is better then not doing a manual loft.

Side note: I do hope that the jamming features are held off until the missile API guidance/loft issues are sorted out, so we can retain some balance between what is working and what isn't.

[Exorcet]

42 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

I don't think it's intentional

What intentional is my lowering the loft angle, not the loft logic currently implemented. The current logic is pretty bad in my opinion, which is why I don't try to assist.

42 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

and I don't think you're right about it losing energy.

We may not be talking about the same thing. I'm saying that an assisted loft, despite getting to higher altitude, throws away the advantages it should have because the current loft logic climbs way too steeply and pulls way to hard on the way down. This isn't about comparing Phoenix versions, but maximizing performance of what we have currently.

14 minutes ago, WarthogOsl said:

I think the problem is that the missile is spending a good portion of it's burn time (like 10%) flying straight and level in the thicker atmosphere before it starts to self-loft.  On my last few flights, I've been launching at 45k with a 30 degree loft.  The missile gets up to well over 800,000 feet, and gets back down to the intercept at 25k still at M1.5, which I think is better then not doing a manual loft.

Side note: I do hope that the jamming features are held off until the missile API guidance/loft issues are sorted out, so we can retain some balance between what is working and what isn't.

Without loft assist I'm seeing similar impact velocity. I just did a couple of test flights to confirm and 30 degree nose up actually ended up with the AIM-54 flying over the target and chasing it from behind in one case. I tried to increase launch range to give the missile more room to maneuver, but then it just ran out of energy for me.

[lunaticfringe]

23 minutes ago, WarthogOsl said:

Side note: I do hope that the jamming features are held off until the missile API guidance/loft issues are sorted out, so we can retain some balance between what is working and what isn't.

 

Jamming doesn't have any bearing on the loft situation, and has no factor on the AIM-54 when used in a HOJ situation as the AIM-54 doesn't loft against jamming targets (as it lacks a known range to reference). 

[RustBelt]

9 hours ago, cmbaviator said:

even on GS server where we are like 60-64p at all peak hour, RwR is chaotic

RWR is designed to prioritize threats. A big PD radar pointing straight at you is going to be a high priority threat. So work WITH that. And remember RWR has blind spots. 

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

The AIM-54 will under perform until it's moved to the new API. 

Sigh.......Some day........some day.

[WarthogOsl]

2 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

Jamming doesn't have any bearing on the loft situation, and has no factor on the AIM-54 when used in a HOJ situation as the AIM-54 doesn't loft against jamming targets (as it lacks a known range to reference). 

I was not implying that one had anything to do with the other.  Merely that we know that there still some factors that are artificially limiting performance.  I'm not saying that the system shouldn't be made to be behave realistically, but that the timing in actually including them should be weighed against things that currently degrade performance unrealistically (the lofting and API).

[lunaticfringe]

2 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

I was not implying that one had anything to do with the other.  Merely that we know that there still some factors that are artificially limiting performance.  I'm not saying that the system shouldn't be made to be behave realistically, but that the timing in actually including them should be weighed against things that currently degrade performance unrealistically (the lofting and API).

The current DCS camera model installs limitations on the AN/AAX-1, such that objects simply pop in between 40-45 miles, when large aircraft should be visible, even identifiable, at much further ranges- up to double the distance.  Should jamming be pushed back for that as well, since it's the only method in all of DCS to independently identify a target prior to burn through?  No- there's only so much that can be held back given the fashion by which work has to progress on modules in a sometimes piecemeal fashion; perfect is the enemy of good, and you're still always getting first look, with AWACS confirmation or otherwise.

Having discussed some of the methodology and employment of the TCS in combination with the AWG-9s angle jamming functions with former RIOs in advance of the system becoming available, the AIM-54 as currently performing can make what has been described as a valid shot profile (ie, range at altitude without loft) in the HOJ situation.  So there's legitimately no reason to hold up for it- because the missile isn't being limited in said regime and use case, artificially or otherwise.    

Further, the AIM-54 isn't the only weapon in the F-14s arsenal that can fire HOJ; Sparrow does just fine with knots on shooting at a jammer, and will fall back to a lock once burned through if you keep your nose on.  

At the end of the day, it's time for the AWG-9 to show jamming, lock jamming, and permit RIOs to use the TCS to confirm what they're looking at.  There's nothing weapon wise holding it back. 

[Callsign JoNay]

5 hours ago, Exorcet said:

We may not be talking about the same thing. I'm saying that an assisted loft, despite getting to higher altitude, throws away the advantages it should have because the current loft logic climbs way too steeply and pulls way to hard on the way down. This isn't about comparing Phoenix versions, but maximizing performance of what we have currently.

That might be true inside of that 20-40 nm range that is awkward for the Phoenix and it lofts basically straight up sometimes, but I don't think that's true of 40+ nm shots. 

Tacview-20221016-221308-DCS.zip.acmiTacview-20221016-221842-DCS.zip.acmi

Here's a couple tacviews. One is a level shot at 40k, 1.2m, at 60nm. The other is a 30-deg loft at only 35k, 1.2m, 60nm. Both missiles miss, but the level shot doesn't get any closer than 3.25nm from the target. The lofted shot at least gets to within 2000 ft. 

Can you share some tacviews of the results you mentioned?

[Exorcet]

54 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

That might be true inside of that 20-40 nm range that is awkward for the Phoenix and it lofts basically straight up sometimes, but I don't think that's true of 40+ nm shots.

For me, the AIM-54 pretty consistently adds 20-30 degrees to whatever its initial launch angle is. Even when firing at far off targets it will pitch up to 50+ degrees if I try to assist it. Are you seeing similar values?

54 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Here's a couple tacviews.

Unfortunately I don't have tacview. I just launch and watch the missile in F6.

[WarthogOsl]

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

For me, the AIM-54 pretty consistently adds 20-30 degrees to whatever its initial launch angle is. Even when firing at far off targets it will pitch up to 50+ degrees if I try to assist it. Are you seeing similar values?

Unfortunately I don't have tacview. I just launch and watch the missile in F6.

FWIW, here's what a 30 degree loft assist profile looked like today for me.  Bandit was around 65nm away at launch.

[Exorcet]

Just looking at the images those lofts seem a bit shallower than mine, but if you have the max pitch angle of the missile that would give us a number to compare.

[captain_dalan]

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Just looking at the images those lofts seem a bit shallower than mine...

Flatten the loft curve is exactly what the latest patch did. Just like the user above, in my tests, missiles fired from 30 and 40 thousand feet and mach 0.90 at targets about 50 nautical miles away (40-60), when loft unaided routinely arrive at the 10 mile marker (from the target, pitbull point) with 0.2-0.5 mach less, then when assist lofted between anywhere between 15 and 30 degrees. I would post the tacviews as well, but they are redundant at this point. 

[draconus]

19 hours ago, RustBelt said:

And remember RWR has blind spots.

In FC3 only.

[RustBelt]

14 minutes ago, draconus said:

In FC3 only.

What? It should ALWAYS have blind spots. It’s literally directional antennas pointing at stuff. Some of those antennas on moving surfaces. 

[draconus]

8 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

What? It should ALWAYS have blind spots. It’s literally directional antennas pointing at stuff. Some of those antennas on moving surfaces. 

 

[Exorcet]

3 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Flatten the loft curve is exactly what the latest patch did.

I think it might be slightly more accurate to say it capped loft altitude. The missile can still climb at pretty aggressive angles.

3 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Just like the user above, in my tests, missiles fired from 30 and 40 thousand feet and mach 0.90 at targets about 50 nautical miles away (40-60), when loft unaided routinely arrive at the 10 mile marker (from the target, pitbull point) with 0.2-0.5 mach less, then when assist lofted between anywhere between 15 and 30 degrees. I would post the tacviews as well, but they are redundant at this point. 

Are you hitting at 50 nmi? I find that 40 is just about max range against Ace AI that I'm testing against. I tried a few shots at 60 just now. 40k no loft, 40k 30 deg loft, and 50k no loft. Nothing hit, but the latter two were 1.5 nmi from target at 1000 knots while the first shot was 3.6.

Previous testing at 40 nmi isn't a 100% hit rate but that where the AI starts getting killed and I have had the most success getting as high as possible and firing level.

[Naquaii]

42 minutes ago, draconus said:

 

That doesn't mean there aren't blind spots. It's just that when the emitter is strong enough/close enough it will bleed through anyway due how to antennas work. Outside of the designed coverage area it'll give a warning very late.

[draconus]

4 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

That doesn't mean there aren't blind spots. It's just that when the emitter is strong enough/close enough it will bleed through anyway due how to antennas work. Outside of the designed coverage area it'll give a warning very late.

Thanks, that was my understanding that there is no fixed space or hard number being "blind".

[Naquaii]

19 minutes ago, draconus said:

Thanks, that was my understanding that there is no fixed space or hard number being "blind".

Yeah, more along the lines of functionally blind for long range. Technically not entirely blind just really bad sensitivity.

[WarthogOsl]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

I think it might be slightly more accurate to say it capped loft altitude. The missile can still climb at pretty aggressive angles.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not seeing any cap in loft altitude.  If you look at my TacView screen shots, you can see that my missile went nearly to 100,000 feet.

[RustBelt]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

 

Ah yet another DCS-ism……

2 hours ago, Naquaii said:

That doesn't mean there aren't blind spots. It's just that when the emitter is strong enough/close enough it will bleed through anyway due how to antennas work. Outside of the designed coverage area it'll give a warning very late.

And god help you if you show your belly straight on. 

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, WarthogOsl said:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not seeing any cap in loft altitude.  If you look at my TacView screen shots, you can see that my missile went nearly to 100,000 feet.

Not a hard cap. Maybe "squish" is a better term. Basically the higher you go, the flatter the missile flies. Previously the altitude didn't shape the loft as much, at least as I recall. Whatever the case, the loft has some odd behavior and it's definitely not optimal at this point in time.