Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted

Of curiosity. At what ranges are you more than happy to employ AIM-54 in PDSTT? At longer ranges the bandit will go defensive as soon as you launch (or shortly thereafter). And watching your test videos, AIM-54 is not really viable again until approx 10nm range to target, at most. From 25-10nm I don’t know what to employ, neither the AIM-54 or AIM-7 has the speed to counter upgraded R27 series or modern missiles. But, yeah.. maybe that can be expected, as Phoenix is a relatively old missile.

Posted
1 hour ago, Schmidtfire said:

Of curiosity. At what ranges are you more than happy to employ AIM-54 in PDSTT? At longer ranges the bandit will go defensive as soon as you launch (or shortly thereafter). And watching your test videos, AIM-54 is not really viable again until approx 10nm range to target, at most. From 25-10nm I don’t know what to employ, neither the AIM-54 or AIM-7 has the speed to counter upgraded R27 series or modern missiles. But, yeah.. maybe that can be expected, as Phoenix is a relatively old missile.

Depends if hostile is Fox 3 capable or not but generally I use TWS ranges >35nm, 30-20nm hold fire, 20nm and less PDSTT. AIM7 is great at tricking enemy. Sometimes I fire aim7 at 15nm to make bandit go defensive, close in and fire 54 at closer range and skate. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Schmidtfire said:

Of curiosity. At what ranges are you more than happy to employ AIM-54 in PDSTT? At longer ranges the bandit will go defensive as soon as you launch (or shortly thereafter). And watching your test videos, AIM-54 is not really viable again until approx 10nm range to target, at most. From 25-10nm I don’t know what to employ, neither the AIM-54 or AIM-7 has the speed to counter upgraded R27 series or modern missiles. But, yeah.. maybe that can be expected, as Phoenix is a relatively old missile.

Depends. Here comes another dose of DCS nonsense: if you STT, the AI jams if capable. Thus, TWS may be the best option. On the other hand, you can kill a jamming AI at 60nm with little effort. If anything, your lock becomes stronger and goes through ZDF. If you put aside jamming, the AI defends at 10nm every time (54C) anyway, thus the whole "stealth" factor disappears entirely. However, you gain a solid lock vs close-flying targets, which can confuse TWS and result in an early extrapolating track, thus thrashing your missile.

There's a lot more to say, but I'm rushing. Long story short, if an aircraft is coming hot on you at 20-25 nm, PSTT loft and split-S usually give you a lot of manoeuvring room: doesn't need guidance, the seeker does funny things, and definitely is a threat you need to defend from.

See if this rubbish video helps 🙂

  • Like 1
full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Scrapped

Phantom Articles: Air-to-Air and APQ-120 | F-4E Must-know manoevure: SYNC-Z-TURN

Posted (edited)

We did a multiplayer test recently and pk is not good, even for a fast missile like 120C against a human player. Anything >15nm is a breeze to defeat in most cases. Unless high closure speeds and at high altitude.
 

So that 20nm PDSTT shot is very unlikely to connect. Problem is that unless you take a Phoenix shot before 30nm you will be at big disadvantage all the way to the merge. Flying a tenniscourt with slow flying missiles.

And judging by the current Phoenix guidance/seeker performance, a hit at longer ranges can be considered very lucky. So the window of opportunity for scoring a hit is small.

Might be a little bit sidetracked here.. Anyways, against fighter AI and bombers the Phoenix is usually ok. But against other players it seems like all DCS-isms stack up in a very unfavourable way, resulting in a paper tiger.

Edit. We did test your PSTT exploit and found it was not viable  against a human player. Simply not reliable enough, seeker often failed to get a proper lock and the trajectory was difficult to get consistent results.

 

Edited by Schmidtfire
Posted

Amen if it doesn't connect, you are past MAR at that point, almost inside NEZ. It's a last ditch attempt to build separation, but I would Abort anyway. Out perhaps, depending on the altitude. I would have my wingman going In from a grinder, if possibile. If I'm on my own, I'd use the superior speed and endurance to go carry on until safety. I mean, there's a Controller there for a reason :)

PDSTT with the C give you some options though: you can set the missile to active at any time, for example.

About the Phoenix in general, you may be forgetting the geopolitical changes that blocked the development of its successor, along many other things: the mid/late 80s tumults in the USSR. As the threat faded, the need of superior weapons slowed down (see the Eurofighter and the AIM-152, to name two). All this to say, used in the appropriate time frame (vs MiG-21/23/25 and so on), it doesn't have any issue. Post early 90s, it's going to have more problems.

  • Like 2
full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Scrapped

Phantom Articles: Air-to-Air and APQ-120 | F-4E Must-know manoevure: SYNC-Z-TURN

Posted (edited)

Going downhill into thicker air AIM-54 bleeds more energy than it gains by trading altitude for speed. Obviously there should be a difference flying in thick vs thin air. But this is a very heavy missile going down hill at a steeper and steeper angle. Im not great at physics, but can someone please explain how this heavy missile loose speed while trading so much altitude?

10 000ft difference means thicker air, yes. But going 10 000 ft down at a steep angle results in over a 100kn slower missile? We are talking 28.5k down to 18k ft.

phoenix-dive.jpg
Four snapshots during the dive onto a non-maneuvering target.
 

Edited by Schmidtfire
Posted
18 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

Going downhill into thicker air AIM-54 bleeds more energy than it gains by trading altitude for speed. Obviously there should be a difference flying in thick vs thin air. But this is a very heavy missile going down hill at a steeper and steeper angle. Im not great at physics, but can someone please explain how this heavy missile loose speed while trading so much altitude?

10 000ft difference means thicker air, yes. But going 10 000 ft down at a steep angle results in over a 100kn slower missile? We are talking 28.5k down to 18k ft.

phoenix-dive.jpg
Four snapshots during the dive onto a non-maneuvering target.
 

 

Altitude has a dramatic effect on missile performance in DCS (no clue IRL).
I'm in a hurry, but this is a comparison between AIM-120C-5 and AIM-54C Mk47. That's speed at impact vs range. See how it crumbles as you go lower?
wez-mar-lar-tool-example2.jpeg

I have somewhere the tests vs a lower target, I have just no clue where I put them.

full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Scrapped

Phantom Articles: Air-to-Air and APQ-120 | F-4E Must-know manoevure: SYNC-Z-TURN

Posted
55 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

Going downhill into thicker air AIM-54 bleeds more energy than it gains by trading altitude for speed. Obviously there should be a difference flying in thick vs thin air. But this is a very heavy missile going down hill at a steeper and steeper angle. Im not great at physics, but can someone please explain how this heavy missile loose speed while trading so much altitude?

10 000ft difference means thicker air, yes. But going 10 000 ft down at a steep angle results in over a 100kn slower missile? We are talking 28.5k down to 18k ft.

phoenix-dive.jpg
Four snapshots during the dive onto a non-maneuvering target.
 

 

If I jump out of a plane at 20,000 feet. Going straight down, I’m never going to go faster than about 200KPH. Because without excess thrust, you eventually hit terminal velocity. And both the compressibility and drag that causes that terminal velocity goes up as air density goes up (aka Altitude goes down). I don’t think the big boy Phoenix has a supersonic terminal velocity. 

  • Like 1
Posted

IIRC things like Mk84 have a roughly sonic terminal.  Same diameter as a phoenix, way less drag due to tapered rear and tiny fins, and way more "thrust" due to a 2,000lb weight instead of 700-800 (whatever a phoenix without fuel is)

Posted
15 hours ago, Karon said:

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).

This. Every time my Phoenix failed, wasn't because it didn't have the energy to connect, or that another missile in DCS would have had it. It's still the longest stick around, even at 35kft. 

10 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

Of curiosity. At what ranges are you more than happy to employ AIM-54 in PDSTT? At longer ranges the bandit will go defensive as soon as you launch (or shortly thereafter). And watching your test videos, AIM-54 is not really viable again until approx 10nm range to target, at most. From 25-10nm I don’t know what to employ, neither the AIM-54 or AIM-7 has the speed to counter upgraded R27 series or modern missiles. But, yeah.. maybe that can be expected, as Phoenix is a relatively old missile.

Why do you think a shot that can't possibly connect under the firing conditions isn't a viable, or even a desirable shot? 

  • Like 1

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache, F4U Corsair, WWII Assets Pack

Posted
4 hours ago, Spurts said:

IIRC things like Mk84 have a roughly sonic terminal.  Same diameter as a phoenix, way less drag due to tapered rear and tiny fins, and way more "thrust" due to a 2,000lb weight instead of 700-800 (whatever a phoenix without fuel is)

Correct, the tapered back is the secret to its speed. Same too a rifle round, which is what they started with to design the bell X-1. There’s a math to where along the length you want the widest part that I forget. The Phoenix is just a big honking sewer pipe with a nose cone. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, RustBelt said:

The Phoenix is just a big honking sewer pipe with a nose cone. 

LOL I like this definition.

@Schmidtfire Got them. There are too many charts to post them all, so here is an example. AIM-54C Mk47 vs low-flying targets (I don't remember how low the target was, I need to check my notes. IIRC it was down to 5k).

vs LOW-FLYNG TARGET

image.png

STANDARD

image.png

Mk47, STANDARD vs LOFT. DETAIL

image.png

Manual loft helps a lot here, as the missile gets higher, so dives from higher altitude → faster at timeout.

Away from that, you can see the massive impact of having to fly through the draggy lower part of the atmosphere.

The Mk60 works differently, though.

full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Scrapped

Phantom Articles: Air-to-Air and APQ-120 | F-4E Must-know manoevure: SYNC-Z-TURN

Posted

All good points. Even if Im somewhat doubtful that the thicker air would slow down AIM-54 Phoenix THAT much IRL. It’s still got quite the velocity when starting to come down from 80k ft. But yes, eventually it will hit terminal velocity if falling long enough.

Or maybe they built a missile that was designed to hit targets at relatively low mach numbers? Threat was Soviet bombers and cruise missiles so probably targets that could be (in many cases) expected at medium altitudes or lower, but since primary targets had limited speed and turn ability, it was a non-issue for the Phoenix to have bad kinematics diving down into thicker air? Maybe?

I have a book where a pilot (or RIO?) mentions that the Phoenix climbs to 80k feet and unloads, coming down at Mach 4+. However, he might remember wrong or listened to nonsense talk about the missile that is incorrect. 

Posted (edited)

Thicker air increases the drag force massively.  It'll cause the phoenix to hit the brakes.

A lot of threats were capable of high altitude supersonic flight, including a number of anti-ship missiles and certain bombers.

Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted
On 5/2/2023 at 10:31 AM, 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?

a staionary target would be hard work, it would be in the dopplar filters (ie effectively a perfect notch) so you couldnt use tws, and because its not moving then you only have your own speed plus the missile, this alone would reduce range alot

  • Like 2

7700k @5ghz, 32gb 3200mhz ram, 2080ti, nvme drives, valve index vr

Posted

The missile isn't the issue, it's the psychic AI that goes defensive before the missile even goes active. The more modern the plane you're shooting at, the higher probability of a miss. I can go 4 for 4 against gen 3 and early gen 4 aircraft all day long, but as soon as you go up against more modern aircraft the PK goes down dramatically.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Posted
On 5/2/2023 at 11:31 AM, 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?

In my personal experience maximal range of AIM54C is 70nm-80nm of actual missile travel distance. Battery dies at longer distances. Tested with circling E3s 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 5/2/2023 at 9:35 AM, Schmidtfire said:

We did a multiplayer test recently and pk is not good, even for a fast missile like 120C against a human player. Anything >15nm is a breeze to defeat in most cases. Unless high closure speeds and at high altitude.
 

So that 20nm PDSTT shot is very unlikely to connect. Problem is that unless you take a Phoenix shot before 30nm you will be at big disadvantage all the way to the merge. Flying a tenniscourt with slow flying missiles.

 

 

The F-14 can STT reliably at any practical range/altitude and fire, it's good to use that against opponents without that capability

Posted
23 hours ago, The_Tau said:

In my personal experience maximal range of AIM54C is 70nm-80nm of actual missile travel distance. Battery dies at longer distances. Tested with circling E3s 

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

full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Scrapped

Phantom Articles: Air-to-Air and APQ-120 | F-4E Must-know manoevure: SYNC-Z-TURN

Posted
4 minutes ago, Karon said:

I think my longest was 120-130 nm

"actual missile travel distance"?

🖥️ Win10  i7-10700KF  32GB  RTX4070S   🥽 Quest 3   🕹️ T16000M  VPC CDT-VMAX  TFRP   ✈️ FC3  F-14A/B  F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR  PG  Syria

Posted
Just now, draconus said:

"actual missile travel distance"?

Yep, I splashed a transport at that distance. Anything that manoeuvres is almost impossible to kill, as the Phoenix runs out of energy or overlofts.

Again, it's a test out of curiosity, not something we should use. I consider 80nm as it's max effective range, usually.

full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Scrapped

Phantom Articles: Air-to-Air and APQ-120 | F-4E Must-know manoevure: SYNC-Z-TURN

Posted (edited)
Am 2.5.2023 um 10:07 schrieb 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.

When I was trying the F-14s Phoenix first, I set up a scenario in the mission editor. Me against two-ships of Mig-29s, both me and enemy were usually at ~35k feet flying towards each other, standard AI behaviour. I managed to get somewhat reliable kills starting at 50-55 nm. That is in TWS and often double kill. Less range and the kill was assured, but even at worst it would force the Mig-29 into very defensive behaviour.

I didnt test many more scenarios, but in that one the Phoenix seemed extremely effective. Aim-120 probably wouldve been at max range ~30 miles and less for a reliably hit against a Mig-29?

Even on a 10-20 mile shot I probably wouldve prefered the Phoenix to the Aim-7 in many scenarios. The Sparrow is just a bit slow and unreliable, and the Phoenix going quickly active is very nice. Of course the Aim-120 is king in that regime.

Edited by Temetre
Posted
52 minutes ago, Temetre said:

When I was trying the F-14s Phoenix first...

Which is when exactly? We went through some major changes since realease.

🖥️ Win10  i7-10700KF  32GB  RTX4070S   🥽 Quest 3   🕹️ T16000M  VPC CDT-VMAX  TFRP   ✈️ FC3  F-14A/B  F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR  PG  Syria

Posted

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 ->

 

1.jpg

 

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

 

2.jpg

 

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.

 

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
vor 2 Stunden schrieb draconus:

Which is when exactly? We went through some major changes since realease.

A month ago or so, when I did the trial for the first time. Was the most modern Phoenix, I think MK60-C?

Maybe I should clarify that it wasnt a hit at 50 miles, but release at 50 miles. Those AI Mig-29s are quit speedy. Point being that both release and destruction of enemy aircraft happened at bigger distance between me and the target than wouldve been with an Aim-120. Ofc with some cranking, but not to an extreme degree.

Edited by Temetre
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...