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

[Dscross]

6 minutes ago, IronMike said:

110nm is no problemo with both A or C on high non maneuvering.

ACM cover up also works with the mk60, see attached tacview. ACM trumps PAL, but you need to aim the cross at the target, the cone is very small.

8nm on a chase, depending on altitude, will not work. That is way longer than the motor burns, add the missile's drag, and somewhere below 4nm is the range you are looking at.

You are not supposed to do full gimbal shots, unless you meant on a beaming target, rather than beaming (or cranking) yourself. But depending on setup, you can fire full gimbal shots from further out than that. However, put the T on the target, preferably. You are else bleeding away energy for no good reason. It's not an eagle with an amraam.

Also tested PAL and worked fine with all 4 missiles.

Mk60_ACM cover up.zip.acmi 50.73 kB · 0 downloads

Yes, I meant target beaming, not me. Sorry for any confusion.  

So far I'm impressed with the C, as for the A, while it might be possible in theory for a 110NM shot if everything is perfect, I don't think it's going to happen. I'm shoot at non maneuvering Tu22's on a straight-line course and the A's are flying past them or not getting anywhere near them.  The C however, those are working much better than I hoped when I saw this update announcement. 

I'll try the A's again with PAL and ACM cover, at various ranges, but I've been a fan of ACM mad dog Lauches for a long time. I've never seen any AIM-54 miss that shot. And in the last test I just few like 5 mins ago, I saw a CMk60 do a 90 degree turn. It was the craziest turn I've ever seen a FOX 3 missile do. It was like a JDAM I waited too long to drop, turned around (from loft) and smashed the TU22. The shot was about 80-85 miles. I'm shooting all of these from about 30,000 feet FYI. When I edit the video of that AIM-54 turning around I'll make sure and get it to you. it was a crazy turn. 

[ShadowFrost]

Once people get over the MK60 motor performance reductions... which aren't that great in combination with the new lofting. You will need to keep the aim-54s at high altitude for optimum results... but they can still make 100 mile shots under the right conditions. I think you will find that the Cs are fairly more deadly in practice in a multiplayer environment than before. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by ShadowFrost

[Indianajon]

Having spent an evening playing I'm loving the new models and you can really feel the difference when watching on tacview.

Think I need to learn new tactics now though. 

[IronMike]

35 minutes ago, Dscross said:

Yes, I meant target beaming, not me. Sorry for any confusion.  

So far I'm impressed with the C, as for the A, while it might be possible in theory for a 110NM shot if everything is perfect, I don't think it's going to happen. I'm shoot at non maneuvering Tu22's on a straight-line course and the A's are flying past them or not getting anywhere near them.  The C however, those are working much better than I hoped when I saw this update announcement. 

I'll try the A's again with PAL and ACM cover, at various ranges, but I've been a fan of ACM mad dog Lauches for a long time. I've never seen any AIM-54 miss that shot. And in the last test I just few like 5 mins ago, I saw a CMk60 do a 90 degree turn. It was the craziest turn I've ever seen a FOX 3 missile do. It was like a JDAM I waited too long to drop, turned around (from loft) and smashed the TU22. The shot was about 80-85 miles. I'm shooting all of these from about 30,000 feet FYI. When I edit the video of that AIM-54 turning around I'll make sure and get it to you. it was a crazy turn. 

You are likely running out of battery life if they are flying just past. At these ranges you need to be high. If you look at the test from 1972/3, it was iirc 40k on 40k, at m1+. If you look at the tacview below, 40 on 30k even works fine at 110nm. But 30k on 30k will run out of battery life just just.

110nm_Amk47_Tu22_40kshooter_30ktarget.zip.acmi

[Dscross]

This is the new AIM-54 MK 60-C, seeker, and such. I edited the video down. I think I included the correct track file, which may or may not work. (I was having trouble with it.) 

Anyway, I don't like the AIM-54 A seeker, but I'm sure I'll find a place for it as I do more testing. And Overall, I think this is a big correction for the tomcat, as the C's seem to be what at least I was looking for. Sure, I can still miss with them, but feels like the tomcat is back. 

 

AIm54 Mk60 c testing track. .trk

[lunaticfringe]

11 minutes ago, Dscross said:

This is the new AIM-54 MK 60-C, seeker, and such. I edited the video down. I think I included the correct track file, which may or may not work. (I was having trouble with it.) 

Anyway, I don't like the AIM-54 A seeker, but I'm sure I'll find a place for it as I do more testing. And Overall, I think this is a big correction for the tomcat, as the C's seem to be what at least I was looking for. Sure, I can still miss with them, but feels like the tomcat is back. 

 

AIm54 Mk60 c testing track. .trk 4.16 MB · 0 downloads

 

The A is the A.  Its going to be your 70s/early 80s weapon as USN, and permanent Iranian option in with the 47 engine.  The C will be mid to late 80s to EOS weapon.

Now the Tomcat gets its signature weapon defined based on its length of service, reflected as it should be. 

[Dscross]

3 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

The A is the A.  Its going to be your 70s/early 80s weapon as USN, and permanent Iranian option in with the 47 engines.  The C will be mid to late 80s to EOS weapon.

Now the Tomcat gets its signature weapon defined based on its length of service, reflected as it should be. 

Yeah, I'm happy with it. Is my tone coming across as something else? I like, I think it's a major improvement over what we've been dealing with over the last few months. However, your comment brings up a question in my mind. Is it planned, at some point in the future, to limit the AIm-54 C variants to the F14B? I might be reading into things, but that's what I drew from your comment. I wouldn't be opposed to that, just wondering. 

[Xl-45]

2 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

43,000' launch at 660 knots at 70 miles range attains 2,870 knots at 76,000'; that's Mach 5, or, as we like to call it- "faster than an AMRAAM".

 

Tacview-20220824-235655-DCS-MiG-31_Test_Intercept.zip.acmi 711.27 kB · 6 downloads

Is this with the new update ? It also seems like your engine is burning 30s instead of the new 20s.
I tried with both Mk47 and Mk60 motors and the most i can obtain, shooting roughly at your parameters are Mach 3.75 at 66.7 k FT.

Please correct me if i am wrong or if i misunderstood.

[lunaticfringe]

Just now, Dscross said:

Yeah, I'm happy with it. Is my tone coming across as something else?

Just noting where you can put it, as you said.  The A is more difficult to use, but it's also important to keep in mind that TWS isn't the only employment option.  The range is still there to get a shot off STT depending on the target, which greatly improves the seeker situation.  Adjust what you're doing with the airplane post launch and consider how that is affecting the missile heading downrange as much as the weapon itself.

  

Just now, Dscross said:

I like, I think it's a major improvement over what we've been dealing with over the last few months. However, your comment brings up a question in my mind. Is it planned, at some point in the future, to limit the AIm-54 C variants to the F14B? I might be reading into things, but that's what I drew from your comment. I wouldn't be opposed to that, just wondering. 

F-14As could shoot Cs, so there's no intent to limit like that. 

[Dscross]

59 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

Just noting where you can put it, as you said.  The A is more difficult to use, but it's also important to keep in mind that TWS isn't the only employment option.  The range is still there to get a shot off STT depending on the target, which greatly improves the seeker situation.  Adjust what you're doing with the airplane post launch and consider how that is affecting the missile heading downrange as much as the weapon itself.

  

F-14As could shoot Cs, so there's no intent to limit like that. 

Thanks for answering about if there are plans to limit. Nip that rumor right away, lol.

And I did notice the difference when using STT. I clearly only posted one brief part of the testing i''m doing, and I'm not even close to having tested everything. I like to make myself a cheat sheet of different parameters I can expect from my weapons and aircraft when I fly. It's usually a line of ballpark figures to get me close, then I'll extrapolate during my flight based on the threats, etc. Which is what I'm doing here, and sharing, just the results I'm getting. 

[lunaticfringe]

2 hours ago, Xl-45 said:

Is this with the new update ? It also seems like your engine is burning 30s instead of the new 20s.
I tried with both Mk47 and Mk60 motors and the most i can obtain, shooting roughly at your parameters are Mach 3.75 at 66.7 k FT.

Please correct me if i am wrong or if i misunderstood.

See update.  My fault on not deleting a couple files before continuing a test series after last week's OB hit my machine. 

[Skarp]

I had great success today in multiplayer with the 54. It feels more deadly in its terminal phase especially firing down on low altitude fighters. The PDSTT shots are wonderful.

[Fropa]

The loft parameters of the phoenix make no sense. I can launch a C missile at 40kft/mach1.1, but if the target is more then 30nm away, the missile lofts almost vertically, which significantly cuts the missile's top speed. That doesn't make sense... please fix this.

[IronMike]

30 minutes ago, Fropa said:

The loft parameters of the phoenix make no sense. I can launch a C missile at 40kft/mach1.1, but if the target is more then 30nm away, the missile lofts almost vertically, which significantly cuts the missile's top speed. That doesn't make sense... please fix this.

There's nothing to fix. It climbs as fast as high as it can, which does make sense. It helps it maintain a higher terminal speed by making the most out of the motor burn time in the climb, thus gaining the highest altitude at the highest possible energy. You can also see that irl videos, iirc someone shared that recently on these forums even. If it would not do that, it would lose significantly more energy during the gliding phase through denser air.  

[IronMike]

6 hours ago, Redounet said:

im not mad just disapointed

personally i dont care can edit lua all the way

youre selling something as a huge step forward when all that has been done is put active by default to 1 and adjusting values to balance this game instead of looking for realism

 

 

Did you try it extensively yet? Did you take the time to adjust to it? To take shots from favorable parameters?

Like, don't get me wrong guys, we're here to help you adjust, etc. - but being disappointed or mad from just reading a post or maybe trying it for a couple of hours, or less even, and going "it is all meh now", while others already score successfully online, really leads to nowhere.

Take yourselves the time to get used to it please. You can dislike it, and ofc feel free to express it, but it is not leading to something very constructive I may carefully suggest.

It can't always be "give more realism" and then "this is not the realism we wanted"... The phoenix is and remains a strong missile and the longest stick in game. The C now is also a very deadly ARH missile on top. But firing it outside of what it gives you, and then going "it's crap", is not on the missile, nor on us.

There sure are things that can improve, (the nozzle exhaust area btw will not be the life saving straw some may think it would), and we will improve on the valid items we find. But the fact is, the -mk60 was way off the mark. And we finally found the missing pieces of the puzzle to adjust it. To also make the A's guidance more realistic, as well as the C's, which finally gives a clear incentive to favor the C over the A, as it always should have been. I cannot repeat it often enough: more realism does not mean more or less range or performance for us, it means more realism, no matter where it places the missile in the end. Thank you for your kind understanding.

[captain_dalan]

9 hours ago, DSplayer said:

 

 

10 hours ago, DSplayer said:

 

In conclusion: Bring an Mk47 motor variant.
 

 

Before too many people decide to take this as given, some disclaimers should be made. The following data is based on the 6 on 6 shootout, missiles fired from 28000ft and mach 0.8 at targets flying 20-23000ft, doing mach 0.73-0.78, at ranges from 35 to 50 nautical miles.  All failures are due to guidance and not missile ability to reach the targets with enough energy. Targets don't maneuver or dispense CM. All missiles fired were A models, 24 shots made with Mk 47 motors, and 24 shots made with Mk60 motors.
Observations:
1. All missiles reach their active points at about mach 2 and bit extra;
2. Mk 47's never reach mach 3;
3. Mk 60s do reach mach 3 for a short time during climb;
4. Mk 47's intercept their targets between mach 1.27 and 1.48;
5. Mk 60's intercept their targets between mach 1.34 and 1.57;
6. Mk47's performance tends to suffer more from DECREASE in launch distance;
7. As a result of 6, the Mk 47's have wider terminal velocity range when fired in the above mentioned parameters, based on the sequence in which they were fired;
8. Mk 60's reach their targets faster and with more consistent terminal velocity.

Hypothesis: as the Mk 60 climbs faster to its desired altitude, its intercept geometry results in slightly, but significantly better terminal performance from medium altitude subsonic launches against hot targets. 

Conclusion: the Mk 60's might actually be preferred to Mk 47's when fired under similar conditions, that is in tactical situations against 30-50 miles hot targets and subsonic environments. For more strategic range launches 60-100 miles, the Mk 47 may be preferable. More tests are needed, especially against defending targets. 

Initial impressions: missile performance in both motor variants seems quite reasonable and within expected performance parameters. Limited tests in tactical scenarios allude to extreme susceptibility to CMs by all variants, but the statistical sample is too small to reach definitive conclusions.  

Tacview files attached bellow for further study.

Tacview-20220903-025940-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-030438-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-030923-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-031426-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-031910-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-032356-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-032847-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-033339-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 A.zip.acmi

[IronMike]

Here's another scenario: from high to low, vs 4xmig29 on veteran at 2k feet. Shots were taken between 48 and 40nm (due to the long LTE times).

There is also a consistent tendency to check how it does around 30k feet. Which, fair enough, we all want to know. But it is not your ideal firing altitude. 40k and above is, always was, always will be for the phoenix. That does not mean it loses all value down low, or can only perform high to high.

It is very simply though, the higher you are the further away on the lower targets you can fire.

In short: climb!

Disclaimer: the AI is veteran, but was set not to react to me until 20nm range between us, or else they would climb up all the way from the get go. They all do defend though and were given ample time to defend from the moment they get the launch warning. In essence: 40-50nm shot from 40k to 2k.

Tacview-20220903-032555-DCS-aim54 low 50nm.zip.acmi

[Fropa]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

There's nothing to fix. It climbs as fast as high as it can, which does make sense. It helps it maintain a higher terminal speed by making the most out of the motor burn time in the climb, thus gaining the highest altitude at the highest possible energy. You can also see that irl videos, iirc someone shared that recently on these forums even. If it would not do that, it would lose significantly more energy during the gliding phase through denser air.  

After educating myself and doing some test shots under "perfect" parameters, I retract my previous statement and agree that there is nothing to fix. My apologies. Thanks for doing what you do!

[IronMike]

4 minutes ago, Fropa said:

After educating myself and doing some test shots under "perfect" parameters, I retract my previous statement and agree that there is nothing to fix. My apologies. Thanks for doing what you do!

Nothing to apologize for at all. That's what we're here for.

[DSplayer]

I'm looking back at the Hazard Classification Of United States Military Explosives and Munitions, U.S. Army, June 2009 (one of the sources used in the old whitepaper) and it directly contradicts the propellant mass for the MXU-637/B propellent section that is featured on the AIM-54A. How do the new sources override this information? Was the US Army document incorrect? I would really like a new document similar to the old whitepaper which outlines the sources for the motor performance (if possible).

[plasma1945]

So some tests I cranked out -- using standard 60 and  47  -- More testing is required. this is perlim. 

Improvements - significant seeker improvements. Ability to grab on to targets, and seemingly smack enemies trying to do a speed notch even .. in the replay track I re-ran an F15 which got away from my Phoenix was smacked by the updated version.

Changes - and its a CHANGE not a detriment - but I am sure I will get feedaback on my faulty testing etc. So, the shorter burn, cuts the speed for a Phoenix by .5 - 1.5 mach depending on the shot.

Bombers and dumb targets are just as easily smacked.

A player in competition now has more time 10-20 seconds more as the Phoenix now has not been gaining speed for as long and therefore if a pilot begins maneuvers it will drain the lower available energy in the missile.

So in a competition match <10-15 mile shots are possible, but likely to be easier to avoid: in my test in an active 15 mile shot old 54 arrived to target at m 3.8 vs new updated missile at which got there at 2.33.. if the pilot did a couple of turns it would have reduced speed to such that the missile could be out energied. Whereas the old missile not so much perhaps. 

I still stick to my idea that the TOMCAT was designed for Carrier group defense against large targets via the AIm54s (tu-9x 14x 2x etc) ... Whereas just as we saw in TopGUN close up sparrows were the stick to use. We are getting into realism, it would be SWEET if we can get a AIM54a-mk69 a missile for PVP and Competition, something with performance of the old phoenix, as it made the tomcat fun and viable and dangerous enemy in comps.

My 2.5 cents and some videos side by side of the Mk60 behavior. 

PS Cover to support the panic that the update will generate   PANIC PANIC PANIC LOL

 

[Machalot]

11 hours ago, DSplayer said:

I'm looking back at the Hazard Classification Of United States Military Explosives and Munitions, U.S. Army, June 2009 (one of the sources used in the old whitepaper) and it directly contradicts the propellant mass for the MXU-637/B propellent section that is featured on the AIM-54A. How do the new sources override this information? Was the US Army document incorrect? I would really like a new document similar to the old whitepaper which outlines the sources for the motor performance (if possible).

My opinion -- not representing HB or anybody but myself -- I think it's likely the Army document you're referring to is incorrect.  I put together a comparison using the HB Aim-54 white paper.  Numbers highlighted in red are what I consider suspicious and not likely realistic.  The data in the AIM-54A-Mk60 column derives from the document in question.  Note that the Mk60 somehow fits 45 kg (27.6%) more propellant into the same volume as the Mk47.  In fact it appears to claim the Mk60 propellant mass is greater than the entire Mk47 rocket motor (including propellant, insulation, case, supporting structure, and nozzle).  It's not really plausible.  I think it's likely the 208 kg of propellant listed in that document erroneously included the entire Mk60 rocket motor, not just the propellant mass, and that the actual masses and performance of the two rocket motors are very close as HB is modeling with this new update. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Machalot

[Callsign JoNay]

3 hours ago, IronMike said:

Here's another scenario: from high to low, vs 4xmig29 on veteran at 2k feet. Shots were taken between 48 and 40nm (due to the long LTE times).

There is also a consistent tendency to check how it does around 30k feet. Which, fair enough, we all want to know. But it is not your ideal firing altitude. 40k and above is, always was, always will be for the phoenix. That does not mean it loses all value down low, or can only perform high to high.

It is very simply though, the higher you are the further away on the lower targets you can fire.

In short: climb!

Disclaimer: the AI is veteran, but was set not to react to me until 20nm range between us, or else they would climb up all the way from the get go. They all do defend though and were given ample time to defend from the moment they get the launch warning. In essence: 40-50nm shot from 40k to 2k.

Tacview-20220903-032555-DCS-aim54 low 50nm.zip.acmi 256.38 kB · 8 downloads

With all due respect, that is not a demonstration of a deadly missile, it's a demonstration of abysmal AI. All three hits were well below sub sonic at impact.

[KlarSnow]

1 hour ago, Callsign JoNay said:

With all due respect, that is not a demonstration of a deadly missile, it's a demonstration of abysmal AI. All three hits were well below sub sonic at impact.

And what missile would hit any maneuvering target at 2,000 feet AGL from 50 miles? Cause last I checked the AMRAAM cant do that, and the phoenix can.

The point was not that it was the deadliest missile in existence, the point was that it had capability which is still unique to the Phoenix. Of course the bandits all could have immediately turned around and run away and the missiles wouldnt have hit.... but neither would an AMRAAM, or an R27ER, or an SD-10, or an R-77. None of those would have come remotely close to what the AIM-54 did in that shot.

One of them did drag out and that missile did not connect. Again, Could any other missile in DCS fired under the parameters IronMike Presented do any better?

Edited September 3, 2022 by KlarSnow

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb plasma1945:

So some tests I cranked out -- using standard 60 and  47  -- More testing is required. this is perlim. 

Improvements - significant seeker improvements. Ability to grab on to targets, and seemingly smack enemies trying to do a speed notch even .. in the replay track I re-ran an F15 which got away from my Phoenix was smacked by the updated version.

Changes - and its a CHANGE not a detriment - but I am sure I will get feedaback on my faulty testing etc. So, the shorter burn, cuts the speed for a Phoenix by .5 - 1.5 mach depending on the shot.

Bombers and dumb targets are just as easily smacked.

A player in competition now has more time 10-20 seconds more as the Phoenix now has not been gaining speed for as long and therefore if a pilot begins maneuvers it will drain the lower available energy in the missile.

So in a competition match <10-15 mile shots are possible, but likely to be easier to avoid: in my test in an active 15 mile shot old 54 arrived to target at m 3.8 vs new updated missile at which got there at 2.33.. if the pilot did a couple of turns it would have reduced speed to such that the missile could be out energied. Whereas the old missile not so much perhaps. 

I still stick to my idea that the TOMCAT was designed for Carrier group defense against large targets via the AIm54s (tu-9x 14x 2x etc) ... Whereas just as we saw in TopGUN close up sparrows were the stick to use. We are getting into realism, it would be SWEET if we can get a AIM54a-mk69 a missile for PVP and Competition, something with performance of the old phoenix, as it made the tomcat fun and viable and dangerous enemy in comps.

My 2.5 cents and some videos side by side of the Mk60 behavior. 

PS Cover to support the panic that the update will generate   PANIC PANIC PANIC LOL

 

Why would the current Aim54 not be competitive?

The way I see it, above +40nm you already have to initiate defensive maneuvers and lose altitude, otherwise it can be dangerous (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't had a chance to test it yet), good suppression is worth a lot, don't underestimate it, it doesn't always have to be a kill.

Compared to current aim120 you can stay at 40,000ft without problems and up to ~25nm, I don't think you can afford that with the Phoenix and that's its strength.

 

 

One more question about drag, I read here and there that it should be too high in dcs, especially at low altitudes, is there something to it or is it right in dcs?