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

[lunaticfringe]

17 minutes ago, Goodwin said:

the rocket has become so slooooooooow that it is almost always just useless. and in any situation, 120 has become better. which of course is very strange.
I can't believe that the very famous phoenix reaches the target at the same time as the f14 launched by this phoenix.
now only 120c  

Got a 90+ nm AMRAAM tacview I can see?

[Goodwin]

34 минуты назад, lunaticfringe сказал:

Got a 90+ nm AMRAAM tacview I can see?

who will it intercept at a range of 90 nm? slow transport?
an interceptor with new missiles is not able to intercept anything other than a heavy transport or a bomber. aim-54 has flown poorly before. now you can delete it altogether.
that is, theoretically, you can try to launch the aim-54 from an extremely high altitude. and even 90 miles instead of 120. but it has no use

[MBot]

I did some tests with the AIM-54A against supersonic Backfires coming in at a slight 20° angle. Here is a little tidbit I found that some might find useful. In TWS, centering the T will point you right at your target (group). Firing the Phoenix in this orientation against a target with aspect will result in the missile doing a slight dogleg with the terminal engagement happening from an odd angle. If you engage in PD-STT though, centering the T will put you on an intercept course. The missile will fly out straight as well, doing a pretty straight intercept and seems to engage the target with more energy in the terminal phase.

I experimented a bit and found in this particular situation that firing the first missile in PD-STT at around 80-100 NM (from 40'000k at M1.2+) on an intercept course and continuing on this course, got me a good hit with the target still at around 30 NM. Being fast with Jester, this put me in an excellent position for a follow up salvo in TWS on the other bombers in the group at around 25-20 NM. At this range the resolution of a bomber group is a lot better in TWS with little chances of track mixing/dropping. With this tactic I got a lot of 4/4 kills, while the tactic of engaging bombers in a group in TWS subsequently at maximum range as soon as individual targets became visible resulted in a lot of misses due to track corruption.

Edited September 3, 2022 by MBot

[lunaticfringe]

50 minutes ago, Goodwin said:

who will it intercept at a range of 90 nm? slow transport?
an interceptor with new missiles is not able to intercept anything other than a heavy transport or a bomber. aim-54 has flown poorly before. now you can delete it altogether.
that is, theoretically, you can try to launch the aim-54 from an extremely high altitude. and even 90 miles instead of 120. but it has no use

Let's make it easier for AMRAAM with the 60C. 

1 for 2 at 80 miles against a defending Su-27 that attempted an 8G break away; lead shot turns to final retaining in excess of M 2.5, and connects at just under M 1.9.   AMRAAM won't make that shot.  AMRAAM also won't make a shot at 80+% of its envelope with that much energy available.  

The fundamental problem with this line of conversation isn't the Phoenix; it's that you want an LRM- which includes the limitations in the short to mid range environment that comes with adding the mass and overall dimension to carry enough fuel state to get out to a target 60, 70, 80 plus miles and engage them- with the same amount of smash on their control surfaces that they can catch defending opponents, to also function like a MRM, while subsequently failing to achieve the loft profile that permits the weapon to maximize its energy state on the flyout.

TANSTAAFL.



 

Tacview-20220903-180410-DCS-Long Green and High C60 Flanker.zip.acmi

Edited September 3, 2022 by lunaticfringe

[DSplayer]

For those who want to visualize the difference between the nozzle_exit_areas I've calculated (0.04525 m^2 vs 1e-6 aka 0.000001 m^2), here are some graphs. The performance difference down low is expected to be pretty marginal but once up high, its absolutely stunning to see the difference. Excuse the colors on the graphs since this was pretty rough and quick and I just reused the previous graph's colors.

 

Click here for link to charts so you can hover over the values to compare with the motor performance from prior to the September 2nd patch

 

500m

Spoiler

 

6km

Spoiler

 

 

12km

Spoiler

 

 

Conclusion: The AIM-54, both in the Mk47 and Mk60 configurations, have an additional peak Mach speed of ~0.6 Mach at 12km with the nozzle_exit_area of 0.04525 m^2.

EDIT: Here are some bar graphs for Peak and Average speed for the missiles at 12km.

Peak

Spoiler

 

Average

Spoiler

 

Here's the differences between the Weapons.lua (stock and new nozzle) that I used in order to perform these tests: https://www.diffchecker.com/v3DOf6fU

Edited September 3, 2022 by DSplayer

[H7142]

21 hours 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.  

Is there some kind of equation that is used to calculate the loft angle, there are equations that can determine this angle.

[lunaticfringe]

22 hours 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.  

The loft video in question:

On 6/23/2022 at 8:15 PM, lunaticfringe said:

Not particularly.  Climb out on the tracked timestamp shot is pushing a 60 degree pitch angle on its lofting ascent. 
 

 

 

 

[H7142]

17 hours ago, Machalot said:

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. 

 

O

now ofc thrust profiles are usually more complex then just one value:

 

Original sources

Spoiler

Acquired through foia distribution is unlimited.

 

 

[captain_dalan]

3 hours ago, RustBelt said:

If the AIM-54 was “competitive” than it wouldn’t have been replaced by the AMRAAM. Compete in a 1983 or earlier locked competition and see how un-competitive it is against Sparrows and old Russian medium rangers from 29As.

Let's try and use another term instead of "competitive"....... let's say..... outperformed maybe? 
But, regardless of all that, i think the user community may have to accept one or possibly two of the following hypothesis:

1. It is the AMRAAM that could be overperforming. Needs testing in replicating similar shots. Way too late in the evening (early in the morning for that);
2. It may be that the AIM-54 really was that bad, and that the reason for its retirement was that it was outclassed by the newer missiles.

Now, on the more measurable side if things, i just completed another series of 48 launches, this time testing the C variant, both Mk47 and Mk60 motors, just as with the A. The results are to say the least interesting. The test is of course the 6 on 6 launch, and to make this post shorter, i'll just go to the final conclusion. Terminal performance wise, the Mk47 C is still by FAR the worst Phoenix variant we have in the game. The Mk60 C is comparable to the Mk47 A. This leaves the Mk60 A as still the best missile available as far as the conditions of the test are at stake. 

Recommendations: unless you really need that "active on its own" feature, you are probably still best off, packing the Mk60 A. This doubly so in the presence of the dice roll system of CM effectiveness. Mk60 A's will get to their targets (hit or miss) with more smash then the other variants, AND definitely more then the abysmal Mk47 C. As always, tacviews are attached bellow:

 

Tacview-20220904-001932-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-002421-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-002905-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-003353-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-003855-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-004344-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-004839-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-005357-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi

[captain_dalan]

21 hours ago, IronMike said:

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....

Nah, but our CAP stations usually are set between 25-35000ft, so it's only natural to be most curious about that part of the envelope. Besides, north of 40000ft? That's Eagle territory! We ain't getting their in the F-14A, certainly not with the state of the FM being as is

[Callsign JoNay]

33 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Terminal performance wise, the Mk47 C is still by FAR the worst Phoenix variant we have in the game. The Mk60 C is comparable to the Mk47 A. This leaves the Mk60 A as still the best missile available as far as the conditions of the test are at stake. 

Recommendations: unless you really need that "active on its own" feature, you are probably still best off, packing the Mk60 A. This doubly so in the presence of the dice roll system of CM effectiveness. Mk60 A's will get to their targets (hit or miss) with more smash then the other variants, AND definitely more then the abysmal Mk47 C. As always, tacviews are attached bellow:

Very interesting. I haven't even considered trying As since the patch now that the C has a MK60 motor option. That's super weird.

2 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

Let's make it easier for AMRAAM with the 60C. 

1 for 2 at 80 miles against a defending Su-27 that attempted an 8G break away; lead shot turns to final retaining in excess of M 2.5, and connects at just under M 1.9.   AMRAAM won't make that shot.  AMRAAM also won't make a shot at 80+% of its envelope with that much energy available.  

The fundamental problem with this line of conversation isn't the Phoenix; it's that you want an LRM- which includes the limitations in the short to mid range environment that comes with adding the mass and overall dimension to carry enough fuel state to get out to a target 60, 70, 80 plus miles and engage them- with the same amount of smash on their control surfaces that they can catch defending opponents, to also function like a MRM, while subsequently failing to achieve the loft profile that permits the weapon to maximize its energy state on the flyout.

TANSTAAFL.



 

Tacview-20220903-180410-DCS-Long Green and High C60 Flanker.zip.acmi 363.68 kB · 3 downloads

 

Very nice. Your Phoenixes still had a ton of smash at impact and the near miss. Maybe I've been going about this all wrong trying to test from 20-50 nm shots. Farther shots are better.

[DSplayer]

57 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Now, on the more measurable side if things, i just completed another series of 48 launches, this time testing the C variant, both Mk47 and Mk60 motors, just as with the A. The results are to say the least interesting. The test is of course the 6 on 6 launch, and to make this post shorter, i'll just go to the final conclusion. Terminal performance wise, the Mk47 C is still by FAR the worst Phoenix variant we have in the game. The Mk60 C is comparable to the Mk47 A. This leaves the Mk60 A as still the best missile available as far as the conditions of the test are at stake. 

I wouldn't say that the Mk47C is by far the worst Phoenix variant since in the majority of the shots I saw in the Tacviews are around Mach 2 when 10nm from their respective targets from both Mk60 and Mk47 motors on As and Cs. The Mk60 does have an advantage when closer up since it burns at a higher thrust but a lower burn time compared to the Mk47 (and the motor performances are the same even if the motor is mounted on a 54A or a 54C). The only difference outside of the guidance is that the 54C is 10 kgs heavier than the 54A. In terms of guidance, the CCM for the 54C is 0.2 vs the 54A's 1.0 (for reference the AIM-7M has a CCM of 1.0 and the AIM-120C-5 has a CCM of 0.1), the 54A only guides when the target is illuminated by the AWG-9 which does make some of the flight path less smooth and less efficient, and the 54C has a HOJ value of 1 (which should allow it to HOJ). 

 

In my own straight line performance tests, the Mk47A and Mk47C both have roughly similar peak and average speeds (±0.1 Mach) with the Mk47C being the slower one but within 0.1 Mach of its Mk47A counterpart.

Edited September 4, 2022 by DSplayer

[captain_dalan]

24 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

I wouldn't say that the Mk47C is by far the worst Phoenix variant since in the majority of the shots I saw in the Tacviews are around Mach 2 when 10nm from their respective targets from both Mk60 and Mk47 motors on As and Cs. ....

 

Worst purely in terminal performance. Don't look at the mach at the point of missile going active, but the impact point. For some reason, Mk60's outperform the Mk47's, and the A's outperform the C's. Maybe the guidance logic actually has an inverse effect? I'm shooting in the dark here, just trying to make sense of the observations.

24 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

 

In my own straight line performance tests, the Mk47A and Mk47C both have roughly similar peak and average speeds (±0.1 Mach) with the Mk47C being the slower one but within 0.1 Mach of its Mk47A counterpart.

 

However, these aren't straight shots. They are lofted and i'm under impression that the higher the velocity during initial climb, the better the end results. It would seem that this gives the missile more time in the thinner air? 

4 hours ago, RustBelt said:

If the AIM-54 was “competitive” than it wouldn’t have been replaced by the AMRAAM. Compete in a 1983 or earlier locked competition and see how un-competitive it is against Sparrows and old Russian medium rangers from 29As.

Not all competition is SATAL crappy min/max eSport garbage.

I actually just did a test. The panic crowd is over reacting. The same test i did for the F-14, i did for the F-15 and the AIM-120 C. 
The 50 and 45 mile shots never make to the target. I suspect battery lifetime?
The 40 and 35 mile shots do make it, and have approximately the same energy at impact as the Phoenixes. 
The AMRAAM is definitely FASTER though, at least as far as peak velocity is at stake. And it bleeds less during terminal glide, but this is to be expected. 
Only one tacview this time around, as i really need to go to bed.

 

Tacview-20220904-030900-DCS-September update 1 on 6 EAGLE test C-5.zip.acmi

[Uxi]

48 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Very nice. Your Phoenixes still had a ton of smash at impact and the near miss. Maybe I've been going about this all wrong trying to test from 20-50 nm shots. Farther shots are better.

Puck Howe said Top Gun in 97 trained to shoot long range at 30-40 nm or 0-20 but to hold between 20 and 30 nm since it would be detected and defeated mid range. By that point, only had C.

[Callsign JoNay]

Just now, Uxi said:

Puck Howe said Top Gun in 97 trained to shoot long range at 30-40 nm or 0-20 but to hold between 20 and 30 nm since it would be detected and defeated mid range. By that point, only had C.

Yeah, true. Personally I'm feeling a much larger dead zone than 20-30 through.

[Zaphael]

1 hour ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Yeah, true. Personally I'm feeling a much larger dead zone than 20-30 through.

I agree. Where the TWS hold on the WCS is concerned, 20-30 miles is an unreliable range to take the Phoenix shots. The missile also doesn't have time to climb and accelerate at thinner air.

With the Phoenix C being capable of pitbulling on its own, it has become viable to shoot though. That said, it may still connect at lower energy if the Tomcat is not already up high.

[ShinyMikey]

     I think everyone is getting far too wrapped up in the numbers. If you know what you doing, you are going to get plenty of kills with the Aim-54. It has never mattered that much through any of the changes in the past, the ups and downs of performance. Your going to win (or not) usually because of your tactics, taking high PK shots and not putting yourself unnecessarily dangerous situations. 

    The factor that everyone seems to be overlooking when talking about if your long range shots are going to connect..is the other pilot in the other plane (obviously I'm talking about a MP PVP situation but since fighting the AI is generally easier..). When I get an 80nm kill, it is almost always because the other pilot was still in his climb flying toward the TA and simply was not expecting an inbound missile yet. Catch that viper when he is just climbing up to 40k, setting up something in his jet, or looking at his phone.

    My point is.. the missile is fine. Some things changed for the worse, some for the better (I think the C changes were very positive), such is life. Remember that we fly the F-14 not because it is undefeatable and has the greatest missile man ever conceived, but rather because we love flying the Big Fighter. Focus on tactics and good launch parameters. Also, we dodge Aim-120s all the time (if you fly against hornets and vipers...a lot of Aim-120s),so don't be overly offended if someone dodges your phoenix. Your missile missing doesn't mean that it is "garbage" now, or that HB has "broken" it, it may be that the other pilot was paying attention and simply defended well..so kudos to them.

[roobarbjapan]

3 hours ago, Uxi said:

Puck Howe said Top Gun in 97 trained to shoot long range at 30-40 nm or 0-20 but to hold between 20 and 30 nm since it would be detected and defeated mid range. By that point, only had C.

He also mentioned a 29 second burn time. Which has left me a little confused. Is he referring to another variant not present in DCS? 

[lunaticfringe]

27 minutes ago, roobarbjapan said:

He also mentioned a 29 second burn time. Which has left me a little confused. Is he referring to another variant not present in DCS? 

15+ years out of the Tomcat, two seconds off the burn time of every Phoenix he ever came in contact with.  Are those last two seconds really going to matter when the net impulse is correct?  No.

There are points to chase, and points that fall below the grain.  

[Uxi]

31 minutes ago, roobarbjapan said:

He also mentioned a 29 second burn time. Which has left me a little confused. Is he referring to another variant not present in DCS? 

Good catch.  Either he's remembering wrong... or...

Globalsecurity lists a C+ variant.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54-variants.htm
 

AIM-54A First production model for F-14A. Analog electronics, klystron tube transmitter/receiver. Liquid-cooled hydraulic and thermal-conditioning systems. Design range of 60 nm (69 mi; 111 km) was easily surpassed in testing.

AIM-54B Interim model. Simpler construction, non-liquid cooling. Not produced.

AIM-54C Last production model. Analog electronics replaced by Reprogrammable Memory (RPM) digital processor, yielding faster target discrimination, longer range, increased altitude, improved beam attack capability, better ECM resistance, and greater reliability. Continuous-rod warhead replaced by controlled fragmentation warhead.

AIM-54C+ High Power Phoenix Improved variant developed by Hughes for F-14D. Contains internal heaters, which eliminates need for temperature conditioning liquid, high-power Traveling Wave Tube (TWT) transmitter adapted from the AIM-120 AMRAAM, and low-sidelobe antenna. Latest version of RPM substitutes 6 ultra-high-speed computer chips for 45 of earlier, less-capable chips. Full-scale development began in August 1987. First test flight of fully upgraded missile on 14 August 1990 scored a direct hit on a QF-4 drone.

Puck did seem to more time in the D and would have been in them by 97 anyway, probably and isn't talking about which version he was in at that point.  

[DoorMouse]

4 hours ago, Uxi said:

Puck Howe said Top Gun in 97 trained to shoot long range at 30-40 nm or 0-20 but to hold between 20 and 30 nm since it would be detected and defeated mid range. By that point, only had C.

It's interesting, this absolutely became my best practice with the previous iteration of the missile. You either need to fire in TWS with enough range for it to get a good shot... Or you need to gauge their/your altitude and speed so that it burns (most of if not all) of the way in at sub 20 miles. Once that motor is off it's speed drops rapidly unless it's in a very high loft.

With the way the current missile is though, I'm not seeing that as clearly. 30-40 it is defeated nearly without maneuvering. Inside 20 it's likely your target is fast and maneuvering. If they stay high, maybe sure a sub20 mile shot will work... But any high to low shot is extremely low PK right now. 

 

It's so slow to accelerate, barely accelerates when being shot downhill, and reaches a significantly reduced top speed, it's total distance it travels while under motor is much less - and that's the only time it's really lethal vs a maneuvering target sub 20 miles.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by DoorMouse

[roobarbjapan]

1 hour ago, lunaticfringe said:

15+ years out of the Tomcat, two seconds off the burn time of every Phoenix he ever came in contact with.  Are those last two seconds really going to matter when the net impulse is correct?  No.

There are points to chase, and points that fall below the grain.  

Steady on chap, I was just asking a genuine question. 

[Wingmate]

14 minutes ago, AirMeister said:

On GS discord there is a guy who is literally been whinging for days straight, i won't post his name but a quick glance on that discord will show you things like the snippets below. 

A bit off topic, but if you are trying to hide someone's name you need to crop out more than the top (or bottom) half of the letters you can still read it in the last screenshot.

[IronMike]

Let us please not throw around accusations, etc... All levels of skill are welcome here, always, please do not forget that, and all levels of skill will struggle to adjust, from more to less.

Which is the main point: to adjust. It is no one's fault, but ours, that folks now compare with the state of before, which slows done the getting to terms with it. Which of course, if you think of it, would not have been the case, would we have known better at the time and released it as is. I cannot blame anyone who finds these adjustments frustrating, irritating or difficult to come to terms with.

But the flipside of the coin also means of course that if you treat it as if it just released and as if you never knew the overperforming version from before, you will adjust faster and better.

If I may offer a general observation about "skill", too: There are times and situations in gaming, where it really is lack of skill that causes a complaint, although even then I find guiding newer players the most constructive reply to that. But when it comes to changes, it is - in my observation - usually the skilled players who complain the loudest. This is very logical if you think of it: they have a very particular, dialed in set of tactics, skills, workflows that get thrown over bord (in parts) by such changes. Which puts them (in parts) to square one. That is a lot of hard work being forced to be redone, which naturally is frustrating. So simply deducing that loud complaining equals lack of skill, is missing the mark, besides the above mentioned not being very constructive in general. Especially when folks just reached a certain level of skill, changes are a nuisance, always. You start getting more relaxed again, once your (ever changing and ever evolving) skillset has proven and tested through many and above these changes over many years. Really good are those who don't think of themselves as good. The moment you do that, you stop being good. It is about doing something right, and knowing that each time you start something, you start at square one again. When we obsess about skill, we are usually and actually still training. Only later you understand you did not train a specific skill, but actually the method of acquiring skills or skillsets as needed (for the particular area you want to develop expertise in). So then it does not bother you anymore to start at square one every time again (while with growing experience this ofc becomes easier), in fact you appreciate it, and thus also gain a new outlook on really appreciating new and unskilled players and their gripes. Anyway, short novel over.  

Edited September 4, 2022 by IronMike

[tae.]

One thing that was talked about earlier in the thread but I still didn't understand / got confused about - the STT breaking lock into an active 54C thing. You stated that was a limitation of the current API / way that missiles work in DCS.

But then there were some comments in this thread about whether a real 54C would do this and the answer also seems to be..yes? Would a real Phoenix go active on a broken STT lock, do we know? Furthermore would it be just PSTT or PDSTT or both?

And finally, if it really would go accurate on a broken lock, is the API limitation relevant for a more accurate simulation? Are there cases where it should not go active?

For me personally this is quite an important point as essentially right now the 54C cannot be carried as a FOX 1 missile, and I would like to know if things will stay that way or if there is a chance they may change in the future as the missile API is improved and we might go back to how it was last update where we had a sort of "hybrid" FOX1/3 Phoenix.