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

[KlarSnow]

5 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

This makes a lot of sense.

The time frame I have been setting on Liberation is 1995, with Russian forces from the 90s in an attempt to make my adversaries realistic for what a Tomcat could deal with. But all I’m comping up against is Mig 29Ss with fox 3s, hence my question.

Seems like it’s DCS shinanigins, much like the ai’s super human defensive abilities.

It is a tricky balance trying to set the campaign up so you aren’t either totally dominating or getting your arse handed to you.

I did find the AWACS thing funny though, there was me assuming a slow moving target like that would be easy prey. Turns out orbiting a waypoint seems to be a good way to defend against an aim 54 (I was high and fast by the way). Is the missile correcting multiple times through its flight and therefore be losing energy? 

In the 1990's Mig-29S's would not be running around with wall to wall R-77's. If they were russian Mig-29S's they would never be carrying them since the RUAF never acquired the baseline R-77, it was only exported.

Second, The R-77 in DCS has no range. How close are you getting before shooting that it is a factor? If you shoot at 40-50 miles you should easily have active missiles, or even missile impacts before they can even start shooting back.

If they are evading your missiles and then you are unable to retarget them afterwards then you may need to rethink your tactics, but the R-77 really is nowhere near the AIM-120 or SD-10 in terms of capability. If you are sparrow only you will have issues, but the phoenix should completely outmatch it except for inside 5-10 miles.

[GGTharos]

11 hours ago, Timo Niemelä said:

Would this be the case with any AMRAAM model or just the AIM-120C-7? (DCS features multiple AIM-120 variants, right?) If I'm not mistaken, there's quite a performance gap between A, B and C, and a considerable range difference even between a C-6 and C-7. I believe the Navy requested extended range for the C-7 specifically to counter the (soon to be) absence of the AIM-54C+.

A, B, C1-4 use the original rocket motor.   C5 to some version of D use a different all-boost rocket motor, and there's been no news that I recall that it has been changed since.  All other performance relates to electronics, guidance, target detection, ECM rejection etc.

Edited September 29, 2022 by GGTharos

[Timo Niemelä]

12 hours ago, IronMike said:

I was mainly talking aim120c, the b will be much easier to go against, but it is still a successor to the aim54, a more modern, newer missile, and will have advantages and disadvantages alike.

That contrast has left me pondering what was even the point in upgrading the Phoenix instead of adopting the AIM-120, given that the AMRAAM was just around the corner and the C-model seems nothing but an expensive paper tiger in that context. 
Apologies for this bitter tone, I can’t help but to feel disappointed that the 1000 pounds of Cold War nostalgia called the Phoenix was far from being a weapon that in any way complimented the finest member of the prestigious Tomcat lineage, the F-14D. Then again, it was just a stopgap measure until the AIM-152 so understandably there was no reason to upgrade it very far.
With the awesome APG-71 and the passive tracking and targeting capabilities provided by the IRST, the F-14D should have been the king of BVR right until the F-22 came to claim that throne in 2005. Instead it ended up being the only teen-series fighter forced to carry obsolete junk while everyone else got to frolic around with their brand spanking new AMRAAMs. But the Cold War was over and that meant so was the Tomcat. 
Adding insult to injury, the Russians developed their R-33 Phoenix-clone into a truly hypersonic ultra long range missile, scoring a hit at 300km in 1994 test.

I'll try to get over my frustration somehow 

[Timo Niemelä]

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

A, B, C1-4 use the original rocket motor.   C5 to some version of D use a different all-boost rocket motor, and there's been no news that I recall that it has been changed since.  All other performance relates to electronics, guidance, target detection, ECM rejection etc.

Thanks! If you have links / sources on more detailed info about different AMRAAM variants please let me know. Does the D have a more powerful motor or is the extra range a result of squeezing everything out of the guidance computer?

[draconus]

13 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

I think they ran out of battery, I watched one in F6 view and it looked like it was gonna hit right up until the very last second. Then, just as I was about to shout “Yes! Have that pesky AWACS!” It nosed up and missed. I’m assuming the nose going up was when the battery ran out. This one was something like 50 miles away, me high and fast and awacs at 35k (obvs).

No, Phoenix battery lasts for over 3 mins so it can guide for over 100nm. Even then nose up is not how it behaves at depletion - it simply goes ballistic. AWACS keeping the orbit makes the missile correcting all the time from the start so it is slowing it down but not much, since longer range corrections have different parameters. It is probably hitting the notch at least once or twice so that is the result you get, at least in current DCS World.

[Zaphael]

17 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

Can I ask where the Mig 29S, or other redfor planes with fox 3s would fit in your explanation (which I enjoyed and makes perfect sense) please?

What I end up feeling is too much of an advantage against non fox 3 aircraft, and too much of a disadvantage against those that do have fox 3s. (All redfor btw)

Is there a happy middle ground, or is that just the way it is?

Quick addition edit: Though the Aim 54 is long range, in actuality against any fighter it isn’t really is it? I can’t hit a fighter that’s going to defend at anything over 40 miles. But that may just be me. In fact I couldn’t hit an orbiting awacs at over 40 miles, the orbit of the awacs seemed to confuse the missile.

 

I think much of the low kill probability at the moment (other than the missile going stupid), is due to the AI's response.

At the moment, the AI knows exactly where the hostile missile (phoenix) is within the active range or even 10 miles.

They break away in an exact manner to defeat the missile.

But that is likely not what the adversaries would encounter in real life. Based on the nature of the RWR in some of the MiGs, where the missile is would have been an educated guess. Diving at speed from altitude, the RWR may not be providing accurate information. But this is not the case in DCS.

Another "strangeness" is that missiles seem rather "floaty and draggy" in DCS. They tend to slow down to the point which they seem to float.

I would think with the fuel depleted, the missile should tipping over forward until they point straight down (in the absence of guidance fins movement).  In that situation, they shouldnt slow below their terminal velocity. Yet I've seen DCS missiles slow float quite a bit. They don't tip over and retain terminal velocity enough.

 

 

[KlarSnow]

2 hours ago, Timo Niemelä said:

That contrast has left me pondering what was even the point in upgrading the Phoenix instead of adopting the AIM-120, given that the AMRAAM was just around the corner and the C-model seems nothing but an expensive paper tiger in that context. 
Apologies for this bitter tone, I can’t help but to feel disappointed that the 1000 pounds of Cold War nostalgia called the Phoenix was far from being a weapon that in any way complimented the finest member of the prestigious Tomcat lineage, the F-14D. Then again, it was just a stopgap measure until the AIM-152 so understandably there was no reason to upgrade it very far.
With the awesome APG-71 and the passive tracking and targeting capabilities provided by the IRST, the F-14D should have been the king of BVR right until the F-22 came to claim that throne in 2005. Instead it ended up being the only teen-series fighter forced to carry obsolete junk while everyone else got to frolic around with their brand spanking new AMRAAMs. But the Cold War was over and that meant so was the Tomcat. 
Adding insult to injury, the Russians developed their R-33 Phoenix-clone into a truly hypersonic ultra long range missile, scoring a hit at 300km in 1994 test.

I'll try to get over my frustration somehow 

That R-37 didnt become an actually operational missile until nearly 2020, its also not in DCS. Just cause they tested something in 1993 does not mean they managed to make it work in 1993. Until very recently the R-37 was in the same boat as the AIM-152, nice test missile that just never got off the ground.

I think you will also find that the R-33 is not much more of a threat in DCS than the R-27 series missile. It used to have ridiculous energy retention and speed (maintaining mach 4 over a 60 mile straight line shot) much like the original LOMAC AIM-54 until sometime last year when ED made it obey the laws of physics again. Now it has nowhere near the range or capability of the AIM-54A or C for that matter.SARH only to boot.

[draconus]

5 minutes ago, Zaphael said:

Another "strangeness" is that missiles seem rather "floaty and draggy" in DCS. They tend to slow down to the point which they seem to float.

I would think with the fuel depleted, the missile should tipping over forward until they point straight down (in the absence of guidance fins movement).  In that situation, they shouldnt slow below their terminal velocity. Yet I've seen DCS missiles slow float quite a bit. They don't tip over and retain terminal velocity enough.

I thought we have put the performance thing behind with recent updates. Have you seen the charts DCS AIM-54 vs NASA simulations?

You're confusing fuel depletion with battery time. Only the latter will make the missile go ballistic.

AI evasion is the major factor for current missiles pk. While I agree with their RWRs overmodeled, their behavior should also change with their skill level. Devs confirm that it is modeled so check again the mission more realistic settings such as veterans and rookies with possibly one ace from time to time. They "know" the TWS-shot missile is coming but also they should expect one having F-14 on their RWR.

[Zaphael]

Not referring to the CFD. But rather how missile and even bomb physics feel a bit funny from time to time.

Sometimes when bombs loses energy, they don't dump attitude and nose down like they should. And I am not referring to bombs with wings... Just JDAMs and LGBs. They float, lose speed and float a bit more than expected.

Likewise, some missiles do that too. With fuel burned out, the CG should shift drastically forward. But some can retain nose level attitude and trade all that energy for that even when there's nothing left to chase.

But I digress. It's not an issue specific to Phoenix.

I like the Phoenix at the moment, except when they decide to ride the merry go round.

[Spurts]

5 hours ago, Timo Niemelä said:

Thanks! If you have links / sources on more detailed info about different AMRAAM variants please let me know. Does the D have a more powerful motor or is the extra range a result of squeezing everything out of the guidance computer?

more efficient loft profile.  You can add a lot of range with better lofting logic.

Edited September 29, 2022 by Spurts

[Machalot]

5 hours ago, Zaphael said:

With fuel burned out, the CG should shift drastically forward. But some can retain nose level attitude and trade all that energy for that even when there's nothing left to chase.

A forward cg should not cause a strong pitch down, it should result in stable flight at zero angle of attack. The only reason the nose should pitch down is to follow the flight path as gravity bends it down. That can happen quite slowly.  I don't know what your intuitive expectation is, but at Mach 1 level flight the gravity turn effect is less that 2 degrees per second.

[GGTharos]

11 hours ago, Timo Niemelä said:

Thanks! If you have links / sources on more detailed info about different AMRAAM variants please let me know. Does the D have a more powerful motor or is the extra range a result of squeezing everything out of the guidance computer?

I do/had, but it'll been a long time and I don't feel like re-doing the research

Currently the only thing known about the D is that the two-way datalink and essentially what you said is what gives it extra range - this is a 'system' thing, where the AESA radars also help use it to the best of its abilities.

There was supposed to be a new motor for the D (the C5 is, IIRC, and do not quote me on this, known as the +10 inch motor, and I believe the C7/8/D was supposed to get the +15 but again..I forget) but the motor upgrade didn't actually happen for the D.

[WarthogOsl]

I've only recently started noticing the issue of missiles careening off 90+ degrees off course when tracks are dropped, and I know that's a known issue, but I was wondering, is the dropping tracks so often new as well?  It seems too often happen immediately after launch.  I was wondering if the missile itself was briefly blocking the radar as it passed by the nose and causing it (dunno if that's modeled).  Maybe that was happening before and I never noticed it because the system/missile just shrugs it off that brief track loss?  And if that's the case, will quickly moving the nose left or right immediately after launch help (until its fixed)?

[RustBelt]

13 hours ago, Timo Niemelä said:

That contrast has left me pondering what was even the point in upgrading the Phoenix instead of adopting the AIM-120, given that the AMRAAM was just around the corner and the C-model seems nothing but an expensive paper tiger in that context. 
Apologies for this bitter tone, I can’t help but to feel disappointed that the 1000 pounds of Cold War nostalgia called the Phoenix was far from being a weapon that in any way complimented the finest member of the prestigious Tomcat lineage, the F-14D. Then again, it was just a stopgap measure until the AIM-152 so understandably there was no reason to upgrade it very far.
With the awesome APG-71 and the passive tracking and targeting capabilities provided by the IRST, the F-14D should have been the king of BVR right until the F-22 came to claim that throne in 2005. Instead it ended up being the only teen-series fighter forced to carry obsolete junk while everyone else got to frolic around with their brand spanking new AMRAAMs. But the Cold War was over and that meant so was the Tomcat. 
Adding insult to injury, the Russians developed their R-33 Phoenix-clone into a truly hypersonic ultra long range missile, scoring a hit at 300km in 1994 test.

I'll try to get over my frustration somehow 

The big thing with the C was. The airframes and motors were already bought, and it could be used as a bigger, easier to work with proof of concept. By the time of the C, the NAVY knew that they were never getting any real work out of the phoenix. So you either just throw out Millions of dollars or you make some lemonade and learn some stuff with already amortized frames. 
 

We know the 14D tested and was going to be ready to carry AIM-120s before they were end of life. But they never got rid of the Phoenix to justify doing that because 14Ds were better at being bombcats given that carriers always operated with joint forces protection anywhere shooting was happening. So the C was just a means of recouping losses in the AIM-54 program through testing for newer FOX-3 development.

[Callsign JoNay]

On 9/23/2022 at 9:53 PM, WarthogOsl said:

Was there a change to the guidance or loft profile in the most recent patch (from Weds...I'm not referring to the previous patch that reduced the Mk 60's impulse)?  I've noticed my Phoenix's (mostly 54C Mk 60's) are only getting to around 60k ft, whereas previously they'd go up over 70k ft.

 

I've noticed this too. Two patches ago the missile would pitch up 60+ deg and climb to 80k, sometimes even over 100k depending on the range to it's target. We were all advised by the devs to stop assisting the loft of our phoenix shots and deploy them in level attitude to prevent them from over-lofting their targets. Now I'm finding the loft trajectory to be much lower. If I'm at 40K, level flight, the C47 only climbs to 55-60k. I've actually gone back to assisting the loft again.

Is this intended behavior?

[Sideburns]

1 hour ago, WarthogOsl said:

I've only recently started noticing the issue of missiles careening off 90+ degrees off course when tracks are dropped, and I know that's a known issue, but I was wondering, is the dropping tracks so often new as well?  It seems too often happen immediately after launch.  I was wondering if the missile itself was briefly blocking the radar as it passed by the nose and causing it (dunno if that's modeled).  Maybe that was happening before and I never noticed it because the system/missile just shrugs it off that brief track loss?  And if that's the case, will quickly moving the nose left or right immediately after launch help (until its fixed)?

I had also noted this issue, the track loss at launch, and assumed it was the radar or TCS picking up the missile for some reason and prioritising the tracking of the missile over the TWS targets.

[Drangoll]

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

 

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Drangoll

[KlarSnow]

Check this post and the previous 2-3 pages in front of it out.

30,000 feet is low, get up to 40,000 feet and you will see better performance.

Mach 4 numbers will only really happen if you are very fast and very high.

[Drangoll]

29 minuti fa, KlarSnow ha scritto:

Check this post and the previous 2-3 pages in front of it out.

30,000 feet is low, get up to 40,000 feet and you will see better performance.

Mach 4 numbers will only really happen if you are very fast and very high.

Tested right now at 46000 feet at mach 1.0. Missile reached a max of 3.27 mach at 64k feet

Edited September 30, 2022 by Drangoll

[KlarSnow]

What range are you shooting at, and compare that to the curves. Shorter ranged shots will have lower top speeds because the missile doesnt stay in the loft and thinner atmosphere as much. Longer range shots will go faster and get up into 100K plus feet. Mach 1 is the baseline for employment. If you are looking for peak mach you need to be faster. 1.2 is a decent starting speed. Dont expect the missile to reach above mach 4 unless you are going faster than mach 1.5 at launch.

Again, look at the data presented, the missile is behaving as it should. You will have to work much harder to get it to reach higher speeds.

16 minutes ago, Drangoll said:

Tested right now at 46000 feet at mach 1.0. Missile reached a max of 3.27 mach at 64k feet

 

page prior to what I posted, this is how you get the missile to go faster than mach 4. Note the launch airspeeds in the tacviews. Faster than mach 1.5…

[Drangoll]

28 minuti fa, KlarSnow ha scritto:

What range are you shooting at, and compare that to the curves. Shorter ranged shots will have lower top speeds because the missile doesnt stay in the loft and thinner atmosphere as much. Longer range shots will go faster and get up into 100K plus feet. Mach 1 is the baseline for employment. If you are looking for peak mach you need to be faster. 1.2 is a decent starting speed. Dont expect the missile to reach above mach 4 unless you are going faster than mach 1.5 at launch.

Again, look at the data presented, the missile is behaving as it should. You will have to work much harder to get it to reach higher speeds.

page prior to what I posted, this is how you get the missile to go faster than mach 4. Note the launch airspeeds in the tacviews. Faster than mach 1.5…

Understood , thank you

[Timo Niemelä]

19 hours ago, RustBelt said:

The big thing with the C was. The airframes and motors were already bought, and it could be used as a bigger, easier to work with proof of concept. By the time of the C, the NAVY knew that they were never getting any real work out of the phoenix. So you either just throw out Millions of dollars or you make some lemonade and learn some stuff with already amortized frames. 
 

We know the 14D tested and was going to be ready to carry AIM-120s before they were end of life. But they never got rid of the Phoenix to justify doing that because 14Ds were better at being bombcats given that carriers always operated with joint forces protection anywhere shooting was happening. So the C was just a means of recouping losses in the AIM-54 program through testing for newer FOX-3 development.

That makes perfect sense. The successor of the Phoenix was to become in the form of a completely new missile (AIM-152) that was already in the works and bore very little resemblance to that 60's thing it was meant to replace. Even though the Phoenix airframe would have allowed fitting a much more powerful motor (like the R-37 which finally entered service after decades in "development Hell"), it still would have resulted in an oversized missile that could be carried in fewer numbers with extra drag and weight.
Like you said, there was simply no reason to go all out on the AIM-54C, in fact the opposite, for making the best use of tax dollars. 
The fact that the F-14D never got the AMRAAM makes sense as well. The Tomcat was headed towards retirement as soon as the Super Tomcat 21 got cancelled in favor of the Super Hornet, and given the existing stockpile of pricey AIM-54's only the Tomcats could use, it's hard to justify upgrading the F-14D's to carry other FOX3's.
 

[Spurts]

The F-14 never got the AIM-120 because the funding set aside for AIM-120 integration was reallocated to LANTIRN integration after a successful test was demonstrated, allowing the F-14 to have precision strike capability before Hornets did.

[GGTharos]

9 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Unless you work on the program or have a security clearence you either dont know or cant talk about it. We know very little about the 120D other than the fact it's better than the 120C7 and has a two way DL with GPS.

This isn't the AIM-260.   AIM-120 info isn't always easily forthcoming but contracts for new rocket motors usually show up in certain industry publications, and sometimes in other sources.   Such sources were used for the rocket motor formulation in DCS right now, so why are you trying to tell me what I know and what I don't?   If I had clearance, how would you know what it covers or doesn't?

8 hours ago, Timo Niemelä said:

That makes perfect sense. The successor of the Phoenix was to become in the form of a completely new missile (AIM-152) that was already in the works and bore very little resemblance to that 60's thing it was meant to replace. Even though the Phoenix airframe would have allowed fitting a much more powerful motor (like the R-37 which finally entered service after decades in "development Hell"), it still would have resulted in an oversized missile that could be carried in fewer numbers with extra drag and weight.
Like you said, there was simply no reason to go all out on the AIM-54C, in fact the opposite, for making the best use of tax dollars. 
The fact that the F-14D never got the AMRAAM makes sense as well. The Tomcat was headed towards retirement as soon as the Super Tomcat 21 got cancelled in favor of the Super Hornet, and given the existing stockpile of pricey AIM-54's only the Tomcats could use, it's hard to justify upgrading the F-14D's to carry other FOX3's.
 

There was also an air-breathing AIM-120 tested in '96 or '97, and was later shelved.

Edited September 30, 2022 by GGTharos

[feeleyat]

15 hours ago, KlarSnow said:

Check this post and the previous 2-3 pages in front of it out.

30,000 feet is low, get up to 40,000 feet and you will see better performance.

Mach 4 numbers will only really happen if you are very fast and very high.

How fast is fast and how high is high. 40k at 1.2m mach netted 3.4 on a 60nm. coaltitude bandit. Are you talking angels 50? No sarcasm. I'm actually curious. I always just use them like a fox three sparrow just to loose the weight and get lucky @ angels 10 10nm to limited effect after the update.