AIM 54 - best tactics?

[Callsign JoNay]

7 hours ago, QuiGon said:

What? Since when can the PDSTT of the AWG-9 not be notched? I see that hapening all the time

Are you playing an old build? It got changed somewhere between 6 months to 1 year ago, I believe. The AWG-9's PDSTT is only notched by the zero doppler filter now, not the MLC filter. (PD search modes can still be notched both ways though).

When I asked HB why the 54, which has a PD radar, can be notched by perpendicular aspects but the AWG's PDSTT can't be, I was told it's because HB controls one while ED controls the other. 🫤 So we can chalk the 54's behavior to notching targets up to either 1. API limitation, or 2. ED game-balancing the Phoenix. Combine that with the evasive pull up maneuver I reported in ED's forum, and the Phoenix has a major problem aside from its nerfed overhauled kinetics.

PS. Thank you for the server recommend. 

[bonesvf103]

Also I believe that non doppler radar modes cannot be notched (Pulse Search) but then the target can hinde in the noise from the ground clutter instead and the range is decreased because of processing said returns.

v6,

boNes

[RustBelt]

22 hours ago, TOMCATZ said:

What?! You mean- the AIM54 use computer tech from 1972? Your comparison hinks a bit, buddy. 

You do know when the Tomcat and the AIM-54 came into service right? The F-14 used some of the FIRST single Chip Microprocessors. 

https://www.wired.com/story/secret-history-of-the-first-microprocessor-f-14/

Edited February 23, 2023 by RustBelt

[The_Tau]

As it was noted before AIM-54 Phoenix is NOT  AIM-120 AMRAAM

- its much older (concept from 1950s, design/electronics from 1960s or best case 1986 for 54C - 14 YEARS before 120C-5)
- DIFFERENT PURPOSE! from different era!
- Different shape/weight class (needless to say there are no more short, fat missiles, but rather long and thin - there is good reason for it)

You have the biggest radar ever fitted to fighter, best detection and possible engagement range at least until Eurofighter arrives. 

From those facts IMO limiting yourself to 30-35nm shots (like you would employ with 120) is a great handicap and limitation placed on F14. 

AIM54 is fast in comparison to other weapons which were in service at the time of its introduction in 1974, mainly AIM-7 sparrow. Comparing it to 2000s AIM120C-5 is pointless

However it got poor acceleration and ridicules' drag, employing it like 120 will put you in great disadvantage. Needless to say that AIM54 mk47 will have great difficulty to break mach 2 when fired from below 10k, mach 0.9

Firing at 30nm will allow bandit (except one armed with IR missiles or like MiG21) to potentially /spot you/lock you/fire at you/go defensive even before your 54 goes active. All he really needs to do is to go into notch for few seconds and your TWS track is gone. On top of that 54 will not have really energy to do anything to really threaten him. If your goal is to force him to go defensive, you might as well fire AIM7 preserving 54s for closer ranges for Fire and Forget capability 

AIM54 when employed correctly is amazingly good at keeping same amount of energy over distance. Missile energy wise for TWS shots, there is not much difference between 35nm shot or 60-70nm shot. MIssile will arrive at pitbull point with very similar energy. So why not use that to your advantage and fire from longer range, and stay outside enemy engagement range?

If bandit is at above 40k when missile which still have at least 2.5 mach of energy goes active, PK of 54 is very high even against ACE AI or humans. 

Here is an interview with former F14 crew member that said that they doctrine of using 54s was to fire at 40nm ranges up to 30nm for TWS shots. then 30nm-20nm was missile "deadzone" as bandit will be much more aware of danger from you due to your proximity to him, and more likely to start defensive maneuvers.  And then they would use STT at ranges 20nm and less. In my experience in DCS these ranges are very much true or even you could use mentioned older distances of firing at 60nm. In PvP especially, if bandit is high above 30k-35k at 60nm he still is ingresing towards target area, thinking he is completely safe. He might arm bombs, check phone whatever, and suddenly got RWR warning. He might even ignore it thinking its for someone else. You add to that at least 1.2 mach, 30k-40k ft alt you would be cruising, following Missile Abort Ranges (for 120 especially), and then you are extremely hard to kill to any SPAMRAM throwers (F-15 included).

Edited February 23, 2023 by The_Tau

[bonesvf103]

I have many times argued the point that what is the point of having a $1.5 million long range missile that shoots and kills in the same effective range as an AMRAAM.  I got a ridiculous amount of responses both for and against this argument, and most of them were against.  To me it came down to, well, this is how it works in DCS as opposed to the real world and I am flying DCS not the real world so I will have to submit to that.

The only part that I really got was that it was meant for big bombers at long range, like the Tu-95, that can't really maneuver and such.  So yeah, against something like that, sure, set your target size to large and shoot at 110+ miles.  But against a smaller fighter not so, since they are more maneuverable and better equipped.  I get that too, but then I would think shots at say 50+ miles would be effective.  Shooting at 30nm or less makes the Phoenix seem pointless since AMRAAM can do that.  Of course the Tomcat doesn't carry AMRAAM.  But again, I got so many arguments for and against that that it came down to meas being a fair tradeoff in the sim only.

The thread where I pointed out what you said was here My post on page 15 all the responses following):

 

I get alot of the arguments, and agree with many of them, but given the random inconsistency I get every time I fly the mission in the same way and under the same conditions, or even in different, I don't get consistent results.  So I am left to just make do with what has been given to me and await all those fixes that are being promised and so on, whether it's realistic or not.

v6,

boNes

[Karon]

@TOMCATZ: before you start, keep in mind that I wrote the following rather quickly. Give me a shout if there's something not clear

 

/**************************************************************************/

I thought I had more time, it turns out I didn't. @The_Tau has already lined up some facts, so I'm just going to add some numbers. Keep in mind the "age" thing. In primis, remember that the Tomcat is closer to a P-47 (32 years) than a JF-17 (33 years). This is a hyperbole, ofc, but it bluntly puts into perspective what we are dealing with.

In secundis, you can read a lot of diverse and often wrong takes on the Phoenix on the internet. Trust the numbers, leave the rest out.

 

PERFORMANCE

Let's start with the performance. Ab initio players tend to miss the huge differences between common missiles and the Phoenix. This will probably happen again with the Meteor, at some point.

 

The following is the impact speed of the C Mk47 vs range. Forget the loft for a minute, and look at the speed. Scenario: hot, Vc ~M1.9, 35,000ft.

As you can see, it is not linear, and it is rather stable after a certain point.

 

Let's use a different chart now. Same ordinate and abscissa, this time standard employment, no loft. They differ a bit because the criteria and the parameters of the scenario are different, primarily Vc (in this scenario the target is static):

Due to the low Vc, this chart highlights better the performance of the missiles.

See that big jump in the performance? This is due to how the Phoenix is controlled and commanded by the WCS. All this is explained in the manual, but it is paramount from the proper employment of the missile.

 

Something these charts don't tell you, is how the vertical plane is used, so let's move to chart #3, which shows the Apex of the envelope.

The employment altitude for this scenario was 35k. To no one's surprise, at 20 nm the altitude is 35k. Then, it increases almost linearly through the envelope. However, this affects the separation at timeout:

 

The separation is again rather linear, and it settles at around 35%-40% of the initial separation.

Problem: the chart above shows a manually lofted missile. Otherwise, the performance is worse.

 

So, to put everything into context, we have a long stick, performance between 15-20 nm is poor, until ~30/35 nm is ok-ish, but very slow compared to others.

Speaking of others, let's see how much modern missile compare to the AIM-54C Mk47 (1986). Here we have the AIM-120B (1994) and the R-27ER (1990, apparently?).

 

The 120B is comparable-ish, it has advantages and disadvantages. At long range, the Phoenix prevails.

The R-27ER is the fastest missile in DCS and blows even the AIM-120C-5 and the SD-10 out of the water. I wonder what they feed the missiles with in China, the SD-10 is damn fast! lol

 

Important: I consider a cutoff date in my scenarios equal to mid 90s. Why? Because the geopolitical situation caused a lot of chances in the evolution of the Tomcat, the AIM-152 and so on, and we don't even have the F-14D.
There is little point playing with an almost mid Cold War aircraft vs modern stuff. Therefore, I won't consider AIM-120C and SD-10.

This is only a partial relief, as the R-27ER is still a huge threat (although notching in DCS is too easy. It shouldn't be like that).

 

Comparing R-27ER and AIM-54C, we notice that, within a ~20nm, there is no story and the R-27ER performs better. The 120B is somewhat comparable depending on the range, and the Super 530D sits between the envelope of the 120B and the AIM-54. Also, this is a hot scenario, the moment the missile has to turn, farewell energy.

 

So, in conclusion: let's take advantage of our strengths and employ at a range that allows us to safely shoot, and allows us enough room for second employment. 60 nm is a sweet spot, especially if you add a bit of loft. Considering cranking by definition (55ATA), A-Pole is around 25-30 nm. This should allow Out before MAR. Or, you can defend, assess and decide what to do next. The target has to defend the shot (btw, shooting to force someone to defend is nonsense, you shoot to kill), as at A-Pole its speed is M2+:

 

Whatever you have decided, now we get to a shorter timeline, the important is employing in a situation where A-Pole > MAR. Although the 54C gives you a bit more room.

 

The tricky bit here is making sure that you are launching at an advantageous range. If ~10/13nm < separation < 21 nm, then you are in for the worst performance possible of the missile. So, let's say we are down to 15k, MAR R-27ER should be ~17nm, if you shoot at 30+nm, the separation at A-Pole should be around 14/16 nm, which is dangerous but feasible (I'm eyeballing here). The last step depends on your plan. If banzai, notch for a few seconds (it's very easy in the Tomcat, especially with LINK4), if naked go in; otherwise I'd abort, bugout and wave goodbye. The Su-27 should not be able to catch you. You can almost always force a draw against any opponent.

 

I tried to keep this is as simple and plain as possible. If you are new to this, and it sounds like plenty of random words, trust me, it's stupidly easy, and it's not as fancy as it sounds:

- shoot at long range (60nm);

- crank, manage speed to reduce Vc;

- A-Pole, go out or prepare a follow-up shot;

- second shot, monitor MAR, then merge or run away.

 

Obviously, the problem with long-range shots, is that they are easily to defeat kinematically. A crank, sometimes, is more than enough. That's why the Phoenix is very strong in realistic, low SA scenarios. For example, in the Cold War, RWRs weren't as precise or common as today. In the Iran - Iraq war, but also in the 90s Gulf War, you see people dying whilst driving straight into a missile. In DCS, this does not happen at all! Humans know everything all the time as SA is too easy to obtain on any server, the avionics of many modules is better than an F-35, and the AI can notch perfectly even with the most basic RWR. These are some of the great issues of the Phoenix right now, but the biggest is the lack of understanding of the missile which, hopefully, it is now a bit more clear.

 

RESOURCES

Various definitions: https://flyandwire.com/2020/12/24/intercept-geometry-part-ii-definitions/

WEZ, MAR, LAR + Tool: the plan was to create a proper WEZ model for the 15 most common missiles in DCS, I don't have time to complete it right now, so this is more like a NEZ model. Get the missile performance tool linked inside: https://flyandwire.com/2023/02/17/determining-wez-mar-lar/

AIM-54 Manual loft - Part I: intro to the AIM-54. The Phoenix is unique, if you don't understand it, you're going to have problems.

AIM-54 Manual loft - Part II: data discussion: kind of interesting if you want to squeeze a bit more energy out of the missile - at a cost.

 

First look at the "new" AIM-54: written right after the patch. They should still work for a quick, non-in-depth overview.

Energy: https://flyandwire.com/2022/09/05/new-aim-54-brief-look-part-ii-energy/

Guidance: https://flyandwire.com/2022/09/05/new-aim-54-brief-look-part-i-guidance/

Edited February 23, 2023 by Karon
typo

[The_Tau]

@bonesvf103 can you send that F4E mission you made? I find it interesting they started chaffing immediately when you fired. Also finding best tactic for doom scenarios is kinda my hobby

[TOMCATZ]

Wow! Fantastic job

Im in Germany for some days and can not work on my computer. Anyways...as soon as I will be back home...for sure I will study your work!

Thanks mate and cheers

Tom

PS...found some old stuff. I started enjoying flight Sims 1995 with Su27 Flanker from SSI

Edited February 23, 2023 by TOMCATZ

[bonesvf103]

22 hours ago, The_Tau said:

@bonesvf103 can you send that F4E mission you made? I find it interesting they started chaffing immediately when you fired. Also finding best tactic for doom scenarios is kinda my hobby

Sure, check your PMs!

v6,

boNes

[Karon]

On 2/23/2023 at 5:55 PM, TOMCATZ said:

Wow! Fantastic job

Im in Germany for some days and can not work on my computer. Anyways...as soon as I will be back home...for sure I will study your work!

Thanks mate and cheers

Tom

PS...found some old stuff. I started enjoying flight Sims 1995 with Su27 Flanker from SSI

 

Nice! The first flight game I properly played for F-22 ADF in what, 1997? Then a bit of Falcon 4.0, then Il2, BS→ DCS.

Np about the data, I had them around for a while, but I'm still in the process of giving them a greater sense of purpose. Problem is, it takes time.
Enjoy Germany (feel free to share a Bratwurst )!

[The_Tau]

Tacview-20230223-233951-DCS.zip.acmi

I admit this was my second take and I was very lucky that AI was in the end Rookie/trained (set as random in ME)

This scenario is very tough for 54C as all drones are flying low (by 54 standards), but if they were simple CAP, and climb to 40k 54 could kill them quite easily 

[bonesvf103]

Nicely done.  What happened to Virtual Pilot 7?  Looks like he never spawned.  You had 5 out of 5 Phoenix kills, so you must have come back with your 6th Phoenix still aboard.

v6,

boNes

Edited February 27, 2023 by bonesvf103

[The_Tau]

21 minutes ago, bonesvf103 said:

Nicely done.  What happened to Virtual Pilot 7?  Looks like he never spawned.  You had 5 out of 5 Phoenix kills, so you must have come back with your 6th Phoenix still aboard.

v6,

boNes

 

Yes, had 1 left. Just like you. I noticed 1 guy spawns right in side of mountain. Bad spawn placement...

[bonesvf103]

12 hours ago, The_Tau said:

Yes, had 1 left. Just like you. I noticed 1 guy spawns right in side of mountain. Bad spawn placement...

Yes, there is something odd in that before the patches all 6 would spawn properly.  This mission is pretty old.

v6,

boNes

[RustBelt]

9 hours ago, bonesvf103 said:

Yes, there is something odd in that before the patches all 6 would spawn properly.  This mission is pretty old.

v6,

boNes

This is why the whole endeavor is insane! DCS is a never ending moving target.