Firing aim7m and aim 54c

[samba_liten]

I'm following Chuck's guide to fire using Jester to lock targets in STT mode. I can't hit anything.

I gather that the aim7m is extremely short ranged in dcs, is that still the case?

What's up with the aim 54? Or is it me being a noob?

 

Thanks!

[Despayre]

My basic launch parameters for the Phoenix... 

at least 60 miles out (and assuming Jester has already locked them up)

Above 30,000

The faster the better, mach 1-ish at least.

When ready to fire, I angle up 30 degrees, and do a roll so that the missile leaves the rail while my belly is pointed at the sky (timing is just practice), and it's generally pointed the way it's going to loft anyway

I hit more than I miss. YMMV.

[near_blind]

30 minutes ago, samba_liten said:

I gather that the aim7m is extremely short ranged in dcs, is that still the case?

Depends on the situation. Against a target that's running for its life on the deck? You probably want to wait until you're within five miles. Supersonic at medium altitude? You can shoot at 20 and the missile will have a reasonable chance of getting them if they don't react violently. Supersonic at 50 thousand feet I nailed an AI Flanker from 37 miles with an -7MH. 

[scommander2]

@near_blind any suggestion for 7P?  Thanks.

[Amarok_73]

Flying F-14 for more than three years, most time on RIO's position with pretty decent pilot I can tell that now this module is barely flyable comparing to the "old good times" version when the F-14 signature itself on the RWR caused panic and fear in enemies hearts.
Now, even flying against the cold war planes the efficiency in BVR is far from satisfactory, even if the one have decent, live RIO on his back, who knows what his position is about and have Karon's Virtual Backseaters manual in his pinkie.

Sadly, now any new flyers come to us with questions what two-seater module to buy we point to F-15E just because AIM-120 employment is way less frustrating than our once belowed Phoenixes. And still we have to have in minds, that not all people who come to the DCS can accept such a challenge and small efficiency as famous F-14 presents comparing to other modules in play.

 

[DD_Fenrir]

1 hour ago, Amarok_73 said:

Flying F-14 for more than three years, most time on RIO's position with pretty decent pilot I can tell that now this module is barely flyable comparing to the "old good times" version when the F-14 signature itself on the RWR caused panic and fear in enemies hearts.
Now, even flying against the cold war planes the efficiency in BVR is far from satisfactory, even if the one have decent, live RIO on his back, who knows what his position is about and have Karon's Virtual Backseaters manual in his pinkie.

Sadly, now any new flyers come to us with questions what two-seater module to buy we point to F-15E just because AIM-120 employment is way less frustrating than our once belowed Phoenixes. And still we have to have in minds, that not all people who come to the DCS can accept such a challenge and small efficiency as famous F-14 presents comparing to other modules in play.

 

Their loss.

After a 6 month multi-player campaign we are finding the AIM-54C mk60 Phoenixes have a Pk of almost 40%. That does not take into account the bugged implementation that occurred in May where the performance was dismal. Note that his will have brought the average down.

This compares to 51% for AIM-7s.

Our sister Hornet squadron was achieving a 52% Pk with their AIM-120Cs.

Is this realistic? We will never know. The only succesful Phoenixes launched in anger were AIM-54As by the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force and we have no corroborating data of what their Pk was.

 

Several things we have learned:

1. TWS is not great for anti-fighter work. Flying as a section, sorting properly and using STT against fighter targets is much more reliable for keeping the Phoenie-bombs from going to space.

It is documented by real RIOS that the AWG-9 was not brilliant for TWS tracking multiple fighter-sized manoeuvring targets over-land. Some of the problems you may be experiencing are the result of the AWG-9 and it's limitations, not the missiles.

2. Successful engagements have been had at 55nm against hot, co- or near-alt bandits from ~30,000ft. However, if the bandit is significantly lower the AIM-54 suffers a lot more from it's draggy form as the missile gets lower, resulting in lower energy at terminal phase. You have to compensate for that by reducing the launch range appropriately. Similarly, if targets are not directly hot but slightly oblique, this has to allowed for by compressing the launch range slightly.

3. Firing between 20 and 30nm is a bit of a black hole for the missile - it's trajectory, to make sure it doesn't loft over the target at this range, does not allow it to get to high enough altitude to benefit from the lower air pressure and reduced drag up there and this results in lower energy at terminal phase. Upshot, is take shots from 60nm down to 30nm.

4. Under 16nm the missile is pretty capable - the long burn time means it still has good E at burnout. Plus when it goes active you have the benefit of going cold.

5. The latest Phoenix versions have reasonable notch resistance - not exemplary, but not awful - with the important aspect that if the target reappears from the notch within the Phoenix seeker's Field of View it WILL reacquire. Compared to the AIM-120 it seems like a reasonable performer considering the older age of the Phoenix. 

This however relies on your target not maintaining good notch discipline. If your target is an experienced breather operator, well... they'll defeat it.

6. Your AI targets have a vote. If they defend by cranking when the AIM-54 goes active then, given good launching parameters, the AIM-54 hit's more often than not. However, if the AI have the altitude to perform a Split-S defence when they detect the active Phoenix, more often than not they defeat it kinematically.

There are questions as to the whether AI's efficacy at detecting and reacting to active missiles is OP but that's an AI problem.

7. DCS netcode is a factor. I have more reliable performance from the AWG-9/AIM-54 offline than I do online. This is to be expected. Packet loss and vagaries in connection cause less reliable track files in TWS (one reason for our decision to push to STT launches) and even in STT we still get some 'airball' AIM-54s. 

Is there still polishing to do? I suspect so. We're still to see EDs new missile API and what that brings to the AIM-54 so... watch this space.

Ultimately, expecting a 1970's radar and missile to perform as well as a 1980's radar with a 1990's missile is... disingenuous.

There are challenges to using the Cat and the Phoenix. It ain't an I win button, especially against an opponent who is cogent of it's limitations. But that's where the challenge - and dare I say, the fun - lies.

Again, it's not an I win button. And I for one am glad of that.

Edited December 7, 2023 by DD_Fenrir

[Amarok_73]

@DD_Fenrir Thank You for sharing all this information. Good summary and solid batch of information, that I can appreciate, as the community we fly within is rather small, and there's not much opportunity to make so detailed observations.

I'll keep all what You wrote in mind in future, and try to employ this knowledge.

[DD_Fenrir]

On 11/3/2023 at 12:03 AM, scommander2 said:

@near_blind any suggestion for 7P?  Thanks.

In our Air Wing given that by the time we get to Sparrow employment ranges, the fight has generally descended to 15-20,000ft I typically hold till fire till 8nm or less.

This means you can expect to be defending their R-27ER/R-77/AIM-7/Matra/AIM-120 shots before you can fire. You have a few of options:

1. Defend these with notching / cold tactics as appropriate then try and get nose on for a Sparrow shot but expect a missile at you as you do so. If it's a Fox-1, hope your target goes defensive and breaks his own lock allowing you to press.

If it's a Fox-3 you'll have to either (a) try to notch it and hold the notch to the merge (ballsy and risky) or (b ) go cold immediately and then re-attack when you can.

2. Get an AIM-54 out on them just prior to their weapon employment to force them defensive so they trash their own missile early and you crank. But go Hot as soon as you dare and go in full burner, balls-out, to wind the range down to <10nm quickly enough that when they start coming nose on again you're in optimum AIM-7 launch parameters.

3. If you're outta AIM-54s, waste a Sparrow on a shot to force them defensive so they trash their own missile early and crank. But, like previously, go Hot as soon as you dare and go in full burner, balls-out, to wind the range down to <10nm quickly enough that when they start coming nose on again you're in optimum AIM-7 launch parameters.

Sparrow love speed so if you can be >Mach 1 on launch, it helps.

[Schmidtfire]

The really big problem is jamming targets below 10000 feet. We’re denied BVR shots until we’re within the ”black hole”  Phoenix envelope. At closer ranges the AIM-54 burn time is nice, but it is like a slow moving truck… The drag when launched at lower altitudes is massive. Maybe Im wrong, but at least in DCS, the Tomcat is very situational. You can get BVR kills against unsuspecting fighters flying 30k with ECM off. But in most situations you need to push into the merge just hoping you have better SA than the other guy. At least that’s my experience.

[draconus]

20 hours ago, Amarok_73 said:

Sadly, now any new flyers come to us with questions what two-seater module to buy we point to F-15E just because AIM-120 employment is way less frustrating than our once belowed Phoenixes. And still we have to have in minds, that not all people who come to the DCS can accept such a challenge and small efficiency as famous F-14 presents comparing to other modules in play.

Why "sadly"? You either like the jet and want to fly it, with all its features and limitations, or you just care about MP score in unrealistic battles and base your purchase on that - and 2-seater is probably not the best option.