[BUG/FEEDBACK] F-14 Supersonic performance and AIM-54 Speed underpformance

[MKdabess]

[FEEDBACK/BUG REPORT] F-14 Supersonic Performance & AIM-54 Missile Speed

Module: DCS: F-14A/B (Heatblur)
Version: [DCS 2.9.20.15010 (not open beta)]
Date Tested: [September 19th. 2025]
Environment: Single Player, Caucasus maps

---

1. Issue Summary

• The F-14A and F-14B appear to accelerate far too slowly at supersonic speeds compared to both historical reports and available engine data.

• The AIM-54 Phoenix consistently underperforms in maximum Mach compared to declassified NASA test data and operational reports.

• Both issues may stem from excessive modeled supersonic wave drag.

---

2. Detailed Description

F-14 Supersonic Performance

• In DCS, both the F-14A and F-14B struggle to accelerate past Mach 1.1–1.2 at altitude, even in afterburner and at reduced fuel weights.

• Sustained acceleration from subsonic to Mach 1.5 is unrealistically slow — in some cases nearly impossible.

• Historical reports (e.g., Iranian Air Force accounts during the Iran-Iraq War) describe the F-14 rapidly accelerating from Mach 0.4 to Mach 1.5 while climbing from 35,000 ft to 45,000 ft, closing distance on a MiG-25 that was already at Mach 1.8-2.2.

• In real-world service, the F-14 was considered exceptionally fast at altitude, often leaving F-4s and F/A-18s behind. This is not reflected in DCS, where the jet feels drag-limited.

• Notably, the F-14B in-game sometimes appears slower than the F-14A at high-altitude acceleration, despite having significantly more powerful F110 engines with better engine specifications.

Engine Comparison (sourced via NASA / manufacturer / Wikipedia data):

• TF30-P-414A: ~20,900 lbf thrust, BPR 0.878, PR 19.8.

• F110-GE-400: ~28,800–29,000 lbf thrust, BPR 0.87, PR 30.4.

• The higher thrust and pressure ratio of the F110 engines should give the F-14B a clear supersonic acceleration advantage, which is not seen in-game.

---

AIM-54 Phoenix Maximum Speed

• The AIM-54 in DCS rarely exceeds Mach 3.4–4 in optimal launch conditions.

• NASA test data confirms the AIM-54A routinely exceeded Mach 5 in development launches.

• Multiple operational/training reports describe Phoenix reaching Mach 4+ in real-world firings.

• The in-game missile performance, particularly in maximum Mach achieved, is significantly under-represented compared to these sources.

---

3. Steps to Reproduce

F-14

1. Load clean F-14A or F-14B (>12000lb of fuel).

2. Climb to ~35,000–40,000 ft.

3. Accelerate through Mach 0.9 → 1.5 in full afterburner.

4. Observe acceleration rate vs. expected performance and historic documentation.

AIM-54

1. Load F-14B with AIM-54C.

2. Climb to ~36,000 ft, Mach 1.2.

3. Fire Phoenix at long range (>60 nmi) at target with similar altitude and speed

4. Track missile speed via F10/Tacview — note maximum Mach achieved rarely exceeds ~3.4.

---

4. Expected Behavior

F-14

• The F-14A should achieve Mach 2.3–2.34 at altitude clean, per NATOPS.

• The F-14B, with F110 engines, should outperform the A in high-altitude supersonic acceleration.

• Rapid transonic/supersonic acceleration should be achievable under favorable conditions.

AIM-54

• Test and operational data indicate Mach 4+ routinely, Mach 5 in some cases.

• In-game performance should reflect this in high-energy launches.

---

5. Actual Behavior

• F-14 struggles to pass Mach 1.2 in a timely manner; feels drag-limited.

• F-14B often does not outperform F-14A in supersonic regime.

• AIM-54 rarely exceeds Mach 3.4-4, well below documented real-world performance.

---

6. Evidence

• NATOPS & NASA propulsion data (TF30/F110).

• NASA AIM-54 flight test data (public domain).

• Iranian Air Force operational accounts of F-14 vs MiG-25 encounters.

• DCS Tacview/track files with a notepad file with data (The F-14s in the tacview will all have a loadout of 2xAIM-54C-mk60s, 3xAIM-7P sparrows, and 2xAIM-9M Sidewinders with no droptanks at 12200lb of fuel).

---

7. Additional Notes

• Both issues suggest possible overestimation of supersonic wave drag effects in the F-14 and AIM-54 models.

• This may affect not only top-end performance but also intercept mission viability (especially vs. fast, high-flying threats like the MiG-25/31).

---

8. Supporting Sources

Iraq-Iran War National Interest – “When Russia’s MiG-25 and U.S. F-14 Tomcat Fought to the Death”: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/when-russias-mig-25-and-us-f-14-tomcat-fought-death-172204 Aviation Geek Club – “Tomcat vs Foxbat: The story of how IRIAF F-14 crews learned to shoot down the MiG-25 Mach 3 fighter jet”: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/tomcat-vs-foxbat-story-iriaf-f-14-crews-learned-shoot-mig-25-mach-3-fighter-jet

AIM-54 Maximum Speed

NASA:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070025193/downloads/20070025193.pdf  Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix

INSTRUCTIONS - READ ME.txt Fighter aim-54 launch data.acmi Mig-25 aim-54 launch data.acmi SUPERSONIC ACCELERATION DATA.acmi

I forgot to mention this issue seems to plague the supersonic performance of other jets made by Eagle Dynamics but I didn't want to put it in the main forum since, well, those are ED modules. Here's hoping the F-15C full fidelity is done right, and reworks of the hornet and f-16 would be nice as I strongly believe they are all underperforming to SOME extent (be it greater or lesser than the F-14 who knows I haven't looked into it as much as I did the tomcat) in supersonic acceleration.

[DSplayer]

I will note that the NASA AIM-54 is simulated as none we fired by NASA and the Mach 5 numbers are only for a significantly lightened missile (-250lbs) fired at 45 degrees, Mach 1.2, 45000ft with no guidance and locked fins. The current missile matches pretty closely to the NASA flight profile and speed for a typical Phoenix load.

Edited 16 hours ago by DSplayer

[Katsu]

Hey @MKdabess, I see this is your first post on the forum. I was drawn back here myself because of the new releases, and I couldn’t help but notice your post. Just to let you know, there have been several attempts to get the developers to review the missile’s performance, but so far they have been unsuccessful.

The available sources about the AIM-54 are very inconclusive; many of them contradict each other and can easily be interpreted to “confirm” opposing points of view (some claim the missile was faster, others say it was slower — and all of them are official sources). and this inconsistency is always used to validate the point that is favorable to the argument being defended.

What we tried instead was applying pure mathematics and rocket-engine engineering principles.

Another forum member with extensive experience in this area demonstrated mathematically and physically that the in-game missile does not behave as it should. He even created a missile-launch calculator showing how the missile’s performance ought to look.

The Phoenix had a very distinctive combustion chamber, which produced different thrust levels at different altitudes/pressures due to its grain design (you can find this in the locked thread where we tried to discuss it).

In theory, the in-game missile should perform better at higher altitudes than it currently does and maybe a little worse on low altitudes.

Also The developers have said that the missile is stuck using an older API and that there’s nothing they can do to improve it for now.

The source for the engine thrust data used by developers is also unavailable (it’s said to be classified, and we’re expected to accept that ).

I felt compelled to leave this brief summary here, and I wish you the best of luck on your journey. I’m sorry that you expected one quality of product and ended up receiving something different.

Because of personal and health issues, I’ve stepped away from this discussion to make the missile more realistic. From what I understand, this effort has since been taken up on the Russian side of the forum and and I didn't follow up anymore. (If I'm not mistaken, at some point, the weapons control part went straight to ED, rather than remaining in the hands of third-party developers.)

If you’re interested, look for a user named Tavarish Palkovnik — he has been actively involved in this discussion and kindly provided us with excellent quality material.  

Just to give you some context, I am posting here a file containing the engine thrust calculations based on engine blueprint so you can get an idea of how far he have gone:

(All credits to Tavarish Palkovnik for this)

My best regards.

pk AIM-54 k=1,2 Rev.pdf