[ALREADY REPORTED]AIM-54

[chief]

Still busted. Please fix. At LEAST get it to stop going through friggin mountains. Expected fix 2029?

[chief]

and STILL. An d I won't be letting up until this friggin thing is fixed. How long does it take to fix something here. jeezuz

[chief]

still busted

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

still busted

 

Elaborate please

[Knock-Knock]

The new standard of bug reports: Busted, fix it.

[chief]

The new standard of bug reports: Busted, fix it.

 

After a year long bug report absolutely. Oh and btw ED, even after the latest patch, still f**ked

[Looney]

You're not following proper bug reporting protocol.

 

What is wrong? What do you experience? What do you expect? What information do you have that would back up the claim you're making?

 

Attach a track, logs, mission, anything that will help the team.

 

Yelling bugged, f**ked isn't going to win the argument here.

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

After a year long bug report absolutely. Oh and btw ED, even after the latest patch, still f**ked

 

Again, Elaborate PLEASE. Just because in your mind that it is overpowered does not mean that it is busted. In fact at the moment it is still "underpowered," since its mid course guidance is all screwed up. The Truth of the matter is that it was an extremely deadly missile. Historically, enemy aircraft would simply avoid fights with the tomcat all together. Now if it is truly going through mountains in the sim, then that is a different story.

Edited April 17, 2020 by DCS FIGHTER PILOT

[chief]

This is not a new bug guys. The thing acts like a friggin aim 9x for gods sakes. A phoenix is NOT that maneuverable. This info is coming from one of my sim instructors who flew the 14 and has fired the 54. I told him how it is like in dcs and he just chuckled and said not a chance. At best you might get a 20 mile hit on a fighter that isn't maneuvering that much. The bugs have been reported many times. I'm just telling ED that its been long enough already. This year plus time frame to fix something is getting ridiculous. Just because you don't make money at fixing it, doesn't mean you shouldnt feel obligated not fix it.

[Shadow KT]

I am still wondering why are you reffering to ED about this missile. It is made by Heatblur.

 

It flies trough terrain, acts as an amraam, has magical INS

[chief]

so the way I am told by everyone is the "coding" for the 54 is done by ED. Apparently heatblur has their own code for it but ED wont let them use it.

[sylkhan]

..... A phoenix is NOT that maneuverable. This info is coming from one of my sim instructors who flew the 14 and has fired the 54. I told him how it is like in dcs and he just chuckled and said not a chance. At best you might get a 20 mile hit on a fighter that isn't maneuvering that much. ....

 

I am still wondering why are you reffering to ED about this missile. It is made by Heatblur.

 

It flies trough terrain, acts as an amraam, has magical INS

 

It's good, sometimes, to hear "the voice of raison", it's so rare.

I wonder why ED don't do something about this.

It's totally unrealistic

 

so the way I am told by everyone is the "coding" for the 54 is done by ED. Apparently heatblur has their own code for it but ED wont let them use it.

 

I don't think it's ED, they can't do something so arcadish.

[nighthawk2174]

I mean... the 54 is fully capable of 20-25g's if anything its probably underperforming in this department.

 

I don't think it's ED, they can't do something so arcadish.

Yes the current 54 model is the base ED code.

[Shadow KT]

It is based on it, but not a copy paste. Besides, all the other missiles got their magic INS fixed, while the Phoenix didn't.

 

Don't know where you got this 20-25G, but I believe the limit is 9G

[nighthawk2174]

According to the HB doc the 54A is ~18G and the 54C is ~21 iirc. Besides even just looking at the vid above the load factor is most certainly higher than 9 considering how it goes 180 in around 3-5seconds.

[chief]

Just cause it can do 15+ g's doesnt mean its maneuverable. At mach 5, it isn't hard to do 10+ g's

[Quid]

It is based on it, but not a copy paste. Besides, all the other missiles got their magic INS fixed, while the Phoenix didn't.

 

Don't know where you got this 20-25G, but I believe the limit is 9G

 

The AIM-54C was 25g. That's been out in the open since about 1984. The AIM-54A, I've never seen an actual limit number published but it demonstrated 17g during testing so it was at least that and HB uses 18g as the listed limit.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Quid

[Noctrach]

The AIM-54C was 25g. That's been out in the open since about 1984. The AIM-54A, I've never seen an actual limit number published but it demonstrated 17g during testing so it was at least that.

 

 

Yeah iirc this was specifically part of the 54C upgrade program to increase effectiveness against small and fast targets like fighters and cruise missiles.

 

Someone correct me if this is wrong, but afaik the rule of thumb is to triple a fighter's instant turning G to reach a rough estimation of how much a missile needs to pull to still make the intercept.

In that regard 18G for the 54A seems like a logical testing benchmark to guarantee ability to intercept targets executing a 6G break turn, which was the maximum capability of most fighters at the time of introduction. Later increases to 7.3-8G capabilities becoming more prevalent in the early 80s would naturally require improvement in this area as well.

 

For similar reasons, AIM-120s can pull well in excess of 30G.

 

Note that this in no way reflects their true maximum turning capability. They are simply benchmarks from test firing exercises to guarantee the weapon capabilities as required.

Just like an E-M graph ending at 6.5 doesn't mean the aircraft breaks at 7.5G... its just where testing stops being safe, feasible or relevant.

 

 

edit: hopefully the "phoenix was only for bombers" crowd takes notes. Imagine being the Navy and doing a live firing exercise on a combined 5+ million USD worth of equipment to prove a missile is capable of hitting a target you don't intend to use it against...

Edited April 28, 2020 by Noctrach

[nighthawk2174]

Yeah iirc this was specifically part of the 54C upgrade program to increase effectiveness against small and fast targets like fighters and cruise missiles.

 

Someone correct me if this is wrong, but afaik the rule of thumb is to triple a fighter's instant turning G to reach a rough estimation of how much a missile needs to pull to still make the

 

...its just where testing stops being safe, feasible or relevant.

 

- the number i've heard is no less than 2x the g for the worst case intercept geometry. From my understanding though its often the case you don't need to go to this limit. The above case I posted is probably a worst case scenario though.

 

-Great document on testing limits even though its for the F16 same idea applies.

[*Rage*]

??

[chief]

ED nerfs weapons weapons and radars on certain platforms vs. others deliberately. This is why the Hornet is a dumpster fire and the F-16 is god-mode with AIM-120's.

 

Easy way to increase sales huh? Make the new plane OP until the sales drop and steady, then fix it. Love the real representation of weapons. *sarcasm*

[falcon_120]

Easy way to increase sales huh? Make the new plane OP until the sales drop and steady, then fix it. Love the real representation of weapons. *sarcasm*

 

Conspiracies everywhere

[Kazansky222]

I've heard that ED is taking over all the missiles, maybe they will fix the phoenix after the R27 / R77 Family rework.

 

As far as I can tell though, the main issue is the magic INS, the next one being that the mk47A is only rated to 17g irl and the 54C I believe was 25g?

In comparison the AIM-120B maximum allowable G is 30-50g I'd have to look it up again to find the exact figure. Comparatively the 120 should be light-years ahead of the phoenix in maneuverability.

 

Then their is the issue with the phoenix not supposed to receive pit-bull command on a dropped track . Mean if its fired on a target and track on that target is lost, the missile is dead and will no longer receive guidance or a pit-bull command.

The workaround is if the PH active switch is turned on in the backseat the Phoenix will go pit-bull if the track is dropped, but will not receive guidance. That switch was pretty much never used because you had literally no control over this active phoenix flying around.

 

But that dropped track logic is more a part of the WCS and not the missile, so I think it'll still be on HB to fix, and since HB hasn't fixed any of the phoenix issues since the F-14 launched, I seriously doubt they will now. Maybe ED will force their hand once they start working on the Phoenix. Or maybe HB is just pushing hard to get the F-14A out before doing more work on the WCS, who knows, they are radio silent on the matter.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

Then their is the issue with the phoenix not supposed to receive pit-bull command on a dropped track . Mean if its fired on a target and track on that target is lost, the missile is dead and will no longer receive guidance or a pit-bull command.

 

As far as I can tell this isn't entirely accurate, to the best of my knowledge even for a dropped track the AWG-9 will still transmit the go-active command to an in flight phoenix at T-10 seconds from expected impact.

 

Whether the dropped target will still be within the weapons own radar seeker limits at that point depends entirely on what the target did after it was lost.

[dundun92]

As far as I can tell this isn't entirely accurate, to the best of my knowledge even for a dropped track the AWG-9 will still transmit the go-active command to an in flight phoenix at T-10 seconds from expected impact.

 

Whether the dropped target will still be within the weapons own radar seeker limits at that point depends entirely on what the target did after it was lost.

Thats only for TWS IIRC, not for, for example, P-STT.