Taking off with a full complement of Phoenix missiles?

People are already complaining about how to "balance" the F14 in a multiplayer setting I personally have great aversions to any such discussions but many forget that it might not be possible to take off with a full complement of Phoenix missiles AND a full fuel load as well.

 

So my question is this, is it even possible to take off (with either the F14A or B) with 6xAIM54 missiles and 2xAIM9 and full complement of fuel from either a carrier or a land base?

 

Can someone chime in on this, because taking off with 6xAIM54s and immediately being forced to take fuel from a tanker kind of already "balances" out the F14 compared to most of the other modules out there.

Not a problem even with a full fuel loadout, you're very close to the limit for an arrested landing though unless you're running on fumes.

So to keep within limits you'd probably have to jettisson something for a carrier trap with that loadout.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Naquaii

Not a problem even with a full fuel loadout, you're very close to the limit for an arrested landing though unless you're running on fumes.

So to keep withing limits you'd probably have to jettisson something for a carrier trap with that loadout.

 

Thanks for the quick reply Naquaii! :thumbup:

For what it's worth I think they only really used that loadout for ferry missions since you couldn't land on the carrier with a safe fuel reserve. The Iranian pilots said that anything above two Phoenixes made the plane handle like a dog anyway so while there will be some individuals spamming them from half a world away, they'll be easy targets for the return fire.

Not a problem even with a full fuel loadout, you're very close to the limit for an arrested landing though unless you're running on fumes.

So to keep within limits you'd probably have to jettisson something for a carrier trap with that loadout.

 

what is the carrier trap weight limit on the cat?

56,000lbs IIRC.

 

edit://

 

Checked NATOPS: 54,000lbs with AYC-679 or AYC-805, or 51,800 without.

 

If anyone has a clue what AYC-679 or AYC-805 are, I'd like to know!

Edited December 19, 2018 by Flamin_Squirrel

The navair for our version of the F-14B says 54000 pounds.

I guess the major worries about "balance" are based on the current AIM-54 in DCS, that has some "interesting" if not "magical" abilities, when turning and "re-acquiring" targets...

 

I recently read this post, that does some interesting math on turn performance in relation to speed and G.

 

https://defenseissues.net/2013/08/17/evading-air-to-air-missile/

 

My guess is, Heatblur will add a more realistic AIM-54 and this will add a more reasonable turn performance, so you can outmaneuver it with the right timing if your jet isn't a russian bomber or other less agile plane?

 

I would love to see Heatblur chime in on the performance differences between the current AIM-54 and their version. :)

I guess the major worries about "balance" are based on the current AIM-54 in DCS, that has some "interesting" if not "magical" abilities, when turning and "re-acquiring" targets...

 

I recently read this post, that does some interesting math on turn performance in relation to speed and G.

 

https://defenseissues.net/2013/08/17/evading-air-to-air-missile/

 

My guess is, Heatblur will add a more realistic AIM-54 and this will add a more reasonable turn performance, so you can outmaneuver it with the right timing if your jet isn't a russian bomber or other less agile plane?

 

I would love to see Heatblur chime in on the performance differences between the current AIM-54 and their version. :)

 

There are so many misconceptions about the AIM-54C out there, created and parroted by people, including pilots, who know nothing of it’s capabilities and shouldn’t be pretending that they do.

There are so many misconceptions about the AIM-54C out there, created and parroted by people, including pilots, who know nothing of it’s capabilities and shouldn’t be pretending that they do.

Nobody, said anything about the AIM-54. capabilities, just that there is some physics involved in speed, G and turn performance. Either the missile needs to be capable of pulling 440+ G or it can't be going at Mach 3-4.5, while turning like a medium fighter?

 

I'll grant the AIM-54 a max G of say 60 G in the area of an IRIS-T or AIM-9X, while reaching Mach 4.

Now to turn like a Jet going 0.5 M pulling 7 G it needs to pull about 448 G to turn as tight. That is a 7.46 times larger turn circle than the jet with its 60 G.

 

So as soon as the jet can time its turn with 7 G right to get inside the AIM-54s bubble, the missile can't reach it. The only possibility is the proximity fuse, so the blast covers the distance...

Edited December 19, 2018 by shagrat

Now to turn like a Jet going 0.5 M pulling 7 G it needs to pull about 448 G to turn as tight. That is a 7.46 times larger turn circle than the jet.

 

So as soon as the jet can time its turn with 7 G right to get inside the AIM-54s bubble, the missile can't reach it. The only possibility is the proximity fuse, so the blast covers the distance...

Thank God, we all know where the missile we're evading is and every detail about its flight path, so math on turn performance gets all the job done ;)

Thank God, we all know where the missile we're evading is and every detail about its flight path, so math on turn performance gets all the job done ;)

No, we don't, of course. But we can currently see, why using the standard evasion tactics against such a fast missile don't work thanks to TacView.

The current AIM-54 can do A) incredible instantaneous turns and B) its seekerhead seems to cover at least a 90° arc (45° left + 45° right) in front, to reacquire targets when going pitbull. I am no missiles expert, but this does seem "a bit" exaggerated?

 

So I'm interested to see the Heatblur version of the AIM-54 in action.

To elaborate the point. 7.5 times the turn circle of a Mirage 2000C, which is 1,500ft at 0.5 Mach when pulling 7 G means the missile has a bubble (turn circle) of 11,250 ft or about. 1.8 Nautical Miles(!).

So if you just turn in circles the missile, by leading you to intercept the predicted course should miss you by nearly half a mile 2 out of 4 times (when it enters your bubble while you are turning of the perpendicular arc)?

The current AIM-54 is obviously a joke.

 

So I'm interested to see the Heatblur version of the AIM-54 in action.

I am too, from the Tomcat's front and rear cockpit as well as from an adversary's point of view. And I'm quite sure that we'll hear two kinds of bitter feedback : from those who hope they'll instantaneously kill the game by carrying 3 tons of AIM-54s under their Tomcat, and from those who think that the AIM-54 is an eye-candy chipped stone only designed to kill sitting ducks... :D

The current AIM-54 is obviously a joke.

 

 

I am too, from the Tomcat's front and rear cockpit as well as from an adversary's point of view. And I'm quite sure that we'll hear two kinds of bitter feedback : from those who hope they'll instantaneously kill the game by carrying 3 tons of AIM-54s under their Tomcat, and from those who think that the AIM-54 is an eye-candy chipped stone only designed to kill sitting ducks... :D

Yep, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. It is fast, so if you don't notice the launch or totally misjudge the distance when fired up close, you are in trouble, but I doubt it is the undefeatable killing device according to the math...

I doubt it is the undefeatable killing device according to the math...

It is not, no doubt about that. There will be one interesting question about the missile's turn radius: what happens after the motor burn time is elapsed and the missile has slowed down? That will make the equation way more complex than "what is the missile's turn radius at its maximum speed?", above all if you can't see the missile, which will be common case.

 

I keep posting this link whenever a discussion on the AIM54's effectiveness keeps being brought up by people, though I doubt many will be bothered to listen to the interview. (Due to it's length and very in-depth look into how missiles work in DCS in general)

 

*spoiler* it is a VERY effective missile even against fighters when fired in the correct conditions.

 

If you wan't to know how Heatblur's AIM54 will perform in DCS, until we get the Tomcat and the missile in our hands, this is the best source of information as it features the person who created the actual parameters of Heatblur's missile, our very own IAGATSG.

 

Shagrat mentioned a 90 degree radar arc. I don't think this is unrealistic, most fighter jets have a radar gimbals of 120 degrees, as for it's turn radius yes a fast, heavy missile like the AIM54 has a pretty big turn radius but this in and of itself means very little

without stating other parameters such as distance to target, altitude, speed and aspect of target, speed of missile, whether the motor has burned out or is still going etc. etc. Fired within 15nm the AIM54 will be extremely hard to evade unless you manage to notch it perfectly.

Edited December 19, 2018 by OnlyforDCS

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

 

 

Everyone forgets that we know where HB is headed with the Phoenix (even if we don't hands-on testing yet).

Nobody, said anything about the AIM-54. capabilities, just that there is some physics involved in speed, G and turn performance. Either the missile needs to be capable of pulling 440+ G or it can't be going at Mach 3-4.5, while turning like a medium fighter?

 

I'll grant the AIM-54 a max G of say 60 G in the area of an IRIS-T or AIM-9X, while reaching Mach 4.

Now to turn like a Jet going 0.5 M pulling 7 G it needs to pull about 448 G to turn as tight. That is a 7.46 times larger turn circle than the jet with its 60 G.

 

So as soon as the jet can time its turn with 7 G right to get inside the AIM-54s bubble, the missile can't reach it. The only possibility is the proximity fuse, so the blast covers the distance...

 

Nice physics and math.....the main odd part of the AIM-54 endgame you have the practice is its not usually coming at you level, not usually launched where you can see its motor and get a visual queue. It'll activate at its 10-12 mile slant range, that angle depends on your closing speed but as long as you're fast enough the missile should activate within the angle limits of your RWR....if you're slow enough, the AWG-9 and AIM-54 should be able to complete the intercept and kill you without ever tripping your RWR correct? I don't know that answer without knowing the beamwidth of the AIM-54 radar and I'm pretty sure I wont ever get it.....

 

but back to the point, I don't think online jet jock should have a problem as long as he trains to counter the missile dropping in from above, not turning a weapon from below or near co-altitude.....that's just gonna take a bit to get used to.

 

 

Of course this only applies to those who get shot at without taken action and beaming once an AWG-9 search hits and you assume a shot.....and only applies if our online jet jock RIOs master their DDD, TCS, datalink, TID, and AWG-9 to use the AIM-54 effectively.

 

I keep posting this link whenever a discussion on the AIM54's effectiveness keeps being brought up by people, though I doubt many will be bothered to listen to the interview. (Due to it's length and very in-depth look into how missiles work in DCS in general)

 

*spoiler* it is a VERY effective missile even against fighters when fired in the correct conditions.

 

If you wan't to know how Heatblur's AIM54 will perform in DCS, until we get the Tomcat and the missile in our hands, this is the best source of information as it features the person who created the actual parameters of Heatblur's missile, our very own IAGATSG.

 

Shagrat mentioned a 90 degree radar arc. I don't think this is unrealistic, most fighter jets have a radar gimbals of 120 degrees, as for it's turn radius yes a fast, heavy missile like the AIM54 has a pretty big turn radius but this in and of itself means very little

without stating other parameters such as distance to target, altitude, speed and aspect of target, speed of missile, whether the motor has burned out or is still going etc. etc. Fired within 15nm the AIM54 will be extremely hard to evade unless you manage to notch it perfectly.

 

Yes, an interesting podcast, I listened to, as well, a while ago. A lot of info, about the complexity of a flight model (here focused on missiles).

 

And yes, of course all launch parameters and speed changing over the flight envelope, have an impact on the resulting performance.

 

Still, there is this thing with the turn radius. If the missile is in its acceleration phase (the 15 NM example) it will increase its speed and thus its turn radius, the closer it gets.

 

Causing the defensive maneuvers to be potentially more effective.

 

Let's assume, for simplicity, the seeker heads radar can move 120° like in a jet.

Now how long does the radar need to scan a 120° 6 bar field in front of the radar? Considering the dish size, a need for about 10-14 bars to cover a useful cone in front of the missile how long would a scan take? The AIM-54s current re-acquisition capabilities of a target seems a tiny bit exaggerated to me, but maybe the scan pattern algorithms and/or target course predictions in the real thing are that good. What would beg the question why the later developed AIM-120 seems to use inferior algorithms... but it may be that it can re-acquire a target not perfectly notching at an angle off of 90°.

 

The funny thing is, you do not need to notch it, as you can use the turn radius to your advantage (that's why I posted the link with the defensive maneuvers and the good explanation of the dependency between speed and turn performance).

 

If that document from Heatblur is correct, and they limit the Phoenix to a maximum of 7 G, than it will have a hard time to intercept a jinxing target, unless it is close enough, for the proximity fuse/shrapnel of the huge warhead.

 

We will need to wait for Heatblur to release the AIM-54 Phoenix to know for sure, but I am confident, it will be more balanced, as the current one, and a good timed defense should work, after some practice.

Edited December 20, 2018 by shagrat

Your math is off - you are making uncharacteristic guidance logic assumptions. A good rule of thumb is about 3x target G for a PN intercept. Situations can vary this substantially, but not enough for you to comfortably outmaneuver anything but a 54 that has lost much of its energy.

 

Comparison of turn radius does not make sense because you are not taking into account angle off nose vs distance for the missile to determine it's "required turn radius." You are trying to say that it requires the same turn radius as what it is intercepting, which doesn't make sense. That would mean that no missile could ever intercept our spitfire if it was turning, which, again, doesn't make sense.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Dino Might

I’ve heeeeard that....each Phoenix, when fired in anger, will seek out and destroy the nearest three fighter jets, and then start chasing kittens for sport! Dogs will howl, cows will attempt to jump over it as it passes, madness will prevail!

...

 

Comparison of turn radius does not make sense because you are not taking into account angle off nose vs distance for the missile to determine it's "required turn radius." You are trying to say that it requires the same turn radius as what it is intercepting, which doesn't make sense. That would mean that no missile could ever intercept our spitfire if it was turning, which, again, doesn't make sense.

 

Math, missile intercept geometry, basic concept of RWR, real world visual acquisition, maneuvering effect on all of the above.

 

You are correct in that the assumption is you are in a turning fight with a missile that you can see and maneuver against. None of the above is true.

You are correct in that the assumption is you are in a turning fight with a missile that you can see and maneuver against. None of the above is true.

Which brings us back to the basics : situational awareness makes more than 50% of the job – which means that without getting it enough, you die. It will obviously be an issue when you face multiple AIM-54 launches in TWS out of visual range.

 

In closer range engagements, the Phoenix will be a problem for the Tomcat due to its drag and weight, but nobody will ask for one shot against him while at low speed. Nor at full speed : try to hard-turn with a Hornet around Mach 1 with a Fox-3 locked on you and tell me if you feel the need for speed...

 

By the way, I'm absolutely sure that those who wait for the Phoenix to be some kind of destruction spell able to clean up the skies without proper skills and work will cry the hell out of their whole being... :D I'm absolutely sure the Turkey will give us a lot of fun, whether we are driving it or a M 2000C or Hornet to face it!

Your math is off - you are making uncharacteristic guidance logic assumptions. A good rule of thumb is about 3x target G for a PN intercept. Situations can vary this substantially, but not enough for you to comfortably outmaneuver anything but a 54 that has lost much of its energy.

 

Comparison of turn radius does not make sense because you are not taking into account angle off nose vs distance for the missile to determine it's "required turn radius." You are trying to say that it requires the same turn radius as what it is intercepting, which doesn't make sense. That would mean that no missile could ever intercept our spitfire if it was turning, which, again, doesn't make sense.

It's not MY math, it's the math from the guy over at defense net, seems to be a Rafale or Typhoon pilot. He explains it quite good, if you had actually read it...