Balancing the F-14

I know LNS will do a great job with their F14, Im more interested/concerned with being able to see aircraft when I should be able too in DCS, but thats another thread altogether!

I can't believe this. DCS is now played by COD kids. In a pure sandbox fly sim we nerf or buff planes to be balanced, not as realistic as possible. I am really sad to see that these days DCS is populated with such players instead of passionate pilots.

I can't believe this. DCS is now played by COD kids. In a pure sandbox fly sim we nerf or buff planes to be balanced, not as realistic as possible. I am really sad to see that these days DCS is populated with such players instead of passionate pilots.

I'm 90% sure this thread was talking about adding an eastern aircraft with similar standoff range to balance the sides. Wouldn't require nerfing anything, just adding another aircraft.

Plus, we still have no idea how difficult the 54 will be to evade at long ranges. An eastern counterpart might not even be necessary.

It should be quite easy at longer ranges for a fighter with a decent RWR, and especially if it's a 54A vs. chaff.

A 54C SEALED is more like a 120A/B. Slightly less pleasant to deal with.

It should be quite easy at longer ranges for a fighter with a decent RWR, and especially if it's a 54A vs. chaff.

 

A 54C SEALED is more like a 120A/B. Slightly less pleasant to deal with.

While there might be some overlap for the "late eighties" F-14A, the "Mid nineties" F-14B we're getting should only be using the -54C ECCM(Sealed).

So probably like AIM-120B-ish, maybe. Maneuvering wise right now it would be easy to deal with, since at long ranges the speed is lower.

If more interesting guidance algorithms go in though, then things might be a little different :)

So probably like AIM-120B-ish, maybe. Maneuvering wise right now it would be easy to deal with, since at long ranges the speed is lower.

If more interesting guidance algorithms go in though, then things might be a little different :)

The speed of the AIM-54 at long ranges would not necessarily be slower, as it dives down from high altitude. It will come in at a target loaded with energy. And potentially above the targets RWR coverage, but that is something we'll have to see how it'll work.

The speed of the AIM-54 at long ranges would not necessarily be slower,

Yes, it would be.

And potentially above the targets RWR coverage, but that is something we'll have to see how it'll work.

No, it will not. There are a number of reasons to avoid steep dives, including intercept geometries and radar discrimination.

Easy ED may nurf the F-14 or bring in the Russian R-77 is it there long range missile? Im not sure we have to wait and see more fully Russian made modules would be nice.

I am fairly new but thought realism and accurate modelling were the cornerstone of the DCS simulator series. Do ED in fact nerf things? Or is everything as accurate as possible?

Or do they nerf things where hard data is in dispute?

I would have thought if things were OP that mission or server admins would just place restrictions on armament or adjust the odds... for instance the F14 being outnumbered or some back story about it not being allowed it's phoenix. Same as the Eagle is not dumbed down against the su-27 as far as I am aware.

I thought the Aim-120C was changed? I maybe wrong tho. Valid point tho.

Yes, it would be.

 

 

 

No, it will not. There are a number of reasons to avoid steep dives, including intercept geometries and radar discrimination.

The first "yes" is a useless answer. At least try to give some argument, even if it's short and simple.

The second is weird. What do you mean? Who should avoid steep dives? The missile or the target?

Would you care to explain what you mean with "radar discrimination"? Does the radar discriminate? :shifty:

The first "yes" is a useless answer. At least try to give some argument, even if it's short and simple.

I didn't think the obvious needed much of an argument, but ok - you're fighting drag in an un-powered (at this point) suicide glider. Keeping speed requires a relatively steep dive, and that's only good until maybe 30000' at which point you'll be losing speed regardless of the dive - assuming you managed to keep say around M2-M3.

The second is weird. What do you mean? Who should avoid steep dives? The missile or the target?

Would you care to explain what you mean with "radar discrimination"? Does the radar discriminate? :shifty:

Missiles avoid steep dives in BVR situations unless used in snap up/down launch profiles. You don't get a huge amount of range with this.

And yes, the radar discriminates quite a bit stuff ... in particular it really discriminates against ground or other clutter, and attempts to erase it from existence ;)

I didn't think the obvious needed much of an argument...

AFAIK the AIM-54's max speed is Mach5 (at the top of the curve I guess) and yes, apparently at long ranges it has a high arc (ballistic) profile. It climbs to altitude, and dives down at the target. Exactly what speed will be retained after the dive and at what angle it will approach is, as I said before, "something we'll have to see how it'll work".

To be more specific in my "not necessarily be slower" argument:

The AIM-120 has a (apparent) max speed of Mach 4, and it's flight profile is flatter. The AIM-54 has a much higher ballistic profile, and reaches higher speeds (Mach 5). It dives from higher altitudes, and weighs more (Warhead: ~18kg vs ~61kg) so it will retain more of it's speed, at least at equivalent distances and if the speed loss for air resistance is similar(it isn't, but for the purposes for this comparison, as I can't do the math on it...), compared to the AIM-120.

The conclusion I come to is that it's not obvious which one will have the highest impact speed.

But yeah. I can also just type "I though this was trivial, but OK" and be a douche about it :P

AFAIK the AIM-54's max speed is Mach5 (at the top of the curve I guess)

When launched very specific parameters - ie. M2 launch at 50000' and a relatively gentle loft maybe to 80000' for a flight time of under 150sec. Not terribly ballistic.

and yes, apparently at long ranges it has a high arc (ballistic) profile.

Ballistic arcs are not terribly efficient for AAMs or SAMs. Since there is history and description of the algorithms used for a bunch of long ranged older SAMs like the NIKE series, there's some knowledge about this.

It climbs to altitude, and dives down at the target. Exactly what speed will be retained after the dive and at what angle it will approach is, as I said before, "something we'll have to see how it'll work".

If you want a high-speed, long range intercept, you need:

Your self and target co-speed and co-altitude at M2.0 and 50000', target heading straight towards you and non-maneuvering.

Any dive below 50000' bleeds speed very rapidly.

To be more specific in my "not necessarily be slower" argument:

The AIM-120 has a (apparent) max speed of Mach 4, and it's flight profile is flatter. The AIM-54 has a much higher ballistic profile, and reaches higher speeds (Mach 5). It dives from higher altitudes, and weighs more (Warhead: ~18kg vs ~61kg) so it will retain more of it's speed, at least at equivalent distances and if the speed loss for air resistance is similar(it isn't, but for the purposes for this comparison, as I can't do the math on it...), compared to the AIM-120.

A powered (motor still burning) 54 shot into the ground from 50000' (at a 45deg angle, my understanding) will slow to M2.5 before hitting the ground.

A slammer will accelerate to M3 at sea level.

When launched very specific parameters - ie. M2 launch at 50000' and a relatively gentle loft maybe to 80000' for a flight time of under 150sec. Not terribly ballistic.

 

 

 

Ballistic arcs are not terribly efficient for AAMs or SAMs. Since there is history and description of the algorithms used for a bunch of long ranged older SAMs like the NIKE series, there's some knowledge about this.

 

 

 

If you want a high-speed, long range intercept, you need:

 

Your self and target co-speed and co-altitude at M2.0 and 50000', target heading straight towards you and non-maneuvering.

 

Any dive below 50000' bleeds speed very rapidly.

 

 

 

A powered (motor still burning) 54 shot into the ground from 50000' (at a 45deg angle, my understanding) will slow to M2.5 before hitting the ground.

 

A slammer will accelerate to M3 at sea level.

You make some interesting points.

Although I don't think AAMs and SAMs with ballistic profiles (I use this term in it's broadest sense for missiles that "go up when launched to get more range") are comparable, as SAMs usually go for targets that are (much) higher than the launcher.

As for the bleed numbers you cite, I can't assess their validity, but I do find them interesting and I'm curious to see how the AIM-54 will behave =) This will dictate so much of the "DCS meta", as far as mission building goes in the future.

You make some interesting points.

Although I don't think AAMs and SAMs with ballistic profiles (I use this term in it's broadest sense for missiles that "go up when launched to get more range") are comparable, as SAMs usually go for targets that are (much) higher than the launcher.

The way SAMs fly really depends on the era (same with AAMs), though back then they'd use a booster to get to altitude, then ignite the sustainer ... they might make the turn/transition to level-ish flight or a slight dive (even a constant -0.xg) before or after sustainer ignition.

Although today PATRIOT and S300/400/500 are single-stage sticks, they're still big sticks :)

As for the bleed numbers you cite, I can't assess their validity, but I do find them interesting and I'm curious to see how the AIM-54 will behave =) This will dictate so much of the "DCS meta", as far as mission building goes in the future.

Google for 'NASA PMHT Phoenix PDF'. Keep in mind their phoenix may be a little bit lighter depending on payload.

When launched very specific parameters - ie. M2 launch at 50000' and a relatively gentle loft maybe to 80000' for a flight time of under 150sec. Not terribly ballistic.

 

 

 

Ballistic arcs are not terribly efficient for AAMs or SAMs. Since there is history and description of the algorithms used for a bunch of long ranged older SAMs like the NIKE series, there's some knowledge about this.

 

 

 

If you want a high-speed, long range intercept, you need:

 

Your self and target co-speed and co-altitude at M2.0 and 50000', target heading straight towards you and non-maneuvering.

 

Any dive below 50000' bleeds speed very rapidly.

 

 

 

A powered (motor still burning) 54 shot into the ground from 50000' (at a 45deg angle, my understanding) will slow to M2.5 before hitting the ground.

 

A slammer will accelerate to M3 at sea level.

VMAX for an AIM-54 launch is Mach 1.8 and it wasn't tested beyond that- The AIM-54 hit Mach 5 before being launched at Mach 2.

As is obvious from the PMHT, not likely. M2 or go home. :)

VMAX for an AIM-54 launch is Mach 1.8 and it wasn't tested beyond that- The AIM-54 hit Mach 5 before being launched at Mach 2.

As is obvious from the PMHT, not likely. M2 or go home. :)

PMHT? Get me on the same page. I'm not trying to argue, just been reading and researching and serving for over 20 years. What data are you referring to?

I presume GG is referring to this?

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/126521-OTHER-001-001.pdf

Please no.......

Please no don't present actual flight capabilities?

http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1066

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.PrintNewsStory&id=2943

just gonna leave this here since people are actually using data for once

Well, the F-14 is not even (remotely) close to out yet, so lets hold on any sort of speculation until Leatherneck Simulations deems it right to reveal more info on the F-14 (soon plox).

 

That being said, I think it has been established that the Aim-54 is extremely bad against fighters, as it was meant to shoot down Soviet bombers at long range. Even when firing in TWS, the semi-active radar going ... well, active, should wake up any fighter pilot and cause the missile to miss by proxy of the nimble fighter maneuvring. I doubt it'll be OP.

I suggest that u create some scenarios against an F14 in the mission editor. With the Aim54 that is currently presented in DCS its extremly hard to counter an F-14. That said. Its a simulator and not an Arcade game. No balancing should be done.

I suggest that u create some scenarios against an F14 in the mission editor. With the Aim54 that is currently presented in DCS its extremly hard to counter an F-14. That said. Its a simulator and not an Arcade game. No balancing should be done.

That's why I think this thread is unfounded; I completely agree with you.