AIM 120C getting upgrade

how about having the AIM54 getting a fix at the same time. I "heard" HB has the right scripting for the missile but ED wont allow them to use it. Is there truth to this? Ridiculous if it is. I've seen maple syrup in the dead cold winter move more quickly than things getting fixed here

The AIM-54 was about ready to get an update on the guidance algorithms, and be the true Phoenix, but some issues came up in late testing, and HB had to delay.

That was a couple weeks (if not a month or 2) ago, and we essentially havent heard too much since then. Cobra did make a post recently announcing news on fhe subject very soon, so I'd expect to hear more about the phoenix there.

TL;DR It's coming along. Slowly, but surely.

how about having the AIM54 getting a fix at the same time. I "heard" HB has the right scripting for the missile but ED wont allow them to use it. Is there truth to this? Ridiculous if it is. I've seen maple syrup in the dead cold winter move more quickly than things getting fixed here

Hopefully they'll be able to give it a proper loft and remove the artificial G limits during the terminal phase. Can't have people getting an inaccurate picture of it's capabilities after all ;)

just remember AIM54 was designed for bombers and c3 aircraft, not fast agile fighters. I find it hilarious the reliance on this system in multiplayer but hey it sells modules i guess for people that launch chancing shot's and still be able to go defensive and outrun anything thrown at them from 6 miles re 120's. Fox 3 30 miles + on release lol.

There is a reason, even when given the opportunity the US navy engaged fighter aircraft with Aim7 fox 1 at the time - it was more suitable for fighter aircraft that the Aim54 with a better pk.

Its hilarious how misunderstood and misused this system is in game.

Its hilarious how misunderstood and misused this system is in game.

You appear to be saying that a Missile designed for use against Bombers and Cruise Missiles (non-maneuvering targets essentially, that even in its final digital version was a 70s design with 80s elecctronics, that has a substantially higher weight and cross section than other AAMs, that has a truly dreadful in-service record and was swiftly retired

ISN'T the ultimate, never to bettered, end-game evolution of the Air to Air Missile, with near god-like capabilities...

just remember AIM54 was designed for bombers and c3 aircraft, not fast agile fighters. I find it hilarious the reliance on this system in multiplayer but hey it sells modules i guess for people that launch chancing shot's and still be able to go defensive and outrun anything thrown at them from 6 miles re 120's. Fox 3 30 miles + on release lol.

 

There is a reason, even when given the opportunity the US navy engaged fighter aircraft with Aim7 fox 1 at the time - it was more suitable for fighter aircraft that the Aim54 with a better pk.

 

Its hilarious how misunderstood and misused this system is in game.

Can you name a single American Missile before the 1990s that wasn't designed to primarily shoot down bombers? Sidewinder and Sparrow were both designed to shoot down nuclear armed strategic bombers faster and more effectively than existing gun, Cannon and FFAR based systems. They were pressed into fighter killing due to ability and necessity.

Upon introduction, the AIM-54A was superior to the contemporary AIM-7E in range and sensor, but also maximum G limit, and yes, better Pk. The AIM-54C was a vast hardware improvement and provided another increase in practical capability against smaller, more agile targets. There is a reason the AIM-120As guidance systems cribbed heavily from the Phoenix program.

The reason the Navy preferred Sparrows during the 1970s and 80s is simply because they were cheaper the Soviet Union lacked a fighter with capability to sufficiently challenge the Sparrow, and the Phoenixes were earmarked for killing existential threats to the carrier. Why do you need something better than a Sparrow when your enemy only has rear aspect heat seekers? As the BVR threat began to materialize in the 80s, first with the AA-7, then the AA-10, Navy doctrine shifted to the enjoyment of Phoenix against fighter targets to maintain air superiority in the face of numerically superior Sparrow equivalent threats.

By the 90s with the evaporation of the bomber/missile threat, thinking had shifted such that it was assumed the slotback/Alamo threat would be nuetralized by the -54.

just remember AIM54 was designed for bombers and c3 aircraft, not fast agile fighters.

It was tested extensively (and successfully) against fighter-sized targets during development and production. It was never a "bomber-only" missile.

It was tested extensively (and successfully) against fighter-sized targets during development and production. It was never a "bomber-only" missile.

I go back to my original statement - Aim 7 was the favoured shot with higher pk against fast moving fighter aircraft. Testing against a flying drone, even an F4 target is not the same as a fighter that is defensive, notching and evading hard. It's two very different cups of tea.

Hence why when it came to a combat situation they chose to arm and launch Aim7's. Anyone that thinks the Aim54 was designed for fighter aircraft or would have been used in this manner needs to take a reality check. When the US navy launched them in combat they missed against Mig 23/25 aircraft. It has 100% failure record in US air to air engagements.

It does allow some inept pilots though to get long range BVR kills in multiplayer depending on terrain when they have not the faintest of ACM or BVR tactics lol. Like the post mention's i do hope they are eventually modelled correctly and not have the current PK that they currently enjoy. I have the Tomcat and think it is an amazing module but find using the 54's too easy and to be honest slightly boring killing from 20+ miles just has no fun.

Anyone that thinks the 54 is not OP? Please explain how you can be hit on the ground by a phoenix from 20 miles spooling up on the ramp, or equally 2 mins after landing in an Mi8 when flying at 10 feet and moving another 200 meters from the landing site.

Can you name a single American Missile before the 1990s that wasn't designed to primarily shoot down bombers? Sidewinder and Sparrow were both designed to shoot down nuclear armed strategic bombers faster and more effectively than existing gun, Cannon and FFAR based systems. They were pressed into fighter killing due to ability and necessity.

 

Upon introduction, the AIM-54A was superior to the contemporary AIM-7E in range and sensor, but also maximum G limit, and yes, better Pk. The AIM-54C was a vast hardware improvement and provided another increase in practical capability against smaller, more agile targets. There is a reason the AIM-120As guidance systems cribbed heavily from the Phoenix program.

 

The reason the Navy preferred Sparrows during the 1970s and 80s is simply because they were cheaper the Soviet Union lacked a fighter with capability to sufficiently challenge the Sparrow, and the Phoenixes were earmarked for killing existential threats to the carrier. Why do you need something better than a Sparrow when your enemy only has rear aspect heat seekers? As the BVR threat began to materialize in the 80s, first with the AA-7, then the AA-10, Navy doctrine shifted to the enjoyment of Phoenix against fighter targets to maintain air superiority in the face of numerically superior Sparrow equivalent threats.

 

By the 90s with the evaporation of the bomber/missile threat, thinking had shifted such that it was assumed the slotback/Alamo threat would be nuetralized by the -54.

Absolutely incorrect on so many levels - where do i start.

Without writing war and peace lets start by saying sidewinders where not designed from the onset with large bomber in mind - it was designed for rear aspect shots pf close range air threats of all natures however with the emphasis developing into manoeuvrability, speed and intercept (fighters), something you don't need for bombers.

To suggest the Soviets couldn't counter the sparrow is nonsense and that their fighters lacked a BVR capability until the late 80's is misleading and completely misplaced. They actually had an operational version with a longer range in the early 60's - the R40 (range 80km), which was later morphed into the R37 in the early 80's (range 120+km). The R40 are still effective and unfortunately actually killed Scott Speicher's and his F18c over Irag in 99.

The reality of the situation was that actually many of the soviet systems of the 60's, 70's and 80's where first rate and a match and in some area's better than the west. After the fall of the Berlin wall the Mig 29's of East Germany with their irst helmet sights where very hard to beat attaining high kill ratio's in mock dog fights of the best the west had to offer. It is naive to think the West had air supremacy at that time.

Absolutely incorrect on so many levels - where do i start.

 

Without writing war and peace lets start by saying sidewinders where not designed from the onset with large bomber in mind - it was designed for rear aspect shots pf close range air threats of all natures however with the emphasis developing into manoeuvrability, speed and intercept (fighters), something you don't need for bombers.

Agree to disagree. That the Sidewinder went a separate path is evident, but I struggle to see how upon delivery of the initial guided rocket with short range and extreme operational and maneuvering limitations, the Navy's first thought was "this is gonna kill so many fighters". The Navy never had problems killing fighters in the 40s and 50s, intercontinental strategic bombers on the other hand...

To suggest the Soviets couldn't counter the sparrow is nonsense and that their fighters lacked a BVR capability until the late 80's is misleading and completely misplaced. They actually had an operational version with a longer range in the early 60's - the R40 (range 80km), which was later morphed into the R37 in the early 80's (range 120+km). The R40 are still effective and unfortunately actually killed Scott Speicher's and his F18c over Irag in 99.

To suppose the R-40 was in service in the early 60s is... interesting, and in any case it's range is still comparable to a Sparrow. How many MiG-25s would be in service in a given year starting in 1970? How many of those would be reserved for the PVO and how many distributed to the VVS? How likely would the PVO be to let loose what was at the time it's prime bomber deterrent to go play fighter pilot against NATO?

Lots of what ifs there, but as far as the Navy was concerned their primary threat in the 70s was the MiG-21 and MiG-23 which made up the bulk of the VVS. Towards the end of the 70s the MiG-23 gained a credible BVR threat in the form of the R-23 and R-24. As the 80s progressed there were more and more MiG-23s, supplemented first by the MiG-29 and then the Su-27 with the Alamo. These aircraft are what shifted the thinking towards increased doctrinal use of the Phoenix because the R-27 and R-24 are broadly comparable to the contemporary Sparrows, and appeared in great enough numbers to cause concern.

The reality of the situation was that actually many of the soviet systems of the 60's, 70's and 80's where first rate and a match and in some area's better than the west. After the fall of the Berlin wall the Mig 29's of East Germany with their irst helmet sights where very hard to beat attaining high kill ratio's in mock dog fights of the best the west had to offer. It is naive to think the West had air supremacy at that time.

Right, sort of like VTAS, and AGILE? Which we had available in the 1970s, but chose not to pursue in lieu of more capable medium range missiles. The thing about modern dogfights with all aspect missiles is that as time goes on, the exchange ratio creeps ever closer to 1. That's a losing proposition if you're fighting a war of attrition with the Soviet Union.

This is fun and all, but weren't we supposed to be arguing the assertion that "Phoenix big, therefore bad?". With the exception of a low altitude close range shot and the Navy's check book, in what regime is a SARH AIM-7 superior to a contemporary ARH AIM-54?

I guess we are just gonna ignore all those Iranian AIM-54 kills on fighters then

R-27ER is considered to be fairly good against fighters, weighs 350Kg (750 ish pounds) Before it burns its motor

AIM-54 weighs 1,000 pounds

R-40 and R-33 weighs ~1,000 pounds as well

Sparrow, R-27R, and R-23/24 All weigh ~500 Pounds

AMRAAM weighs 350 Pounds

if we are going with bigger equals worse against fighters, than the R-40/33 and the R-27ER are right up there with the AIM-54. Keep in mind this is all before it has burnt off its propellant, so depending on what the fuel portion of each missile is, its endgame weight will be significantly lighter than this.

This is still not even the half of it because other than ITS BIG IT MUST NOT BE ABLE TO TURN WELL, nobody has really said how that matters?

Tomcat's a lot bigger and heavier than a fishbed, as is an F-15. Both of those can fly circles around the fishbed with a decent pilot.

The people who have done the math (heatblur/IASGATG) to a higher level than anyone else in this forum and have posted their proofs (IASGATG's white paper) before they implemented it, probly have the best idea outside of the actual USN/IRIAF how this stuff works and what the phoenix can/can't do. There's lots of DCS-isms right now that make the phoenix not operate as it should, both hindering and helping it out but that's all pending change.

I guess we are just gonna ignore all those Iranian AIM-54 kills on fighters then

Came here to post this...

I think it was like 100-120 Iraqi "Fighters" got waxed by F14's mostly using Phoenixes. Not exclusively though, IIRC some guy even got guns kills.

I guess we are just gonna ignore all those Iranian AIM-54 kills on fighters then

+1

A missile is target agnostic. If it can lock and have to energy to reach it will kill.

DCS may not be perfect representation, but it isn't limited to AIM-54.

Month back I did some defensive test Vs HB Tomcat and AIM-54.

I watched it in TacView.

What I noticed is that if you manoeuvre hard, you are turning very tight and bleeding speed. The missile arriving very fast barely has to correct its trajectory to catch you.

So it isn't that obvious that it won't catch a fighter just because it's big.

You have to notch and chaff to evade.

+1

What I noticed is that if you manoeuvre hard, you are turning very tight and bleeding speed. The missile arriving very fast barely has to correct its trajectory to catch you.

This is a critical point. The faster a missile is moving, the less it has to lead the target because the target isn't going to move as far in remaining time of flight. A guidance system that accounts for this can end up saving the missile considerable energy and so increase its kill range and Pk.

IIt has 100% failure record in US air to air engagements.

They only launched two. That is not a large enough sample to say anything whatsoever about the performance of the missile, because statistics don't work like that.

And yeah, IRIAF and all. Some of their kills are likely propaganda, but even by being pessimistic, you're down to a good 50ish kills.

The Aim54 changes are basically ready on our side, but the API is not working correctly yet. The aim120 update is separate from that, and I could not even say if already meant to work with the new API or simply adjusted for the old one. However, what the phoenix needs, cannot be adjusted in the old one and needs the new API to work properly, as it has more than 1 guidance mode, depending on how it was fired (STT vs TWS etc).

I also hate to burst some bubbles, but the aim54 is not an "anti-bomber" missile. There is no such thing btw. Missiles are either missiles to shoot down aerial targets or to destroy stuff on land, to put it very simply, and ofc, the bigger and faster a missile is, the more it is suited against fighters, as correctly mentioned: the faster it travels, the less it has to adjust for the target's maneuvering. Just compare with Hawk, Patriot, S300, etc: these missiles are massively big, and you would think "sluggish", but no: it is ofc to provide fuel in order to provide speed, just cause they are bigger it does not mean the guide worse, or can less adjust for maneuverable targets. But they can fly faster and longer, and thus: intercept better.

And as for performance: it did really well against fighters, but the "in service track record" is simply not a good reference, because in fact, it was so good in combination with the F-14 that it almost never had to be fired. I mean, one of the biggest achievements of the F-14 was, that if the enemy knew they were around, they ran in 9 out of 10 cases. Period. It served as a defender and a deterrent. The Aim7 was also fired more often, because it was carried in greater numbers and cheaper and capable to do what was needed from it in these situations and it would be just daft to waste the more expensive missile. Iranians extended this logic even further, as they could not replace them, and eventually and apparently strapped on hawk missiles they modified, which supposedly worked well, too (again a missile designed against aerial targets). And as a comparison: in uncertain situations or in general medium ranges, most of our SMEs would select a phoenix and flip the ACM cover, because they trusted in boresighting the thing against a fighter sized target. And the preferred engagement range of the phoenix against fighters seems to have been around 12nm. Means Tomcat crews loved it especially in closer ranges. Ofc this happened mostly in trainings (again the enemy fled with his tail between the legs in most cases), so it does not add to it's in service hit ratio.

To give you a comparison: you would not say that nukes have a poor kill death/ratio in service. In fact, we are all quite happy that their k/d ratio is nothing since ww2 while no one would deny their destructive power. Equally a pilot is happy, if his radar and missile make the enemy turn around without him having to fire it.

DCS and how we play and what we do, is so disconnected with this reality, that discussing one, from the position of the other, is, sorry if I put it bluntly: nonsense.

But this devision into bomber/fighter missiles leads nowhere. You will likely do yourselves a favor if you just think ground and aerial targets.

It's just that some missiles are too small for certain targets, not the other way round, as they lack the speed and reach of bigger missiles, hence they are not intended against cruise missiles. But ofc, if positioned correctly, even they could be used against them (ofc you could shoot down a cruise missile with an aim9)...

I think it's also important to mention that the ROE didn't really favour the employment of the Phoenix. If you have to wait for your adversary to fire to fire at you first you will probably be close enough so that you could use a sparrow. Firing an AIM-54, whose real benefits are the launch and leave capability and long range, seems a like a waste when a sparrow would suffice.

I think it's also important to mention that the ROE didn't really favour the employment of the Phoenix. If you have to wait for your adversary to fire to fire at you first you will probably be close enough so that you could use a sparrow. Firing an AIM-54, whose real benefits are the launch and leave capability and long range, seems a like a waste when a sparrow would suffice.

IMHO, in combat pilots don’t really think “this weapon is too precious for this target”.

They use what is hung under the aircraft which serve the intended purpose.

Fire & forget is invaluable tool at close range.

I also hate to burst some bubbles, but the aim54 is not an "anti-bomber" missile. There is no such thing btw. Missiles are either missiles to shoot down aerial targets or to destroy stuff on land, to put it very simply

But this devision into bomber/fighter missiles leads nowhere. You will likely do yourselves a favor if you just think ground and aerial targets.

And then there's the RB-75 terminator missile, that does both extremly well: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4095681#post4095681 :music_whistling:

#FixPlease

And then there's the RB-75 terminator missile, that does both extremly well: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4095681#post4095681 :music_whistling:

#FixPlease

And, in real life, the AIM-4 Falcon that just kind of...does its best :joystick:

When the US navy launched them in combat they missed against Mig 23/25 aircraft. It has 100% failure record in US air to air engagements.

This is horrific misrepresentation of history. The US Navy has launched three AIM-54s in combat. Of those, two had their rocket motors fail to ignite, which says absolutely nothing about their maneuverability or ability to hit the MiG-25s they were launched at. In the third engagement an Iraqi MiG-23 was launched on as it approached a no-fly zone, causing the MiG to turn and run away and the missile to miss. Sure, the Phoenix does not have a good record in US service, but none of these incidents impeach the AIM-54s maneuverability against fighter sized targets.

After reading this thread, some questions come to my mind :

- how an old aircraft like F-14, with an old radar technology can track a modern fighter with a modern ECM pod

- what is the burn-throug range of the old radar of F-14, to have a lock, to launch his old missile, with poor manouevrability, and old technology

- why the us navy replace the F-14 with F-18, if f-14 is better ? because in DCS, f-14 seems to be better than F-18 for BVR

Is it due to DCS limitation, because all that seems to be pure fiction

After reading this thread, some questions come to my mind :

- how an old aircraft like F-14, with an old radar technology can track a modern fighter with a modern ECM pod

- what is the burn-throug range of the old radar of F-14, to have a lock, to launch his old missile, with poor manouevrability, and old technology

- why the us navy replace the F-14 with F-18, if f-14 is better ? because in DCS, f-14 seems to be better than F-18 for BVR

 

Is it due to DCS limitation, because all that seems to be pure fiction

DCS uses basic ECM using real world ECM would be complicated to code.

After reading this thread, some questions come to my mind :

- how an old aircraft like F-14, with an old radar technology can track a modern fighter with a modern ECM pod

- what is the burn-throug range of the old radar of F-14, to have a lock, to launch his old missile, with poor manouevrability, and old technology

- why the us navy replace the F-14 with F-18, if f-14 is better ? because in DCS, f-14 seems to be better than F-18 for BVR

 

Is it due to DCS limitation, because all that seems to be pure fiction

1) ECM/ECCM capability and techniques are amongst the most classified information out there. How many angels fit on the point of a needle?

2) far enough

3) Essentially with the fall of the Soviet Union and the lessening of the threat facing the carrier fleet, the need for a high performance long range fighter was reduced. Likewise the Navy foresaw it's role shifting towards projecting power overland by using precision ground attack weapons to cripple enemies.

It was decided hat the F/A-18 could carry a greater variety of existing or soon to exist precision standoff weapons. It would be cheaper to pursue a larger, upgraded Hornet that had somewhat greater capability than upgrading the older Tomcats to use the newer weapons. The GAO report where this is all laid out is online btw.