AIM 120C getting upgrade

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

-You'd be suprised how many people fly with ECM off. Plus, you have to remember, our modern aircraft are not gen 5, but late gen 4 at best. They don't have a lot of stealth features, if any, which means the F-14's AWG-9 won't have too much trouble picking them up, as long as they don't enter the doppler filter, which is rather large (+-100kn)

-If someone is indeed jamming you, that doesnt stop you from firing missiles at them. While i m not sure if tomcat's missles work in HOJ modes, you can still fire a TWS phoenix in the direction of the jam. By the time the missile closes the distance, it'll have burned thru the jam. That will probably be corrected with the AIM-54 logic update, because the phoenix will require a "go active" signal from the aircraft, but for the time being, it works.

Also, i don't think you could say the phoenix has "poor manouverability". While it is a massive missile, it has a LOT of speed, which allows it to turn less for an intercept, and turn easier with that metric shitton of speed (mach 5 in favourable conditions)

-The F-14 was mostly retired because it was an old aircraft, which was getting too expensive to operate. It wasnt worth the money that had to be poured into it, to keep it alive. It's primary mission (bomber/missile intercept) basicly vanished after the fall of soviet union, and while it was still a very capable aircraft, it wasnt up to date. By 2006, when it was retired, the legacy hornet had 9x's, JHMCS, JSOW, JDAM, AMRAAM, and a LOT of other stuff the tomcaf simply didn't carry.

Could the navy make an even better tomcat? Probably. Would it be woth it? Probably not, at least that's what they decided. They went for the super hornet instead.

Not to mention that by 06 the 120C7 had come online and its supposed to have similar range to the phoneix, not to mention the 120D was in development which improved upon the already impressive range.

Not to mention that by 06 the 120C7 had come online and its supposed to have similar range to the phoneix.

Certainly not in high altitude !!!

Likewise US pretend that AIM-120D range would be has good as Meteor...no way !

1) ECM/ECCM capability and techniques are amongst the most classified information out there. ..

That means a modern combat flight simulator can't be realistic due to classified informations.

You are right on this one, all is guestimate.

2) far enough

It means nothing

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...

mmmh, isn't just because F-18 is a more modern and better multirole fighter with better missiles...

Likewise US pretend that AIM-120D range would be has good as Meteor...no way !

Sure :)

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

You're not wrong any of those points. But DCS doesn't model ECM worth a darn... Simple noise jamming is all you get, and Given that the AWG-9 was huge (antenna) and powerful, I doubt noise jamming would be all that effective at all but long long range.

 

mmmh, isn't just because F-18 is a more modern and better multirole fighter with better missiles...

 

It was also vastly cheaper to operate and maintain compared to the F14, the F14 nearly bankrupted the USN.

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.

On the ECM point, this is one of those things that "sounds right" but is actually quite wrong. I mean you're half right the most modern stuff circa (2020) is classified, otherwise you can buy a textbook on how its done on amazon for stuff up about 20 years ago (oh yeah, the era of our F14). I'd post a link but rule 1.whatever it is, you have google. At the end of the day "modern" ECM tech has a useful lifetime of only a few years before someone figures out how to counter it. But we literally don't have WW2 ECM techniques modeled or even basic adaptations of them in the 60's and 70's, which is pretty lame. And really most of the "classified" is not "how it works generally" but rather, how to do it practically in a pod of size X (the actual nuts and bolts engineering).

-You'd be suprised how many people fly with ECM off.

Perhaps because in DCS, ECM doesn't work as intended

Plus, you have to remember, our modern aircraft are not gen 5, but late gen 4 at best. They don't have a lot of stealth features,

It has nothing to do with stealth, but with ECM, not the same thing.

How react the F-14 radar in ECM envirronnement in DCS ?

if any, which means the F-14's AWG-9 won't have too much trouble picking them up,

I think otherwise, we are talking about a 50 years old plane and radar technology

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

Took the words out my mouth!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

It was also vastly cheaper to operate and maintain compared to the F14, the F14 nearly bankrupted the USN.

Why is it so difficult to just say the true reason : "the f-14 was outdated"

mmmh, isn't just because F-18 is a more modern and better multirole fighter with better missiles...

*Shrug*. The Hornet also has shorter range, less payload, less speed and a less durable construction. "Better" is always a relative thing. Like I said, if you want to read the Governments actual arguments, the report spelling it all out is easily found on Google.

You're not wrong any of those points. But DCS doesn't model ECM worth a darn... Simple noise jamming is all you get, and Given that the AWG-9 was huge (antenna) and powerful, I doubt noise jamming would be all that effective at all but long long range.

There is a generation gap, yet you can jam the AWG-9...

When we were in the Persian Gulf, we had a week where we fought the Emirati Mirage 2000-5 pilots. They were actually quite aggressive pilots who displayed a keen awareness of the tactics to employ against the weaknesses of the F-14A. They would jam to the merge, then pull 9Gs, flying so high we almost lost sight. If we did, they would tag us with a heater (infrared short-range guided missile). But if you could survive the first merge to employ follow-on BFM, they became easy prey.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27889/confessions-of-a-navy-f-14-fleet-pilot-turned-f-5-aggressor

:smilewink:

And if you wonder why the Tomcat was withdrawn, listen that interview. This is a fabulous insight on Tomcat service life by an admiral with 4000 flight hours in the beast !

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=260596

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.

And faster the missile moves, lower its turn rate is and easier it is to evade by simply turning away with good timing.

That is why a AIM-54 is great against bombers and such that can't maneuver, unlike fighters that can out maneuver it with much higher turn rate.

And faster the missile moves, lower its turn rate is and easier it is to evade by simply turning away with good timing.

 

That is why a AIM-54 is great against bombers and such that can't maneuver, unlike fighters that can out maneuver it with much higher turn rate.

Wrong again, read what I posted before. The speed is exactly why it doesnt have to account for fighter maneuvers and thus is even better for fighters than other missiles. Period. Or else why you think they shoot patriots at fighter jets?

Missile threads in DCS... I swear, guys, it is furstrating to read. What are you even discussing at this point? Hard to tell really, it is just about "what I believe is true" and "no, what I believe is true". I hate to burst bubbles again, but none of this matters.

You have the aim54 whitepaper, and it is all in there. It is not, was not, and never will be a "missile that worked better against bombers than fighters", no matter how often you reply this utter nonsense.

And sylkhan, what would you like to add with your comments? That our radar is unrealistic? It's most likely the most realistic radar you have in DCS, and has enough shortcomings that are a result of its age. Just because ECM is a simple on and off function in DCS, doesnt mean the radar is unrealistic... And yes, the F-14 was removed from service because it was outdated. But it wasn't outdated because it couldn't do its role anymore, it was outdated because it cost too much to operate and it would have cost too much to upgrade to fulfill other roles than the one it was intended to, as this role got obsolete.

I dunno if you realize it, but the F15 radar in DCS is not much younger... The C came when in to service, 77? Most of the DCS aircraft are either late 70s, 80s or maximum early 90s aircraft, they all fit in one timeframe and their radar tech btw followed what the awg9 started and heavily build on it and in most cases of what you use in DCS, is maybe some 10 or 15 years younger, not more.

And to cut a long story short: it performs better in BVR than the Hornet, not cause we made it OP (as is hinted here between some lines), but because it was designed primarily for that role, while the hornet is designed as multirole. It is like asking: why is the racing car better at racing than the multipurpose van of my family... It is quite normal that it is, even if you wouldnt buy it, cause you couldnt use it for much else...

And lastly, this is not a "which aircraft is best" or "which missile is best" thread. If you wanna shittalk the F14, that is fine by me lol, but maybe consider that you came to the wrong forums for it, naturally you will hit a lot of resistance from well, fans, here. In any case, we are far off topic, the question was, if the aim120 changes will automatically bring the aim54 changes and the answer is no.

Please take the off topic speculations else where. Thank you.

And faster the missile moves, lower its turn rate is and easier it is to evade by simply turning away with good timing.

 

That is why a AIM-54 is great against bombers and such that can't maneuver, unlike fighters that can out maneuver it with much higher turn rate.

Just analyze some TacView where AIM-54 is tracking a fighter target. You'll see that as long as it's going fast, it doesn't need to pull crazy G to catch a fighter pulling max G.

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

From the same sources

"Iran’s defense ministry recently showed off what it claims is a locally-produced stealth fighter. The F313 Qaher (Farsi for Conqueror)"

I'm not sure I'll take any/all of their claims as gospel...

From the same sources

 

"Iran’s defense ministry recently showed off what it claims is a locally-produced stealth fighter. The F313 Qaher (Farsi for Conqueror)"

I'm not sure I'll take any/all of their claims as gospel...

Of course not.

But Iraq did loose a fair count of fighters in air combat.

And some guys like Tom Cooper spent years studying the subject, even if it isn't an exact science.

From the same sources

 

"Iran’s defense ministry recently showed off what it claims is a locally-produced stealth fighter. The F313 Qaher (Farsi for Conqueror)"

I'm not sure I'll take any/all of their claims as gospel...

Those aren't from the same sources. The Iranian Tomcat kill claims don't come (only) from the Iranian government.

Wrong again, read what I posted before. The speed is exactly why it doesnt have to account for fighter maneuvers and thus is even better for fighters than other missiles. Period. Or else why you think they shoot patriots at fighter jets?

 

He is partially right though. The faster missile will have to pull less angles to match for the target's displacement, that is true, however because of the non linear increase in g/VS/ground speed, will most likely need to pull more g in order to do it.

That is largely irrelevant though, as such defensive breaks would only work when one can visually acquire the missile. And the faster the missile is, the less time you have to respond accordingly from the moment you see it. I.E. if a missile is doing 1500 knots of ground speed it pushing 2500+ft per second (760m/s). If you spot that missile at this range, you only have 1s to react. If the missile is twice as fast, it will cross that distance for an even shorter amount of time. So except for WVR engagements, i don't see how any defensive breaks would reliable tactic to dodge missiles. At least missiles that came into service from the 70's onward.

Now, if one had a perfect SA, then yes. If you know exactly where the missile is coming from, how fast it is, and how much time you have until splash, then yes, you could execute such a turn. But without using external views or other "cheat" i just don't see it happening.

Also keep in mind if/when prox fuzing and the host of DCS-isms that surround why they don't really work in game right now happens, even if you successfully prevent a metal on metal intercept (what is essentially required right now) that even if you do outmaneuver it endgame you may not generate enough distance to prevent it from fuzing.

Those aren't from the same sources. The Iranian Tomcat kill claims don't come (only) from the Iranian government.

Yup... Plus the Iraqis didn't happen to develop a bunch of tactics to specifically deal with the tomcat because it wasn't a long range air threat.

Wrong again, read what I posted before. The speed is exactly why it doesnt have to account for fighter maneuvers and thus is even better for fighters than other missiles. Period. .

:), really... for you speed is the main factor to be a good (the best)missile against agile fighters with modern countermesure systems ?

You can repeat this nonsense, as much as you want, this will not make it a truth.

"Despite the successes of the AIM-54, it was still a big heavy missile designed for use against relatively non-maneuvering targets"

Charlie Gao "military specialist"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/who-cares-about-stealth-missile-transformed-air-combat-forever-35092

And sylkhan, what would you like to add with your comments? That our radar is unrealistic?

It's your own words, not mine.

I asked a simple question, but nobody seems to be able to answer it, perhaps you ?

- at what range the F-14 radar is able to burn-through a modern jamming fighter ?

:), really... for you speed is the main factor to be a good (the best)missile against agile fighters with modern countermesure systems ?

You can repeat this nonsense, as much as you want, this will not make it a truth.

 

"Despite the successes of the AIM-54, it was still a big heavy missile designed for use against relatively non-maneuvering targets"

Charlie Gao "military specialist"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/who-cares-about-stealth-missile-transformed-air-combat-forever-35092

 

 

 

It's your own words, not mine.

I asked a simple question, but nobody seems to be able to answer it, perhaps you ?

 

- at what range the F-14 radar is able to burn-through a modern jamming fighter ?

Quoting national interest blog is about as credible as quoting National Enquirer (US tabloid). Not a particularly reliable source at all.

Wrong again, read what I posted before. The speed is exactly why it doesnt have to account for fighter maneuvers and thus is even better for fighters than other missiles. Period. Or else why you think they shoot patriots at fighter jets?

 

Missile threads in DCS... I swear, guys, it is furstrating to read. What are you even discussing at this point? Hard to tell really, it is just about "what I believe is true" and "no, what I believe is true". I hate to burst bubbles again, but none of this matters.

 

You have the aim54 whitepaper, and it is all in there. It is not, was not, and never will be a "missile that worked better against bombers than fighters", no matter how often you reply this utter nonsense.

 

And sylkhan, what would you like to add with your comments? That our radar is unrealistic? It's most likely the most realistic radar you have in DCS, and has enough shortcomings that are a result of its age. Just because ECM is a simple on and off function in DCS, doesnt mean the radar is unrealistic... And yes, the F-14 was removed from service because it was outdated. But it wasn't outdated because it couldn't do its role anymore, it was outdated because it cost too much to operate and it would have cost too much to upgrade to fulfill other roles than the one it was intended to, as this role got obsolete.

 

I dunno if you realize it, but the F15 radar in DCS is not much younger... The C came when in to service, 77? Most of the DCS aircraft are either late 70s, 80s or maximum early 90s aircraft, they all fit in one timeframe and their radar tech btw followed what the awg9 started and heavily build on it and in most cases of what you use in DCS, is maybe some 10 or 15 years younger, not more.

 

And to cut a long story short: it performs better in BVR than the Hornet, not cause we made it OP (as is hinted here between some lines), but because it was designed primarily for that role, while the hornet is designed as multirole. It is like asking: why is the racing car better at racing than the multipurpose van of my family... It is quite normal that it is, even if you wouldnt buy it, cause you couldnt use it for much else...

 

And lastly, this is not a "which aircraft is best" or "which missile is best" thread. If you wanna shittalk the F14, that is fine by me lol, but maybe consider that you came to the wrong forums for it, naturally you will hit a lot of resistance from well, fans, here. In any case, we are far off topic, the question was, if the aim120 changes will automatically bring the aim54 changes and the answer is no.

 

Please take the off topic speculations else where. Thank you.

:thumbup: