Jump to content

Can the AIM-54 take down fighter aircraft


Recommended Posts

Exactly, the same goes with cars... the fuel consumption charts come to my mind. :D

 

 

Max. specs are always taken from the best possible conditions and additionally "embellished" up.

 

then in the same line of thought, we can say that the AIM-54 specifications are also embellished ,and we should expect something below when the F-14 hit the shelves?

 

The specs I have read are not from the manufacturers, but from own pilots and weapons specialists publishing missiles data, in all cases the DCS specs are 1/2 of the published specs

 

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aa-10.htm

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html#mozTocId611424

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile)

 

This are the DCS specs:

 

R-27 : Range_max = 35000.0,

R-27ER: Range_max = 60000.0, -- Max range at max altitude. Use AI only.

AIM-120C: Range_max = 61000.0,

R-77: Range_max = 50000.0,

AIM-54: Range_max = 140000.0,


Edited by JunMcKill
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Keep in mind that these are figures for displaying the DLZ, and I believe they affect the AI's use of missiles. R-27ER max range at 60000km is correct for specific circumstances (10km altitude, 0.7M or 0.8M shooter/target).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep in mind that these are figures for displaying the DLZ, and I believe they affect the AI's use of missiles. R-27ER max range at 60000km is correct for specific circumstances (10km altitude, 0.7M or 0.8M shooter/target).

}

 

but in this case, what we can expect from the F-14 developer?, the terminology of DLZ could say that is the Rpi (Range Probability of Intercept) or the Ropt (Range Optimum)?

 

[ame=http://ffw08.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/4/7/30476526/aim-120_dlz_update__apg-68.pdf]http://ffw08.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/4/7/30476526/aim-120_dlz_update__apg-68.pdf[/ame]

 

Read this and tell me what do you think, how to understand the so called DLZ in the current DCS fighters?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of ED missiles, read Raero.

 

but in this case, what we can expect from the F-14 developer?, the terminology of DLZ could say that is the Rpi (Range Probability of Intercept) or the Ropt (Range Optimum)?

 

Read this and tell me what do you think, how to understand the so called DLZ in the current DCS fighters?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, the same goes with cars... the fuel consumption charts come to my mind. :D

 

 

Max. specs are always taken from the best possible conditions and additionally "embellished" up.

 

Funny, I heard the missile range information published is lowballing ranges on purpose because of security reasons.

But if you guys have some more detailed information, sure. Then I guess the missile ranges in DCS are realistic...considering that BVR has been historically nearly impossible so far, we really shouldn´t complain XD

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

GCI: "Control to SEAD: Enemy SAM site 190 for 30, cleared to engage"

Striker: "Copy, say Altitude?"

GCI: "....Deck....it´s a SAM site..."

Striker: "Oh...."

Fighter: "Yeah, those pesky russian build, baloon based SAMs."

 

-Red-Lyfe

 

Best way to troll DCS community, make an F-16A, see how dedicated the fans really are :thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
that phoenix launch and kill was epic

Indeed it was. Imagine the frustrations i had over the years, when self taught air force enthusiasts (think modern hipsters) would yank on both the Cat and the Buffalo....... just because they were popular, they had to be no good....

Current modules:

FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map......ah yes, forgot the Super Carrier! Shows you how often i fly these days....

 

Modules in waiting: F-14A, MiG-23, F-4U, F-8, Falklands Map

 

 

Wish list: South East Asia map, F-4J/N, A-6, F-15A/C, Su-27, Sea Harrier FRS.1, Mirage III, MiG-17.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, I heard the missile range information published is lowballing ranges on purpose because of security reasons.

But if you guys have some more detailed information, sure. Then I guess the missile ranges in DCS are realistic...considering that BVR has been historically nearly impossible so far, we really shouldn´t complain XD

 

it has been done both ways.

 

Since either you make the enemy think your stuff is worse then it is

(which can be an advantage at the point when it has to be used)

 

or you make them fear it as they think it is much better then it actually is

(Mig-25 for example where the other side was terrified of it and tried to make a counter and later the realised it was never as dangerous as they thought).

Link to post
Share on other sites
it has been done both ways.

 

Since either you make the enemy think your stuff is worse then it is

(which can be an advantage at the point when it has to be used)

 

or you make them fear it as they think it is much better then it actually is

(Mig-25 for example where the other side was terrified of it and tried to make a counter and later the realised it was never as dangerous as they thought).

 

 

I'm still scared of a dcs mig-25, how can you catch it?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still scared of a dcs mig-25, how can you catch it?!

 

Aim-54?

 

perfect for a fast target that cant maneuver if it life depended on it.

 

but either way yes the Mig-25 can run away.

 

But it does not have very effective weapons to engage enemy fighters with (atleast not if they are trying evade).

Link to post
Share on other sites
it has been done both ways.

 

Since either you make the enemy think your stuff is worse then it is

(which can be an advantage at the point when it has to be used)

 

or you make them fear it as they think it is much better then it actually is

(Mig-25 for example where the other side was terrified of it and tried to make a counter and later the realised it was never as dangerous as they thought).

 

Many a million has been spent on producing aircraft to counter aircraft with near mythical ability - the art of obfuscation is very much alive within military aircraft production. Always make your aircraft seem invincible, be a little vague on BVR capability and let the opposition expend dollars on trying to counter. Of course it all then becomes a game of counter-counter measures. Not to mention the risk of the opposition hitting on a goldmine of an aircraft that could counter what you misrepresented and is now much, MUCH better than the aircraft you have.

 

Counter-intelligence is a complicated affair.:helpsmilie:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many a million has been spent on producing aircraft to counter aircraft with near mythical ability - the art of obfuscation is very much alive within military aircraft production. Always make your aircraft seem invincible, be a little vague on BVR capability and let the opposition expend dollars on trying to counter. Of course it all then becomes a game of counter-counter measures. Not to mention the risk of the opposition hitting on a goldmine of an aircraft that could counter what you misrepresented and is now much, MUCH better than the aircraft you have.

 

Counter-intelligence is a complicated affair.:helpsmilie:

 

Strictly speaking, CI is a completely different field from what you describe. CI is all about negating the enemy's ability to collect intelligence on friendly forces. Publishing falsified specifications and capabilities isn't CI, it's just good propaganda (gotta keep the civvies paying for it somehow) with the bonus effect of also being good OPSEC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Strictly speaking, CI is a completely different field from what you describe. CI is all about negating the enemy's ability to collect intelligence on friendly forces. Publishing falsified specifications and capabilities isn't CI, it's just good propaganda (gotta keep the civvies paying for it somehow) with the bonus effect of also being good OPSEC.

 

 

Didn't feel like the appropriate word when I was typing it but couldn't come up with a better word that sort of covered all the misdirection. Appreciation the correction though.

 

Also, going to have a look at that book too lunaticfringe, always interested about espionage stuff (mainly because of how wonderfully complex some of the schemes seem and scarily enough, how simple many are).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid the AIM-54 will receive the same treatment as the AMRAAMs in order to balance the sides in MP.

 

Many people want it to be a freight train that can only hit T-95s when the pilot keeps them steady...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm afraid the AIM-54 will receive the same treatment as the AMRAAMs in order to balance the sides in MP.

 

Many people want it to be a freight train that can only hit T-95s when the pilot keeps them steady...

 

Not to go down an entirely different rabbit hole, but if the AIM-120 was being nerfed to "balance" MP, then it would have a smoke trail like a Saturn-V, a seeker that automatically locks on to the nearest chaff bundle BEHIND the missile, and a drogue chute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to go down an entirely different rabbit hole, but if the AIM-120 was being nerfed to "balance" MP, then it would have a smoke trail like a Saturn-V, a seeker that automatically locks on to the nearest chaff bundle BEHIND the missile, and a drogue chute.

 

Psst, don't give them any ideas! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to go down an entirely different rabbit hole, but if the AIM-120 was being nerfed to "balance" MP, then it would have a smoke trail like a Saturn-V, a seeker that automatically locks on to the nearest chaff bundle BEHIND the missile, and a drogue chute.

 

Well its already got a drogue chute so we're part of the way there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm afraid the AIM-54 will receive the same treatment as the AMRAAMs in order to balance the sides in MP.

 

Many people want it to be a freight train that can only hit T-95s when the pilot keeps them steady...

 

The AIM-54 model will be made by Leatherneck, they are not known for nerfing their missiles because of balance. Look at the Mig-21's missiles.

And neither is ED to be honest, ED just seems to be very strict on what missile data that they can take and put in the game from unofficial/official documents.


Edited by VikingTsunami
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
The AIM-54 model will be made by Leatherneck, they are not known for nerfing their missiles because of balance. Look at the Mig-21's missiles.

And neither is ED to be honest, ED just seems to be very strict on what missile data that they can take and put in the game from unofficial/official documents.

 

Finally someone who understands... Funny people who think that things are getting "balanced" in DCS. Excuses for bad pilots I suppose... :doh:

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fight with Pride and dont ask for fairness.

 

There is no fairness in AC, one tries to be as utmost unfair as possible as you wanna be the one coming in for approach gears down and not hanging on a chute the best ;)

  • Like 1

Asus Z370-E - 8700K@5G_delidded - 32GB - 1080GTX-Ti EK-waterblock - 1x 960Evo 250GB - 3x Samsung 850/860Pro 256GB Raid-0 - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 2x Seagate 2TB - 32GB PageFile - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@4x180mm fans - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Win10Pro64 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-elite-f-14-airman-explains-why-the-tomcat-was-so-imp-1610043625

 

 

Our squadron did a night AIM-54 Phoenix shoot where we shot two Phoenixes at range against a drone. The shots were staggered by about 2 miles, one right after the other. Our lead safes, while on NVG's, followed both missiles toward the target. They reported back that the first Phoenix was "Boola Boola", meaning a direct hit and completely destroying the drone. They said what happened next was pretty amazing. The second Phoenix quickly made an adjustment off what was left of the drone and hit the largest remaining part. Remember, this 1,000lb missile is traveling at Mach 3.0 and only a couple of miles behind the first missile, so there was very little time for the missile to react. I guess the Ordies had programmed it for "pulverization mode".

The good thing about the Phoenix was its range. We used to brief that we would shoot one Phoenix at "range" (and I won't say what that range was, but it was far) into any unresolved group of aircraft declared hostile. The idea was to make at least one of the enemy fighters blow up in front of his wingman's face, thus making him think twice about pursuing us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...