[DCS BUG] AIM-54

[captain_dalan]

It's been a while since I've flown the F14. Does the AIM54 still track even when turning cold before it is in active range?

 

Do other missiles in DCS do the same?

 

It does, but actually maintaining illumination seams to benefit the missile's chance of hitting. It's still the same borked missile though. Eats chaff like there's no tomorrow, even the C.

[captain_dalan]

It is impossible to make an exact calculation of the distance traveled by the missile without knowing the time from launch to impact.

It's purely a graphic abstraction mate, all the relevant data given. No velocity needed, so not time tables either.

 

Either way, you are right, it would be stupid not to recognize that if the missile is launched from a distance of 60 miles, you have to subtract the distance that I have traveled towards the missile.

 

:thumbup:

Always try to work out the geometry of your engagement prior to committing to it. It helps if you have cooperative buddies.

[DoorMouse]

None of us are pilots, we can neither affirm nor disprove, but receiving an RWR alert 9 seconds before the impact of a missile that already has 60 miles traveled does not seem very realistic.

 

That type of behavior is realistic. You're being tracked in TWS by the f-14 and the missile is being fed data while its own radar is completely off. It only turns on just before impact to do its terminal guidance to target a few seconds before impact.

 

It was designed this way

Edited September 23, 2020 by DoorMouse

[GGTharos]

At least 15-16 seconds. This has to do with the fixed range of missile radars and the relatively slow response of the RWR to those radars.

[P0G0]

in a french video (

) it is said that normally when the AIM54 go pitbull, the target on the TID flashes but this is not the case. Is it true ?

[Sajarov]

in a french video (

) it is said that normally when the AIM54 go pitbull, the target on the TID flashes but this is not the case. Is it true ?

It is not implemented yet.

 

Sent from my MiG-29S (9-13S) using Tapatalk

[sLYFa]

IRL, it flashes once the radar sends the go-active command to the missile.

In DCS, sometimes it flashes, sometimes it doesn't. I guess thats owed to the WIP implementation of the AIM-54 we have now and should change to the correct behavior some day.

[P0G0]

ok thanks, this problem has already been reported to Heatblur ?

[sLYFa]

quite some time ago, its also listed as one of their priority items to work on

[Harlikwin]

My 2 cents on this. Hopefully HB can clarify where I might be wrong.

 

I'll talk about the A primarily, the C is a different kettle of fish being much more of a modern missile.

 

The A as you know was designed to intercept Russian bombers and high velocity cruise missiles right? It was also designed in the 60's much like the AWG-9 radar, and it helps to think of the seeker head as a simplified/more primitive version of that system. So... Based on its mission the use case is as follows:

 

Bomber: Big fat high RCS target, not particularly maneuverable, but can be "fast" depending on which one you mean.

Missile: The AS-4 is a big ass missile, lets call that a fighter sized RCS. It also goes very fast in a straight line.

 

So, the phoenix flight profile is to loft and dive onto the target. So, its looking at the ground when its diving in. That means it needs a doppler shift to track the target.

 

Given that its a 1960s era radar system, it means its not very sophisticated in terms of filtering as we see with the AWG-9 which has way more space and power for that. So ask yourself how well the AWG-9 does versus notching targets that are below it? The answer is quite poorly. So I think its a fair assumption to consider that the missile, with a simpler radar system is going to poorly as well. And this doesn't really bring into question any of the other issues with radars of that era and the "logic" which I'm sure was pretty simple, i.e. could the seeker go from a hi-PRF to a low PRF. I.e. if you go cold to the missile it may miss as well or at least have a harder time of it. And frankly I'd be surprised if it even had a way of changing PRF.

 

However in both of those use cases it was designed to do, it will should largely have a good doppler shift, particularly from something like the AS-4, as its likely going to be fired head on towards them or at least in their frontal arc. Same case really with the bombers, and if they turn and try to run, its likely a mission accomplished situation anyway.

 

Now I know someone here is gonna say thiis: Butbutbutbut IRAN! They used them against fighters!

 

Well, context there is also critically important. They were used, and they certainly got kills with them, exactly how many is a bit murkier subject. However the general context tends to be less murky. The Iranians mainly successfully used the missiles during the early parts of the war when the Iraqi AF lacked decent RWR gear, mainly they were using sets like the SPO-10 that reportedly couldn't detect the AWG-9 nails. And given what a crap system it is, even if they could it would probably be lost in the noise of a million other radar sets. So, most of those kills, those guys kept on truckin, again, the use case where that high doppler shift existed. Later in the war Iraqis got more advanced SPO-15 RWR's that were useful against the AWG-9 and you saw successful engagements plummet. Also the Iraqis received advanced ECM equipment (for that time) and the claim at least is that no plane equipped with those pods was ever shot down by a tomcat. I'm not gonna drag ECM into this as its pathetically modeled in DCS, but suffice to say that the A models should be pretty vulnerable to ECM techniques from the 80's and 90's and beyond.

 

Compare that to the use case in DCS. Your 2000's era plane has a sophisticated RWR so you see the F14 coming no problem. You might have a TGP that can spot the launch of a phoenix at range, and even if not, you'd probably assume the guy launched by ~30nmi. Or worst case, you are an idiot and keep going hot until you get the phoenix on your RWR. So you defend, you notch it. Boom, it zooms by wondering where the hell you went. But currently the A model is quite hard to notch in DCS.

 

Of course, thats not even talking about the near 2 years of abusing "magic INS" which of course the A model never had. Or the fact you have to tell the A to go active manually. Or that the AWG-9 is reasonably straightforward to notch which at a guess would also likely result in a miss IRL.

 

Frankly IMO alot of online tomcat players want the big magic "I win" button, and HB has largely accommodated that with the phoenix as well as some other tomcat "features".

 

I'll grant that the C model is better modeled in these regards, as its basically a proto-aamram. But the A model does way better than it should vs an aware maneuvering fighter, even one without actual ECM gear which would also reduce the pH significantly.

 

 

[Skysurfer]

But currently the A model is quite hard to notch in DCS.

 

And this is where you lose all credibility. It is one of the easiest missiles to notch and defeat. Just get good at the game and use your perfectly pin-point accurate DCS RWR.

To make this constructive I'll ask you the following - how do you define and execute a "notch" in DCS? If you don't want to clog up this thread please send me a PM and I'll show you and illustrate how to reliably defeat the Phoenix in DCS, be it the current implementation or the future, improved one, since notch gates and mechanics won't ever change in DCS.

 

[TLTeo]

Iirc one of the basic requirements of the Phoenix was the ability to hit targets maneuvering at at least 7g. Clearly the Tu-95 is far more maneuverable than we thought :P

[Skysurfer]

Iirc one of the basic requirements of the Phoenix was the ability to hit targets maneuvering at at least 7g. Clearly the Tu-95 is far more maneuverable than we thought :P

 

As well as small cruise missiles flying at low altitude.

[TLTeo]

Yea but cruise missiles from the Cold War mostly fly in a straight line, so that doesn't help against the usual "it could only hit bombers" argument. Meanwhile,things that pull 7+ g are definitely not big heavy bombers flying in a straight line...

[Skysurfer]

Yea but cruise missiles from the Cold War mostly fly in a straight line, so that doesn't help against the usual "it could only hit bombers" argument. Meanwhile,things that pull 7+ g are definitely not big heavy bombers flying in a straight line...

 

G's also only matter in the terminal phase, close in. If someone pulls 9+ G's at say 15nm the misile will only have to correct ever so sightly for the LOS rate change. If the target is beaming and then does a 9G split S then that's a different story. It's not at all that simple as saying "maximum G's" or "maneuvering" without even knowing what that means.

[TLTeo]

Obviously, the point is that requirement is nowhere close to what *any* bomber or cruise missile could accomplish regardless of the specific of the maneuver. But this conversation is going in circles anyway, so...

[Harlikwin]

 

As well as small cruise missiles flying at low altitude.

 

Yeah, non manouvering ones. Flying at the missile.

[dundun92]

AIM-54 is hard to notch eh?

[Harlikwin]

 

And this is where you lose all credibility. It is one of the easiest missiles to notch and defeat. Just get good at the game and use your perfectly pin-point accurate DCS RWR.

To make this constructive I'll ask you the following - how do you define and execute a "notch" in DCS? If you don't want to clog up this thread please send me a PM and I'll show you and illustrate how to reliably defeat the Phoenix in DCS, be it the current implementation or the future, improved one, since notch gates and mechanics won't ever change in DCS.

 

Well I guess I'll PM you. But notching as I understand it involves killing your radial velocity relative to the missile in question, i.e. putting it on your 3/9 line.

 

And I wouldn't be so sure about mechanics not changing in DCS, they might down the road with that whole EW implementation.

 

[captain_dalan]

"Regarding tests against violently manoeuvering targets, in one case one AIM-54A was fired against an QF-86 from a range of 9.5nm (17.6km, almost within WVR, and far inside the "minimum" range of Phoenixes). The QF-86 pulled a 6G/174° turn (after the missile was launched) to break the radar lock, but the Phoenix pulled 16Gs and scored a direct hit."

F-14 Tomcat

by Mike Spick

 

1.High altitude fast moving? Check!

2. Non maneuvering? Check!

3. Large target? Double check!

 

[captain_dalan]

AIM-54 is hard to notch eh?

 

GUYS! Stop teaching red pilots how to evade out missiles!!!

[Harlikwin]

"Regarding tests against violently manoeuvering targets, in one case one AIM-54A was fired against an QF-86 from a range of 9.5nm (17.6km, almost within WVR, and far inside the "minimum" range of Phoenixes). The QF-86 pulled a 6G/174° turn (after the missile was launched) to break the radar lock, but the Phoenix pulled 16Gs and scored a direct hit."

F-14 Tomcat

by Mike Spick

 

1.High altitude fast moving? Check!

2. Non maneuvering? Check!

3. Large target? Double check!

 

That turn seems non-sensical in the context of breaking a radar lock. Also doesn't say if the 14 fired from low or high or what. That matters. Is that quote all that it says?

 

[Harlikwin]

 

GUYS! Stop teaching red pilots how to evade out missiles!!!

 

The funny thing is offline I have 0 problems dodging the A or C fired by "ace" pilots. Online its a different story using literally the same tactics/maneuvers.

[dundun92]

All of the AIM-54 clips posted were from MP, it may help if you posted a tacview of a typical attempted AIM-54 notch, theres definitely sonething you arent doing that you need to be doing. And yes chaff resistance is worse in SP for missiles on the old API, no clue why.

 

EDIT more videos from last Saturday. I seriously dunno why your having a hard time notching AIM-54s. Its just turning through the notch while spamming chaff:

[GGTharos]

That turn seems non-sensical in the context of breaking a radar lock. Also doesn't say if the 14 fired from low or high or what. That matters. Is that quote all that it says?

 

I believe that it is a bit unlikely for us to know the exact details of various tests. Breaking radar lock may have been successful wish some older radar in this case, but I doubt it would be easy to do it without ECM and/or chaff.