[DCS BUG] AIM-54

[Quid]

 

Sweet. Post up some docs. They are gonna be pre 80 so GTG.

 

Pretty much, but that's where most of the open-source data resides. In that site was a few "I'll take a whack at it" explanations, a "I worked on F-16's and never touched either the Tomcat or Phoenix - here's why not my plane, not my missile, from not my service sucks, and I don't know any of its actual engagement ranges" explanation including it didn't work in look-down under 40NM" when it was tested in look-down against a 50-foot AGL target drone at 22NM with a successful intercept., a few that explain the unique requirements to mount the AIM-54 (great, but how does that say anything about its performance?), a "the F-14 was an interceptor" (no) diatribe, and other irrelevant opinions. I don't see it adding anything.

 

Nice edit, you don't know what I do or don't know, so...

[Harlikwin]

 

I have docs. I won't share (not because I don't want to). The bits about that radar having twice the power of the Eagle radar are a weird mention given that the detection ranges of the original APG-63 vs targets were quite similar to the tomcat's - as well as the DSR for the sparrow being similar for both aircraft operating their radars on the highest power modes which suggests that they were basically equalish in power.

 

More than that would require technical documentation that we likely won't get our hands on for a long time.

 

The bits about why the USAF specifically decided not to haul the Phoenix around may or may not be correct, who knows? The Phoenix was an expensive, liquid-cooled (IIRC) missile which was basically high-maintenance. Yes, carrying them required turning F-15Cs into missile trucks with somewhat fewer mobility options (Acceleration, top speed) ... and perhaps their target environment simply dictated doing something different.

 

So yes, Quin is basically correct - opinions. But most people wouldn't be able to separate that from a fact given the knowledge that we do have, and even the docs we can get our hands on leave plenty of gaps in specific knowledge.

 

Thanks for popping in actually.

 

I think in terms of "power" that might refer to average power when he's talking about the 2 TWT's rather than a peak power, or possibly that second one is just for illumination. I figure the randome size and antennas and operating freqs are gonna be similar ish so the antenna gain is likely similar. At a guess the APG-63 probably has lower system noise and far better filtering especially the PSP models, which would easily make of up for any sort of raw power differences between the two as well so detection range could easily be similar. And the DSR for the sparrow would also suggest that the peak power is the same.

 

Yeah, I mean really I found the bit bit about why no phoenix for the F15 to largely tangential to what I'm interested in. And rather the bits on overall performance of the missile, in particular the flight profiles against fighters and the aforementioned defensive maneuver interesting. Be interesting to know that guys background on this really.

[Harlikwin]

 

Pretty much, but that's where most of the open-source data resides. In that site was a few "I'll take a whack at it" explanations, a "I worked on F-16's and never touched either the Tomcat or Phoenix - here's why not my plane, not my missile, from not my service sucks, and I don't know any of its actual engagement ranges" explanation including it didn't work in look-down under 40NM" when it was tested in look-down against a 50-foot AGL target drone at 22NM with a successful intercept., a few that explain the unique requirements to mount the AIM-54 (great, but how does that say anything about its performance?), a "the F-14 was an interceptor" (no) diatribe, and other irrelevant opinions. I don't see it adding anything.

 

Nice edit, you don't know what I do or don't know, so...

 

Well, I at this point I can surmise that neither actual reading nor basic comprehension are your strong suite. And I have yet to see any actual contributions from you, specifically open source document wise pre-1980, which given the missile was designed in the late 60's you should have speaking with the great authority that you are. But at no point in that doc do I see anything you have mentioned.

 

There was quote from a different guy about what plane he worked on, but not the actual OP.

"I was with the F-15 program for about 10 years, maybe a little more" (so not F16's and pretty relevant to the actual question of why the F15 never carried them)

 

The 40nm figures presented were for an F15 radar not the tomcat. And I don't see any information about it talking about look-down, so I'm not sure how many sheets to the wind you are at this point.

 

 

[Quid]

 

Well, I at this point I can surmise that neither actual reading nor basic comprehension are your strong suite. And I have yet to see any actual contributions from you, specifically open source document wise pre-1980, which given the missile was designed in the late 60's you should have speaking with the great authority that you are. But at no point in that doc do I see anything you have mentioned.

 

There was quote from a different guy about what plane he worked on, but not the actual OP.

"I was with the F-15 program for about 10 years, maybe a little more" (so not F16's and pretty relevant to the actual question of why the F15 never carried them)

 

The 40nm figures presented were for an F15 radar not the tomcat. And I don't see any information about it talking about look-down, so I'm not sure how many sheets to the wind you are at this point.

 

 

Thank you for the ad hominem. You know nothing about me, not about what I do, not about what I know or don't, so, I don't really care about any accusation you make. Open-source data is what is needed for any kind of discourse online, and there isn't much to come by regarding the A-model Phoenix after the 1970s, so that's what we have. As to the F-16 part, look at Jason Knight's response and you'll see what I'm quoting, it is specifically about the F-14 radar, not the F-15. The thing is, based on your responses, I see you're literally just in here to bitch and try to get into a pissing match, so I'm out.

[Harlikwin]

 

Thank you for the ad hominem. You know nothing about me, not about what I do, not about what I know or don't, so, I don't really care about any accusation you make. Open-source data is what is needed for any kind of discourse online, and there isn't much to come by regarding the A-model Phoenix after the 1970s, so that's what we have. As to the F-16 part, look at Jason Knight's response and you'll see what I'm quoting, it is specifically about the F-14 radar, not the F-15. The thing is, based on your responses, I see you're literally just in here to bitch and try to get into a pissing match, so I'm out.

 

Certainly no ad hominem, you posted some gobeldygook that had nothing to do with what I posted in some attempt to discredit it. And I really if you have any of that info on the 70's model phoenix, please share with the class: if you have it share it up or perhaps shut up, but I'm pretty sure you have exactly 0 info. From my perspective you're just some random internet deweeb that just started shitting on the post I shared with nothing productive to add. So its far too late to claim victimhood from where I sit, so...

 

[Quid]

 

Actually I'm not, and I want that info on the 70's model phoenix. So if you have it share it up. From my perspective you're just some random guy that just started shitting on the post I shared with nothing productive to add. So its a bit late to claim victimhood from where I sit, so...

 

It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds…I said I’m out, but I’ll provide this:

 

Yes, I basically said your post added nothing, but I never attacked you yourself. You attacked me directly, talking about reading and comprehension without doing so yourself, and completely missing the F-16 mech’s comment that was aimed at the F-14, not the F-15. I never claimed victimhood, rather spelled out that you went for the person, not any argument. I don’t care about what someone I don’t know says about me online, and I despise people who play the victim.

 

That said, I was not constructive. That is true. If you want the 1970’s data, it’s in line with your earlier comments about how little is actually published ("snippets from books and such"), but that is, as I said earlier, all that can be used in such a forum like this, and if anything else has fallen out into the open source, great! The following comes from two books, “TOMCAT! The F-14 Story” by RADM Paul T. Gillcrist, and “The Great Book of Modern Warplanes.”

 

“Sea-skimming missile test: One of the greatest concerns the Navy had was its inability to counter the Soviet cruise missile skimming over the tops of the waves. Even if it could be acquired and distinguished from the radar return of the water’s surface it was almost impossible for the weapon’s fuze to function properly for the warhead to damage the target. Usually, the fuzing action was caused by the proximity of the water’s surface resulting in a premature detonation. In this test, which occurred on 8 June 1973, “Smoke’s” airplane was cruising at an altitude of twenty-four thousand feet and a speed of Mach 0.92. The target was a QT-33 drone cruising at a speed of Mach 0.72 and a height of just fifty feet over the water. “Smoke’s” RIO acquired the target and a Phoenix missile was launched at a range of twenty-two nautical miles scoring a lethal hit. This was a real landmark in the technology struggle between U.S. and Soviet weaponry.” Gillcrist, 41-42.

 

“Sea-skimming cruise missiles are among the most dangerous threats surface ships have to counter. Hugging the waves at high subsonic speed, their small size makes them difficult to detect. In this test, an unaugmented BMQ-34A flying at Mach 0.75 and just 50 feet was shot down by a Tomcat 22NM away from 10,000 feet.” The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, 632.

 

In both cases, the aircraft was looking down, inside of 40NM against a sea-skimming target and fired the missile with success. As to its ability against fighters, there is only one range-based oft-repeated test that is readily available in the open source world, which has already been posted here about the QF-86 and its inability to shake the AIM-54A even after a 6g pull-out into the vertical from a dive. Otherwise, it’s Iranian claims, or the later model AIM-54C, which you have stated repeatedly is not the point of your ire, and therefore irrelevant.

 

I don’t have an axe to grind, and my response was sarcastic, so I apologize for that. However, the amount of complaining about the AIM-54 and the idea that it shouldn't be able to hit anything at all regardless of how badly someone messes up their "d" is just annoying, and probably fed into why I responded the way I did.

 

EDIT:

Okay, wow, dude, stop editing your posts. I'm glad I kept your original, because you just changed it to the following:

 

"Certainly no ad hominem, you posted some gobeldygook that had nothing to do with what I posted in some attempt to discredit it. And I really if you have any of that info on the 70's model phoenix, please share with the class: if you have it share it up or perhaps shut up, but I'm pretty sure you have exactly 0 info. From my perspective you're just some random internet deweeb that just started shitting on the post I shared with nothing productive to add. So its far too late to claim victimhood from where I sit, so..."

 

An "ad hominem" is a "towards the person" - that is exactly what you did when you said I couldn't read or comprehend. Literal definition. I apologized for being sarcastic, then you changed your response, guess I'll stop doing that. I then posted about the tests from the 1970s, and then you bring up "0 info." Then you changed your "perspective." I think I want my apology back...

[SgtPappy]

Just came across this and thought it was pertinent to this thread, moreso for the phoenix v fighter sections.

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-Air-Forces-F-15-Eagle-fighter-carry-the-extremely-long-range-and-high-speed-AIM-54-Phoenix

 

Hey I just posted that in the other AIM-54 thread :P

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all,

 

some of you need to take a step back,

 

please treat each other with respect.

 

 

thank you

[GGTharos]

 

Thanks for popping in actually.

 

I think in terms of "power" that might refer to average power when he's talking about the 2 TWT's rather than a peak power, or possibly that second one is just for illumination.

 

The tomcat had a separate CW illuminator. I don't know if this is what he's referring to, but all the stuff that was said sort of made sense and sort of didn't. Again it's one of those things that would be hard to tell without specific documentation, but it doesn't look like he's getting this right.

 

I figure the randome size and antennas and operating freqs are gonna be similar ish so the antenna gain is likely similar. At a guess the APG-63 probably has lower system noise and far better filtering especially the PSP models, which would easily make of up for any sort of raw power differences between the two as well so detection range could easily be similar. And the DSR for the sparrow would also suggest that the peak power is the same.

 

They are similar and the pre-PSP -63 was already capable of picking up a T-6 beyond 70nm, with some hits as far as 90-ish.

 

Yeah, I mean really I found the bit bit about why no phoenix for the F15 to largely tangential to what I'm interested in. And rather the bits on overall performance of the missile, in particular the flight profiles against fighters and the aforementioned defensive maneuver interesting. Be interesting to know that guys background on this really.

 

If nothing else it adds a couple of things to think about - things we really don't think about in the game :)

[Harlikwin]

 

 

That said, I was not constructive. That is true. If you want the 1970’s data, it’s in line with your earlier comments about how little is actually published ("snippets from books and such"), but that is, as I said earlier, all that can be used in such a forum like this, and if anything else has fallen out into the open source, great! The following comes from two books, “TOMCAT! The F-14 Story” by RADM Paul T. Gillcrist, and “The Great Book of Modern Warplanes.”

 

“Sea-skimming missile test: One of the greatest concerns the Navy had was its inability to counter the Soviet cruise missile skimming over the tops of the waves. Even if it could be acquired and distinguished from the radar return of the water’s surface it was almost impossible for the weapon’s fuze to function properly for the warhead to damage the target. Usually, the fuzing action was caused by the proximity of the water’s surface resulting in a premature detonation. In this test, which occurred on 8 June 1973, “Smoke’s” airplane was cruising at an altitude of twenty-four thousand feet and a speed of Mach 0.92. The target was a QT-33 drone cruising at a speed of Mach 0.72 and a height of just fifty feet over the water. “Smoke’s” RIO acquired the target and a Phoenix missile was launched at a range of twenty-two nautical miles scoring a lethal hit. This was a real landmark in the technology struggle between U.S. and Soviet weaponry.” Gillcrist, 41-42.

 

“Sea-skimming cruise missiles are among the most dangerous threats surface ships have to counter. Hugging the waves at high subsonic speed, their small size makes them difficult to detect. In this test, an unaugmented BMQ-34A flying at Mach 0.75 and just 50 feet was shot down by a Tomcat 22NM away from 10,000 feet.” The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, 632.

 

In both cases, the aircraft was looking down, inside of 40NM against a sea-skimming target and fired the missile with success. As to its ability against fighters, there is only one range-based oft-repeated test that is readily available in the open source world, which has already been posted here about the QF-86 and its inability to shake the AIM-54A even after a 6g pull-out into the vertical from a dive. Otherwise, it’s Iranian claims, or the later model AIM-54C, which you have stated repeatedly is not the point of your ire, and therefore irrelevant.

 

I don’t have an axe to grind, and my response was sarcastic, so I apologize for that. However, the amount of complaining about the AIM-54 and the idea that it shouldn't be able to hit anything at all regardless of how badly someone messes up their "d" is just annoying, and probably fed into why I responded the way I did.

 

 

Yeah, again, I've never had an issue with either the AWG-9 nor the 54A being able to detect or hit cruise missiles, but that use case scenario is different than what they are used for in DCS, thats the point of my ire. Also, seemingly the fact that the only difference in DCS between the 54A vs the C being the CCM value, which I find to be an absurdity given the 20 year development difference in seeker tech.

 

 

 

[Harlikwin]

 

Hey I just posted that in the other AIM-54 thread :P

 

I know, I stole it from there, and thank you for posting it :)

[DD_Fenrir]

 

Yeah, again, I've never had an issue with either the AWG-9 nor the 54A being able to detect or hit cruise missiles, but that use case scenario is different than what they are used for in DCS, thats the point of my ire.

 

 

But has already been stated an AIM-54A was able to hit a QF-86 drone after the target had pulled a 6g evasion manoeuvre. If an evidential test data of a cruise missile intercept can be believed, why not the fighter sized maneuvering target? Or do you wish to appear to be subjectively selective regards the evidence you use on which to base your opinion?

 

 

 

Also, seemingly the fact that the only difference in DCS between the 54A vs the C being the CCM value, which I find to be an absurdity given the 20 year development difference in seeker tech.

 

 

"Seemingly". Therein lies the crux.

 

With all due respect you seem to have worked your way into quite a pique based on a bare minimum of facts, a large amount of supposition, unreliable anecdotal data and very little hard evidence. Until you have picked apart HBs or EDs coding for these missiles, you really are not in much position to judge. And even then, I can almost guarantee that HB know and understand more about the differences between the two variants than you ever will:

 

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf?...dLLUtYjZ-2pM2U

[IronMike]

Guys, if you don't mind we're locking the thread. It's turned into a discussion including wild assumptions, accusations and whatnot and doesn't help to solve any issues. Everything you need to know is in the whitepaper. Everything that differs from that largely are known bugs to us which are being worked on. That's all there needs to be said.

 

(and ofc the A and C differ in a lot more than just the ccm value, etc..)