Jump to content

Aim-54 track issues


Tinysnipe

Recommended Posts

So I couldn't find a up to date thread that talks about this problem. So if their is a person who talks about this and addresses the issue yell at me for not seeing it, then show me the thread. But anyways me and my friend have noticed that phoenix seems to struggle at keeping a lock on a enemy plane. And we only have a chance of hitting an enemy with a phoenix if they are well within 20 miles. I have a tacview of a tws launch of 4 phoenix's, to which they all miss their targets. Does anyone know what I could be doing incorrectly? 

 

Here is the tacview: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3z5fb5ml7q9k1hf/Tacview-20201203-135956-DCS-Georgia%20At%20War%20v3.0.24_afternoon.zip.acmi?dl=0 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've experienced the same. If I lock targets with PAL (within 15nm) they track mostly fine. If I let Jester use TWS-Auto at 30~40nm they go ballistic as if they've lost the target about halfway through their flight. 

 

Interestingly, during all this Jester refuses to let me use PLM. When I press the PLM button, it will momentarily activate then immediately deactivate while I hear clicking in the back seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Im having the same issue. It goes into lala land under 20nm

F-14 | F-15 | F/A-18C | F-16C | AV-8B | A-10 |

Nevada | Persian Gulf | Supercarrier

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

RYZEN 5 1400 | GTX 1050 | 32gb RAM | 500gb SSD | 1TB HDD| Track IR | TM T16000M FCS HOTAS | TM TFRP Rudder :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tinysnipe said:

So I couldn't find a up to date thread that talks about this problem. So if their is a person who talks about this and addresses the issue yell at me for not seeing it, then show me the thread. But anyways me and my friend have noticed that phoenix seems to struggle at keeping a lock on a enemy plane. And we only have a chance of hitting an enemy with a phoenix if they are well within 20 miles. I have a tacview of a tws launch of 4 phoenix's, to which they all miss their targets. Does anyone know what I could be doing incorrectly? 

 

Here is the tacview: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3z5fb5ml7q9k1hf/Tacview-20201203-135956-DCS-Georgia%20At%20War%20v3.0.24_afternoon.zip.acmi?dl=0 

 

Your first missile was decoyed by Chaff. 

 

Your second missile was most likely decoyed by Chaff.

 

I'd need to see your TID to be sure, but your third and fourth missiles likely missed because the radar experienced track loss when they flew into the notch, and thus the missiles didn't receive a timely active signal. 

 

Things to keep in mind are the AI DCS will receive are cheating, and will begin chaffing if the missile is launched at < half range regardless of whether or not it's active. Chaff in DCS creates a dice roll when dropped to determine whether or not the missile is decoyed, and this dice is rolled for each chaff bundle the missile can see. Shooting into a concentrated blob like that means you are making 4x the miss dice rolls. Also AIM-54As are the most vulnerable to chaff.

 

Also with the new missile API the missile is guided towards where the AWG-9 *thinks* the target is going to be, which may differ significantly from where the target actually is. If the contact flies perpendicular to you, or makes a >6G break turn, the radar will lose contact and begin guessing. In your situation, if the SU-25s you're shooting at start flying perpendicular to you, the radar begins extrapolating their position, and then they pitch back hot, it's a very real possibility the missile will fly past them before getting to command to begin searching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would imply that the radar has lost the track - ie. even if it's doing the 'track hold' thing, the aircraft have left the track correlation criteria - is this how you've modeled it?

[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 comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

This would imply that the radar has lost the track - ie. even if it's doing the 'track hold' thing, the aircraft have left the track correlation criteria - is this how you've modeled it?

 

There is no track correlation. If the radar misses a hit the track is dead, it's just a matter of how long it is extrapolated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, near_blind said:

 

Your first missile was decoyed by Chaff. 

 

Your second missile was most likely decoyed by Chaff.

 

I'd need to see your TID to be sure, but your third and fourth missiles likely missed because the radar experienced track loss when they flew into the notch, and thus the missiles didn't receive a timely active signal. 

 

Things to keep in mind are the AI DCS will receive are cheating, and will begin chaffing if the missile is launched at < half range regardless of whether or not it's active. Chaff in DCS creates a dice roll when dropped to determine whether or not the missile is decoyed, and this dice is rolled for each chaff bundle the missile can see. Shooting into a concentrated blob like that means you are making 4x the miss dice rolls. Also AIM-54As are the most vulnerable to chaff.

 

Also with the new missile API the missile is guided towards where the AWG-9 *thinks* the target is going to be, which may differ significantly from where the target actually is. If the contact flies perpendicular to you, or makes a >6G break turn, the radar will lose contact and begin guessing. In your situation, if the SU-25s you're shooting at start flying perpendicular to you, the radar begins extrapolating their position, and then they pitch back hot, it's a very real possibility the missile will fly past them before getting to command to begin searching. 

This very good information, thank you for that. But let's say I had the AIM-54C, would that better my chance, or would it still just pretty much give up if the target does a 6g break turn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tinysnipe said:

This very good information, thank you for that. But let's say I had the AIM-54C, would that better my chance, or would it still just pretty much give up if the target does a 6g break turn?

 

So take this with a grain of salt, I don't know if ED/HB implemented the full Rube Goldberg device that is a full up AIM-54 shot, but I'm going to assume it's been simplified a bit.

 

For a medium/long range TWS shot, you visualize it having two stages. The first is the fly out. During this time the AIM-54 is not using its radar and is totally dependent on the AWG-9 for guidance cues. The AWG-9 gives the missile instructions to fly towards the position of the target track, and once the missile is an estimated 16 seconds Time Of Flight from the target, the AWG-9 commands the missile to go active I'm informed through the grapevine be people who know, that the missile is probably not affected directly by chaff during this phase: the missile is not "looking", and chaff doesn't really effect the AWG-9 in PD modes. However, since the missile is completely dependent on the AWG-9, if the AWG-9 loses the track, the missile has problems. In my experience the three most common reasons the AWG-9 loses a track are bandit maneuvers (the radar cannot track a target turning at ~> 6G), the target entering the notch (flying perpendicular to you, the AWG-9 is an old radar and has a pretty wide notch filter), and resolution cells (I.E. lots of targets flying close together, and the radar gets confused over which target is the actual track).  In any case, if the radar misses a single hit, it begins extrapolating (guessing) the targets position based off the last known heading and speed. Depending on what the target has done after it broke the track, this estimate can be wildly inaccurate, creates problems. 

 

Once the missile receives its activation signal, it turns on it's own radar. At this point the missile (both the A and the C) *should* be immune to any sort of lock breaks by hard maneuvering, but it is now vulnerable to chaff, and is still capable of being notched (*grumble*), but is much harder to notch than the AWG-9. The effectiveness of Chaff is influenced by the positioning of the chaff relative to the missile (below is more effective because ground clutter), the aspect of the target releasing the chaff (closer to the notch, is more effective), and the ability of the missile seeker to reject the chaff (newer missiles are generally better). The AIM-54C has better CM rejection values than the AIM-54A and less likely to be fooled, but is hardly immune. 

 

Finally, every missile seeker has a finite field of view. Which means if the AWG-9 for whatever reason directs the phoenix to a position far enough away from the target, the missile won't actually see anything and continue flying straight.  

 

The only real way to eliminate the track extrapolation problem as it is now, is to either convince HB the AWG-9 can correlate over multiple frames, or FOIA the manual for the APG-71. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RustBelt said:

Or just remember the Phoenix is a bomber intercept missile, and plan to do any real work with Sparrows against fighters that aren't completely oblivious to you as a threat. 

:doh: Probably the most repeated myth on these forums, no the AIM-54 isnt just a anti-bomber missile and it is objectively better than the AIM-7 BVR (as in outside roughly 5nm) against fighters in almost every way...


Edited by dundun92

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t have a video or track for proof, but somehow I was able to really break a Phoenix once. It was on the BVR instant mission. I can’t remember what I did to get it in this state but the target was within 40nm and after launch I watched it porpoise while it’s rocket motor was firing. It was like it couldn’t decide to loft or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Win 10, AMD FX9590/water cooled, 32GB RAM, 250GB SSD system, 1TB SSD (DCS installed), 2TB HD, Warthog HOTAS, MFG rudders, Track IR 5, LG Ultrawide, Logitech Speakers w/sub, Fans, Case, cell phone, wallet, keys.....printer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nealius said:

If the chaff is a dice roll, then the AI have much better luck than I on a regular basis. 

it is a dice roll indeed, but its a weighted dice roll. You still need to maximize its effectiveness with proper defensive manuevering (e.g, notching). Aim-54s are really easy to defeat RN, just a few chaff in the notch and the missile is defeated. Chaff outside the notch is still a dice roll, but one that isnt in your favor


Edited by dundun92

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

:doh: Probably the most repeated myth on these forums, no the AIM-54 isnt just a anti-bomber missile and it is objectively better than the AIM-7 BVR (as in outside roughly 5nm) against fighters in almost every way...

And yet, in DCS I find the AIM-7 to be highly pretty reliable inside of 10 NM as long as I take good quality shots and support the missile.  I don't think I've ever hit with a Phoenix inside of 10 NM.

 

Of course, before I discovered suddenly last week that I had never downloaded the latest update (yes, I haven't tried to fly the -A yet; I'm still learning the -B, so I'm in no rush to try the more difficult Tomcat just yet.  Eventually, though!) and did so,  I had found Phoenix to be highly reliable  between 15 and 25 NM (I hadn't gotten around to trying to fly the -A yet, I'm still learning the -B!)... and ever since then, I've had about a 10% kill probability with Phoenix at 20-25 NM vs. fighters where it used to be about 60%.

 

Fired eight last night against MiG-23's and MiG-21's, all in near-head-on intercepts, for example - one hit.  Two of them never went active for some reason (yes, I was in TWS)..

 

In those same two missions, I fired four Sparrows at 5-10 NM against maneuvering targets and 3 of them hit.

 

I agree the Phoenix should be the better missile, but (as long as you're in P-STT) right now, right now Sparrow is more reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Wildwind said:

 I had found Phoenix to be highly reliable  between 15 and 25 NM (I hadn't gotten around to trying to fly the -A yet, I'm still learning the -B!)... and ever since then, I've had about a 10% kill probability with Phoenix at 20-25 NM vs. fighters where it used to be about 60%.

 

In addition to the new missile API, the Phoenixes took a large nerf to their CM rejection capabilities last patch to bring them in line with ED nerfing the AMRAAMs to mollify the red players. Smol planes, lots of chaff, less resistant missiles, all in addition to any potential error introduced by the radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, near_blind said:

 

In addition to the new missile API, the Phoenixes took a large nerf to their CM rejection capabilities last patch to bring them in line with ED nerfing the AMRAAMs to mollify the red players. Smol planes, lots of chaff, less resistant missiles, all in addition to any potential error introduced by the radar.

Yeah, unfortunately it pretty much makes the Phoenix useless against the AI because the AI pilots are like those guys in Skyrim that magically know exactly when you shoot at them even if they're 100 yards away facing the other direction, so they will almost always defeat the missile with chaff.

 

I mean, admittedly, I only have about eight missions or so since I downloaded the update, but the pattern has been really obvious.  AI spams chaff - Phoenix goes stupid and misses.  It's so bad right now that if Sparrow PD-STT wasn't broken, I'd be carrying loadouts of Sparrows and Sidewinders and not bothering with Phoenix.  The only thing it's good for right now is making the enemy go defensive, and I can do that with a Sparrow and save weight.


Edited by Wildwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wildwind said:

Yeah, unfortunately it pretty much makes the Phoenix useless against the AI because the AI pilots are like those guys in Skyrim that magically know exactly when you shoot at them even if they're 100 yards away facing the other direction, so they will almost always defeat the missile with chaff.

 

I mean, admittedly, I only have about eight missions or so since I downloaded the update, but the pattern has been really obvious.  AI spams chaff - Phoenix goes stupid and misses.  It's so bad right now that if Sparrow PD-STT wasn't broken, I'd be carrying loadouts of Sparrows and Sidewinders and not bothering with Phoenix.  The only thing it's good for right now is making the enemy go defensive, and I can do that with a Sparrow and save weight.

 

Honestly, my experience is the opposite. I generally try to shoot high/fast around 50 miles. The AI likes to commit in the high thirties, will waste copious amounts chaff trying to decoy the missile during the fly out, and are limited in their ability to maneuver once it goes active.  I'm seeing 50% against things like Fulcrums and Flankers, and even better against Floggers. Them reducing the occurrence of track yeet in the last patch only sweetens the deal. 

 

Meanwhile the AIM-7MH and to a lesser extent the -7M have some sort of APN issue when fired outside of ~15NM, and whiff shots they could and should have connected on. Its less of an issue with close shots, but letting Apex, Archer and Alamo carriers within 10 miles without some sort of weapon timing out on them is contrary to my general game plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dundun92 said:

:doh: Probably the most repeated myth on these forums, no the AIM-54 isnt just a anti-bomber missile and it is objectively better than the AIM-7 BVR (as in outside roughly 5nm) against fighters in almost every way...

Other than in Iran's hands fighting Iraqi Dog pilots, it has NEVER been an effective actual weapon, it's a Deterrent toy. The 1970 F-14 is a BVR Bomber intercepter and a visual range peer Fighter to Fighter Dogfighter. The Phoenix was an ace in the hole for fleet defense, not some retconned 70's AMMRAM. You want to take out peers, you gotta push for the merge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

The 1970 F-14 is a BVR Bomber intercepter and a visual range peer Fighter to Fighter Dogfighter. The Phoenix was an ace in the hole for fleet defense, not some retconned 70's AMMRAM. You want to take out peers, you gotta push for the merge. 

 

Oh no, you're serious. I thought we were all having a sensible chuckle. Is the 70s F-15 now considered a visual range dogfighter? Did someone yeetus deletus the AIM-7F and M from existence? Do I need to go get the picture of the QF-86 getting obliterated by the AIM-54A?

 

Less humorously, as things like the Flanker and Fulcrum became more common, and especially the appearance of the AA-10C forced the Navy to re-evaluate their BVR missile doctrine. Beginning in the late 80s the AIM-54C was considered the preferred solution to the slotback / Alamo-C threat, even moreso once all the Badgers and Backfires disappeared. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Nealius said:

O dear, so it's not necessarily that the AIM-54 is having tracking issues, it's that ED's nerfing of Western Fox 3 chaff resistance has been applied to the AIM-54 as well?

No, the tracking issues are seperate. The AIM-54 has always liked chaff

1 hour ago, RustBelt said:

Other than in Iran's hands fighting Iraqi Dog pilots, it has NEVER been an effective actual weapon, it's a Deterrent toy. The 1970 F-14 is a BVR Bomber intercepter and a visual range peer Fighter to Fighter Dogfighter. The Phoenix was an ace in the hole for fleet defense, not some retconned 70's AMMRAM. You want to take out peers, you gotta push for the merge. 

Since when has just 2-3 USN launches been a statistically significant sample size for making any reasonable conclusion? (esp when one missed simply because of good bandit defense and not missile malfunction)

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

No, the tracking issues are seperate. The AIM-54 has always liked chaff

Since when has just 2-3 USN launches been a statistically significant sample size for making any reasonable conclusion? (esp when one missed simply because of good bandit defense and not missile malfunction)

IIRC, Phoenix chaff resistance was reduced in the last patch.

 

I could be wrong, but it certainly seems so given the difference in performance I am seeing between before I realized Steam hadn't updated my DCS (~60^ kill probability with Phoenix vs. AI fighters at 20-25 NM) to after I actually got the update (~10% kill probability with Phoenix vs. AI fighters at 20-25NM

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

No, the tracking issues are seperate. The AIM-54 has always liked chaff

 

Which version? The AIM-54A had very good Pk for me between buying the Tomcat in March 2019 and this most recent OB update. And as I understand, the A is even less resistant to chaff than the C. It has not "always" liked chaff. 

 

Also can we quit with this "but the AIM-54 wasn't that good in real life" discussion? We are talking about DCS and not real life. Take that shit elsewhere, like the Military and Aviation forums. If you're too lazy to make that thread, I'll make it for you and link it here so you guys can have at it without cluttering our discussion here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...