Aim-54 track issues

[near_blind]

27 minutes ago, Nealius said:

 

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. 

 

Both. In June ED released their new AIM-120 API, and they both had extremely potent CM rejection values. In August the AIM-54A was changed to have a CM rejection value approximating the AIM-120B, the AIM-54C approximated the AIM-120C. 

 

About the same time, ED made a decision to reduce the AIM-120 CM rejection value because red players didn't like it, and it was felt to be unfair until the R-27 family can be given an APN work over.

 

Last patch the AIM-54s were given reduced CM rejection values to be more inline with the rest of the missiles.

 

For reference in before the reduction, the AIM-54A CCM_K0 was .06 (smaller number == better rejection). Right now it is .3. The AIM-54C was .05, it is now .25. The AIM-120C is currently .1, the AIM-120B is .2.

[dundun92]

Im not sure those ccm values for the AIM-54 did much. We did a lot of testing, and they were still super easy to notch when the ccm_k0 got reduced. Again, AIM-54s have always been easy to notch. There hasnt been a patch when AIM-54s came anywhere near AMRAAM levels of chaff rejection. Also, you are forgetting that while trhe AIM-54 got better chaff resistance it did not get the new chaff model the 120 did (which is part of the reason why it became so hard to notch, not just ccm change)

Edited December 11, 2020 by dundun92

[Wildwind]

Just now, dundun92 said:

Im not sure those ccm values for the AIM-54 did much. We did a lot of testing, and they were still super easy to notch when the ccm_k0 got reduced. Again, AIM-54s have always been easy to notch. There hasnt been a patch when AIM-54s came anywhere near AMRAAM levels of chaff rejection even

It may not make much difference in multiplayer, but it sure appears to make a big difference vs. the AI!

[GGTharos]

1 minute ago, dundun92 said:

Im not sure those ccm values for the AIM-54 did much. We did a lot of testing, and they were still super easy to notch when the ccm_k0 got reduced. Again, AIM-54s have always been easy to notch. There hasnt been a patch when AIM-54s came anywhere near AMRAAM levels of chaff rejection even

ccm_k0 does not affect the notch at all.

[dundun92]

Just now, Wildwind said:

It may not make much difference in multiplayer, but it sure appears to make a big difference vs. the AI!

Vs an AI thats horrible at missile defense, sure. Ill grant that there you may see a difference. But the AI is never a good judge of how good a missile is/isnt simply because it doesnt know how to defend properly. To give an example, close in vs the AI the 9L and 9X have the same Pk. Why? Because the AI's flare pattern is so bad, you end up with neither missile getting decoyed often. Do the same against a competent pilot, however, and things change

[Wildwind]

Just now, dundun92 said:

Vs an AI thats horrible at missile defense, sure. Ill grant that there you may see a difference. But the AI is never a good judge of how good a missile is/isnt simply because it doesnt know how to defend properly. To give an example, close in vs the AI the 9L and 9X have the same Pk. Why? Because the AI's flare pattern is so bad, you end up with neither missile getting decoyed often. Do the same against a competent pilot, however, and things change

And yet, for those of us who play single-player, if the missile is ineffective against the AI, then it's useless.

 

Not everyone plays multiplayer.

[dundun92]

3 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

ccm_k0 does not affect the notch at all.

Yes, and perhaps I should clarify, when I mean notch I usually mean turning through the notch with chaff. In this case im turining too quickly through the notch to trash it via notching alone, but If i use chaff it goes after it almost every time

[RustBelt]

14 hours ago, dundun92 said:

 

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)

Since the doctrine was to mostly load Sparrows and keep the Phoenix in the magazine for direct fleet defense. 

13 hours ago, Nealius said:

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.

That's fine then, in DCS everything is unreliable, changes constantly, and is all in relation to a magic enemy AI so really nothing much to say.

[dundun92]

1 hour ago, RustBelt said:

Since the doctrine was to mostly load Sparrows and keep the Phoenix in the magazine for direct fleet defense. 

That's fine then, in DCS everything is unreliable, changes constantly, and is all in relation to a magic enemy AI so really nothing much to say.

Care to provide a source that AIM-54 would never have been used against ER/AA-10C equipped Su-27s/MiG-29s?

[Karon]

On 12/11/2020 at 6:34 PM, RustBelt said:

Since the doctrine was to mostly load Sparrows and keep the Phoenix in the magazine for direct fleet defense.

Only initially, later the doctrine changed and the AIM-54 was cleared for usage vs fighters.

 

There was a video posted either here or reddit showing a '54 hitting a drone and its manoeuvrability was impressive. There are docs reporting max G pulled by the '54 and the target and it was really surprising.

[BIGNEWY]

A reminder for all, keep it civil when posting.

 

thank you

[IronMike]

The Aim-54 was meant to be used against bombers, against fighters, against missiles and even ships - in short: against anything the Navy ever wished it to be used. This discussion is getting a bit old, guys. We go by CFD data and by what can be achieved for accurate guidance in DCS, and both ED and us worked hard to bring you some good improvements in the next patch, which is 2 more days away.

 

On 12/10/2020 at 4:33 PM, 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 

This should be fixed in the next patch.

[Paladin1cd]

Iron mike, you mentioned against missiles and I had thought that was part of something I had read... shouldn’t we be able to detect and fire on anti ship missiles like the kitchen then. I noticed in a scenario this week I couldn’t get in and engage some fired from backfires and they weren’t on datalink. 

[IronMike]

Not sure about Datalink, because there we only take what we get from DCS. But you should be able to spot the missiles once they come low, iirc the kitchens from the Tu-22s loft to around 80k feet, hehe, which puts them likely outside of the scope for both radar and datalink, unless you somehow happen to be there as well or manage to look up that high, and adjusting your cone, through which they pass within a couple seconds at such angles... 

[Eagle7907]

The Aim-54 was meant to be used against bombers, against fighters, against missiles and even ships - in short: against anything the Navy ever wished it to be used. This discussion is getting a bit old, guys. We go by CFD data and by what can be achieved for accurate guidance in DCS, and both ED and us worked hard to bring you some good improvements in the next patch, which is 2 more days away.

 

This should be fixed in the next patch.

I was thinking about asking “what we would get for Christmas from the Heatblur family?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SgtPappy]

On 12/11/2020 at 11:26 AM, dundun92 said:

Vs an AI thats horrible at missile defense, sure. Ill grant that there you may see a difference. But the AI is never a good judge of how good a missile is/isnt simply because it doesnt know how to defend properly. To give an example, close in vs the AI the 9L and 9X have the same Pk. Why? Because the AI's flare pattern is so bad, you end up with neither missile getting decoyed often. Do the same against a competent pilot, however, and things change

 

Sometimes I feel like I'm playing a different game than everyone else!

 

In seriousness though, the CM rejection value did a lot on my end. Against AI, I found without a doubt that chaff at least is more effective against them and their chaff and flares are more effective against your missiles. They will spoof an AIM-9L/M no issues with a few flares and no maneuvers. AIM-9X would probably overpower this magic ability though. Notching speeds seem the same - AI or human.

 

Testing the same exact maneuvers ad nauseum with chaff against friends (Jester in the back) showed that I had to work much harder to get the AIM-54s to bite chaff at the time, it felt like they weren't going for chaff at all. I would be hit by about 1/3 AIM-54s they fired. When the F-14A showed up, you could pop chaff whether the missile was looking up, down or whatever (even if you weren't notching quite perfectly) and the missile would bite it 99% of the time. So something certainly did change. Only was hit about 1/12 AIM-54s (be they A or C) and I didn't work anywhere near as hard (i.e. didn't fly under 450 kn to make an effective notch, could fly much higher, barely had to maneuver etc). 

[QuiGon]

From todays changelog:

 

Quote

 

• AIM-54 now uses distance (determined by TGT Size switch: large=13NM, medium=10NM, small=6NM) for going active, instead of 16s TTI.

 

 

I'm kinda suprised by this change in TTI logic. I've never heard anything about it working like that, so I wonder: Is this behaviour realistic or has this just been changed for gameplay purposes?

Edited December 17, 2020 by QuiGon

[sLYFa]

IMO this seems a lot more reasonable since the distance to target at 16TTI may vary greatly depending on engagement geometry and thus the target may be out of seeker range in some cases. Information how the AWG-9/PH works exactly is scarce so we have to trust HB on that.

[GGTharos]

It's probably not for gameplay but rather for programming purposes.   Making the TTI itself more or less correct is not trivial - you'd have to take shots at various distances and altitudes to build TOF tables, and then you'd have to manipulate the TTI based on target aspect/speed changes etc.

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, sLYFa said:

IMO this seems a lot more reasonable since the distance to target at 16TTI may vary greatly depending on engagement geometry and thus the target may be out of seeker range in some cases. Information how the AWG-9/PH works exactly is scarce so we have to trust HB on that.

 

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

It's probably not for gameplay but rather for programming purposes.   Making the TTI itself more or less correct is not trivial - you'd have to take shots at various distances and altitudes to build TOF tables, and then you'd have to manipulate the TTI based on target aspect/speed changes etc.

 

Yeah, the TTI was an issue untill today, but in todays patch notes they also have have this change:

 

Quote

• Added new TTI calculation with real time update.

 

That sounds like the TTI wouldn't be an issue anymore, which is why I'm wondering about the TTI to distance change for the Phoenix going pitbull.

Edited December 17, 2020 by QuiGon

[GGTharos]

Yeah that's a good point ... usually the 'target size' thing is all about the fuzing, not so much about the seeker.

[Spurts]

smaller target=more agile=give it less time to maneuver?

[QuiGon]

@IronMike Could you provide some insight on why this has been changed like that?

Edited December 17, 2020 by QuiGon

[GGTharos]

26 minutes ago, Spurts said:

smaller target=more agile=give it less time to maneuver?

 

Not at all, it's all about getting the seeker closer so that it has a solid detection.

[QuiGon]

  

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

@IronMike Could you provide some insight on why this has been changed like that?

 

 

IronMike now gave some background info on the changes in a different thread:

 

14 minutes ago, IronMike said:

 

It is realistic (and will stay like that). SME input finally led us to discover the proper activation criteria. The 16s TTI was a crew rule of thumb, which we interpreted wrongly so far. It never really appeared to us, since such things are not readily available in manuals which are readily available themselves. With the TTI being off lately, we started re-investigating and asking our SMEs more indepth about it, where it got noted that the 16s TTI was wrongly implemented as activation criterion previously. Funny enough: since we did the change, the TTI flashing active will be much more often close to 16s now, than it was before. Also, note that the TTI itself has been improved and is more accurate now. The 16s can remain as a rule of thumb, but what you are looking for now is when the TTI starts to flash, whether that is at 13 seconds or 16 seconds does not matter anymore in that sense.

Note that in real life distance matters for detection. We believe this isn't really modeled in DCS, but what holds up is the missile's cone. A small target might slip out of the cone at/around activation when maneuvering easier than a large target, so that is one thing to be kept in mind. It is likely if trying to send it active on a missile as target at 13nm, the phoenix won't detect it. IRL as mentioned that would be also limited with detection range of the missile's radar relative to target size, but again, that is likely not reflected in DCS.

Another thing to keep in mind: further away activation will let you go cold sooner, but give the bandit more warning. Close in activation will give the bandit a later warning, but you need to support the missile further. Something to be weighed, when selecting the TGT size.

 

 

That's all the info I needed

Edited December 17, 2020 by QuiGon