Jump to content

Aim-54 CCM


BlackPixxel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why does the Aim-54A, a missile developed in 1960's - 1970's, have a CCM value much better than that of 1980's Aim-7M and Aim-7MH?

 

Aim-54A is an old missile with an analog seeker, but in DCS it was given a CCM value better than much newer Aim-7 variants with digital seekers.

 

This is inconsistent with the rest of the missiles in DCS.

 

Aim-54A: 0.3

 

Aim-7E: 3.0

 

Aim-7F: 3.0

 

Aim-7M: 1.0

 

Aim-7MH: 0.5

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't compare the AIM-54 to an AIM-7, they work on totally diffrent principles. 54 is Datalinked to the AWG-9 until terminal when it's own big fat radar antenna kicks in to active track. the AIM-7 uses a beam reflection bounced off the target by the AWG-9 which is much more susceptible to scattering and disruption by Chaff between the target and the AIM-7's passive receiver antenna. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RustBelt said:

You can't compare the AIM-54 to an AIM-7, they work on totally diffrent principles. 54 is Datalinked to the AWG-9 until terminal when it's own big fat radar antenna kicks in to active track. the AIM-7 uses a beam reflection bounced off the target by the AWG-9 which is much more susceptible to scattering and disruption by Chaff between the target and the AIM-7's passive receiver antenna. 

 

Aim-7M/MH is much newer with digital signal processing, while Aim-54 is very old analog stuff. Surely the Aim-7M/MH should have the advantage here.

 

Also the Aim-54A does not really have a datalink as in midcourse guidance, even in TWS it is using the reflection of the pulses of the AWG-9 off the target.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, BlackPixxel said:

Also the Aim-54A does not really have a datalink as in midcourse guidance, even in TWS it is using the reflection of the pulses of the AWG-9 off the target.

 

During the fly out the AIM-54 receives guidance instructions from the AWG-9 via information encoded in radar pulses, which is analogous to a data link. Later on during the mid-course and terminal phases the missile will transition to SARH guidance and then ARH guidance. 

 

I don't have an argument one way or another about chaff rejection values other than amplifying that the entire system needs reworked to better reflect how and why it works in reality. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlackPixxel said:

Aim-7M/MH is much newer with digital signal processing, while Aim-54 is very old analog stuff. Surely the Aim-7M/MH should have the advantage here.

 

AIM-54A (not to be confused with the C) very rapidly received upgrades after its introduction because it really did have problems specifically with chaff and clutter among other things and those needed to be addressed.

And yes, the 7M/MH will have the advantages that come with digital capability, but the 54 is also big.  It's a huge missile, and having room for electronics really counts, even for old analog stuff.

 

Should it be better at CM rejection than a 7M?  Hard to tell, as you can see the TWS on the tomcat is finicky and the missile itself is analog (though with much more modern capability compared to say the 7F which used con-scan) ... it would constantly receive instructions from the mothership and according to the manuals it could definitely listen to them if it lost track.

 

1 hour ago, BlackPixxel said:

Also the Aim-54A does not really have a datalink as in midcourse guidance, even in TWS it is using the reflection of the pulses of the AWG-9 off the target.

 

It really does have a datalink, but the way the system functions is quite a bit different from the 120 for example  - while we don't know enough about the why, we can speculate a bit.  The 54A will fly with its seeker on from launch, the datalink steers the seeker towards the target, and the missile uses that plus any reflections form the target to form its mid-course guidance.

The 120 will do this purely on position updates, while the 54A looks and samples until it's told to go active.

 

  • Like 1

[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

Once again we are looking at effectiveness modelled in DCS, not speculation. Just hard numbers 3.0 vs 0.3 is a factor of x10. Vs MH its like 40% better.

Not too shabby for a 70s missile to have better chaff and ground clutter rejection 10x better vs a same era and 40% vs a newer 80s missile.

Currently in DCS Aim54 is almost on par with AIM 120C when it comes to its tracking effectiveness.

What gives? Surely if it was that great it would have never been phased out. Yet all pilot accounts state otherwise...


Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk



 
It really does have a datalink, but the way the system functions is quite a bit different from the 120 for example  - while we don't know enough about the why, we can speculate a bit.  The 54A will fly with its seeker on from launch, the datalink steers the seeker towards the target, and the missile uses that plus any reflections form the target to form its mid-course guidance.
The 120 will do this purely on position updates, while the 54A looks and samples until it's told to go active.
 
I think the topic at hand is terminal guidance and CM rejection. So we need not talk about datalink or midcourse.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

  • Like 2

 

Breakshot_Sig_2.jpg

Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably its also monopulse as well the issue here is more with ED than HB.  Chaff overall needs to be rebuilt but that's on ED's end ton HB's.
That is true. However good luck on getting ED to do that.

In the meantime, a missile that is probably pretty bad vs chaff and ground clutter is performing at the same level as a modern day 120C.

Until ED gets a complete remodeling of missile radar dynamics and chaff all we have is those dice roll coefficients...

So why are they so skewed?

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

  • Like 4

 

Breakshot_Sig_2.jpg

Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Breakshot said:

That is true. However good luck on getting ED to do that.

In the meantime, a missile that is probably pretty bad vs chaff and ground clutter is performing at the same level as a modern day 120C.

Until ED gets a complete remodeling of missile radar dynamics and chaff all we have is those dice roll coefficients...

So why are they so skewed?

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
 

 

I don't know where you get the idea that the AIM-54C is "Pretty bad" vs chaff and ground clutter, but I'd be curious to know the source you have... Keep in mind, it's an all digital missile and the latest version of it, the AIM-54C+(U) was IOC in 1993.  I'd be SHOCKED if it didn't undergo numerous guidance and chaff tweaks over its remaining 11 years of life.  As HB has routinely stated, there is no evidence to suggest the AIM-54C didn't receive similar guidance, chaff resistance, and clutter rejection mechanics to the AIM-120 variants over its life time.

We also don't know which variant of the 54C we have in game.  Is it the standard 54C?  Is it the 54C ECCM/Sealed or the 54C+ or the 54C+(U)?  I'm guessing it's the bog standard 54C (IOC in 1985).  Without knowing the specific variant, it's pretty hard to say for sure it is or isn't "pretty bad vs chaff and ground clutter"... but to say that without any real evidence to support it is disingenuous at best.

  • Like 6

My YT Channel (DCS World, War Thunder and World of Warships)

 

Too Many Modules to List

--Unapologetically In Love With the F-14-- Anytime Baby! --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

AIM-54A (not to be confused with the C) very rapidly received upgrades after its introduction because it really did have problems specifically with chaff and clutter among other things and those needed to be addressed.

And yes, the 7M/MH will have the advantages that come with digital capability, but the 54 is also big.  It's a huge missile, and having room for electronics really counts, even for old analog stuff

 

 

It might be big but it has to fit an early active seeker in there, and a big power supply for the long flight time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I don't know where you get the idea that the AIM-54C is "Pretty bad" vs chaff and ground clutter, but I'd be curious to know the source you have... Keep in mind, it's an all digital missile and the latest version of it, the AIM-54C+(U) was IOC in 1993.  I'd be SHOCKED if it didn't undergo numerous guidance and chaff tweaks over its remaining 11 years of life.  As HB has routinely stated, there is no evidence to suggest the AIM-54C didn't receive similar guidance, chaff resistance, and clutter rejection mechanics to the AIM-120 variants over its life time.

We also don't know which variant of the 54C we have in game.  Is it the standard 54C?  Is it the 54C ECCM/Sealed or the 54C+ or the 54C+(U)?  I'm guessing it's the bog standard 54C (IOC in 1985).  Without knowing the specific variant, it's pretty hard to say for sure it is or isn't "pretty bad vs chaff and ground clutter"... but to say that without any real evidence to support it is disingenuous at best.
99% of DCS pilots take mk60 due to its much bigger kinematic potential.

So I think that's the main point of conversation.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

  • Like 3

 

Breakshot_Sig_2.jpg

Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 5:10 AM, Breakshot said:

 

I think the topic at hand is terminal guidance and CM rejection. So we need not talk about datalink or midcourse.
 

Is the DCS missile API capable of making the difference though? I mean, can a missile have different CM rejection when active and during mid-course data-link updates?

Current modules:

FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, 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, Marianas map, Syria Map......ah yes, forgot the Super Carrier! Shows you how often i fly these days....

Modules in waiting: MiG-23, A-6, F-4U, F-8, Falklands Map

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, captain_dalan said:

Is the DCS missile API capable of making the difference though? I mean, can a missile have different CM rejection when active and during mid-course data-link updates?

 

Pretty sure the CCM values only affect the missile itself, not anything in between. So only post pitbull shots, or PDSTT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2021 at 9:30 PM, BlackPixxel said:

 

Aim-7M/MH is much newer with digital signal processing, while Aim-54 is very old analog stuff. Surely the Aim-7M/MH should have the advantage here.

 

Also the Aim-54A does not really have a datalink as in midcourse guidance, even in TWS it is using the reflection of the pulses of the AWG-9 off the target.

 

Nope the 54 is being talked to directly by the AWG-9. The Sparrow only works off reflection. For most of its flight, the 54 has the AIM-9 as its sensor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Nope the 54 is being talked to directly by the AWG-9. The Sparrow only works off reflection. For most of its flight, the 54 has the AIM-9 as its sensor.
Neither of those points have anything to do with countermeasures rejection!

We are talking DCS parameters, not RL. The way the game dynamics operate is a dice roll.

So with that in mind, the 54 has way too good odds of not rejecting chaff and clutter rn. As good as 120C almost.

I call bullshit.

Ccm values need to be on par if not worse than Aim7 / 120B.

Its tweaked to overperform greatly right now

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk


  • Like 3

 

Breakshot_Sig_2.jpg

Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RustBelt said:

 

Nope the 54 is being talked to directly by the AWG-9. The Sparrow only works off reflection. For most of its flight, the 54 has the AIM-9 as its sensor.

 

No: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html

 

The Aim-54A looks at the target reflection from the TWS sweeps of the fighter radar for SARH homing in the midcourse phase. Then it switches to ARH once close enough. It is not steered by datalink.

 

Anyway, the CCM value of the Aim-54A is a joke for such an old missile. Absolutely not consistent with the rest of the DCS missiles.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Breakshot said:

Neither of those points have anything to do with countermeasures rejection!

We are talking DCS parameters, not RL. The way the game dynamics operate is a dice roll.

So with that in mind, the 54 has way too good odds of not rejecting chaff and clutter rn. As good as 120C almost.

I call bullshit.

Ccm values need to be on par if not worse than Aim7 / 120B.

Its tweaked to overperform greatly right now

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

 

 

This is a joke of a statement if you have ever used the 54 yourself or done firing tests. The 54A and C are pretty much the easiest missiles to chaff out in DCS and this has been the case since the release of the Tomcat. Those ccm values in the .lua don't seem to have much of an impact on the new API by the looks of it. Let alone how the chaff mechanics in DCS work - it's basically a diceroll evry time you pop a chaff bundle with a certain probability coefficient.  And how do you know what the CCM values need to be? Especially the 54C should simply ignore most chaff - it's more than twice as big in diameter than the AIM7 or AMRAAM with a ton more room for electronics and a much larger seeker dish. You have no idea what you are talking about here. 


Edited by Skysurfer
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
This is a joke of a statement if you have ever used the 54 yourself or done firing tests. The 54A and C are pretty much the easiest missiles to chaff out in DCS and this has been the case since the release of the Tomcat. Those ccm values in the .lua don't seem to have much of an impact on the new API by the looks of it. Let alone how the chaff mechanics in DCS work - it's basically a diceroll evry time you pop a chaff bundle with a certain probability coefficient.  And how do you know what the CCM values need to be? Especially the 54C should simply ignore most chaff - it's more than twice as big in diameter than the AIM7 or AMRAAM with a ton more room for electronics and a much larger seeker dish. You have no idea what you are talking about here. 
New API? What are you on about?

The pheonix does snakes every 2 seconds in and out of track loss through the notch. The Phoenix lofts vs ECM like nothing is happening (even though no range data is available). The pheonix desyncs and flies through terrain in MP. The list goes on and on.

It is by far the buggiest missile of the lot. And been like this for the longest time.

Then there is this: https://forums.eagle.ru/index.php?/topic/273219-AIM-54/Tomcat-bans-and-prohibitions-in-competitive-play-due-to-easily-reproducible-missile-desync#entry4734068

I think maybe you should do the testing!

Or is everything a okay by your standards? Lol

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk



  • Like 3

 

Breakshot_Sig_2.jpg

Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Breakshot said:

New API? What are you on about?

The pheonix does snakes every 2 seconds in and out of track loss through the notch. The Phoenix lofts vs ECM like nothing is happening (even though no range data is available). The pheonix desyncs and flies through terrain in MP. The list goes on and on.

It is by far the buggiest missile of the lot. And been like this for the longest time.

Then there is this: https://forums.eagle.ru/index.php?/topic/273219-AIM-54/Tomcat-bans-and-prohibitions-in-competitive-play-due-to-easily-reproducible-missile-desync#entry4734068

I think maybe you should do the testing! emoji23.png

Or is everything a okay by your standards? Lol

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk


 

 

Ok, do you actually own the Tomcat yourself and have fired the 54? Just to be clear here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2021 at 10:40 PM, BlackPixxel said:

Why does the Aim-54A, a missile developed in 1960's - 1970's, have a CCM value much better than that of 1980's Aim-7M and Aim-7MH?

 

Aim-54A is an old missile with an analog seeker, but in DCS it was given a CCM value better than much newer Aim-7 variants with digital seekers.

 

This is inconsistent with the rest of the missiles in DCS.

 

Aim-54A: 0.3

 

Aim-7E: 3.0

 

Aim-7F: 3.0

 

Aim-7M: 1.0

 

Aim-7MH: 0.5

 

You can't directly compare those, our AIM-54 is still using the old missile implementation, the AIM-7 is on the new one.

 

4 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

 

No: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html

 

The Aim-54A looks at the target reflection from the TWS sweeps of the fighter radar for SARH homing in the midcourse phase. Then it switches to ARH once close enough. It is not steered by datalink.

 

Anyway, the CCM value of the Aim-54A is a joke for such an old missile. Absolutely not consistent with the rest of the DCS missiles.

 

The AIM-54A looks for the SARH reflection and also get missile datalink commands via the AWG-9. You are assuming things wrongly, how would it otherwise get the active transfer command to go active? And again, can't compare old versus new missile implementation like that, you're assuming things again.

 

2 hours ago, Breakshot said:

New API? What are you on about?

The pheonix does snakes every 2 seconds in and out of track loss through the notch. The Phoenix lofts vs ECM like nothing is happening (even though no range data is available). The pheonix desyncs and flies through terrain in MP. The list goes on and on.

How do you know no range information is available? How do you know the AWG-9 and AIM-54 is notched?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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