Operational Performance Comparison: Viper, Beagle and Stubby

[eloise]

How is the new estimation of Meteor compare to the Phoenix?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I don't have a Phoenix model, but the parameters I am choosing to go with make for a fearsome missile.

[eloise]

I don't have a Phoenix model, but the parameters I am choosing to go with make for a fearsome missile.

That fit what others have been saying in DCS as well
Is it significantly better than Meteor?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I was referring to the Meteor. My DCS experience with the Phoenix has been rather luke warm. Great against Tu-95s, great under 20nm, otherwise sh*t.

[F-16ADF]

Spurts,

Was wondering, what is your opinion of the current F-14B mod? Do you think it is over embellished? When I had some spare time I looked at that "Grim Reapers" aircraft comparisons chart and almost fell out of my chair.

I don't do any sims (not in many years anyways).


Just looking for an honest opinion.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

As it stands right now I would say the F-14B mod has the mod detailed and I would say accurate flight models ever made for public use. They did not just whip up a table that says "at this angle of attack the plane has this lift coefficient". They started there, then they read pilot accounts, then they had former pilots flight test it and tell them what was right and what was wrong.

There have been times when gunfighting an Eagle that we end up in a slow scissors and I would do a cross control snap roll to get on his tail. I read in a ~30-year old book on the Tomcat that that very maneuver was used by pilots in BFM as a last ditch effort.

My first few fights were struggling to not get shot down before I ran out of gas because if you "ham-fist" the controls all you are going to do is stall and fall. I learned to control my nose at high AoA using rudder and my performance went up. I learned to not get over 15 units AoA in a fight to keep my energy up and my performance went way up. Soon I will learn WHEN to go over 15 units AoA and my performance will go up more, etc.

The cat was notorious for a steep learning curve in ACM, and it really is. I probably have ~150hrs in the virtual Cat, ~120 of them are ACM. Most of the rest are speed range tests. I have taken a load of 4 Phoenix, 2 Sparrow, and 2 Sidewinder to 1.91M. NATOPS says the top speed for that configuration is the 1.88M PLACARD limit. Pireps are that the A was faster at teh top end than the B/D in cleaner configurations. With pylons only I can't get above 2.15M. I have had compressor stalls then I accidentally turned off the variable inlet ramps.

Honestly the BIGGEST shock is the Man Machine Interface. The Tomcat is a 3rd Gen aircraft from that perspective. True HOTAS philosophy was not a thing. The radar scope (the DDD in the RIO pit) is a PITA for someone who "grew up" on Falcon 4.0 and DCS F-15. There is no "Dogfight Mode" switch. Instead, there are over half a dozen steps to get ready for combat.

That thing is HARD to use, and I haven't flown anything else since I got it.

[F-16ADF]

Spurts,

Thanks for the reply. When I went on YT and saw their tables, or quite possibly their "personal" derived performance estimates; They just seemed off. Maybe the people who control the properties of the mod subsequently make adjustments to it as time goes on? Hence, trying to make the jet on the monitor the best it can possibly be. Considering it would never match being in the real thing.

I thought about getting into that (sims, even DCS), just cannot justify spending all the money when in my opinion --it doesn't even match the rewards of civilian flight. (Even in a slow dog -172, maybe you feel the same way?) I guess I would rather fly power off 180's, steep spirals, or even relatively benign pattern work than fly a computer screen.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I haven't seen the tables you are talking about, so I can't comment on that. It has been discussed ad nausium before that under the right conditions the F-14B has the best sustained turn rate and radius of the teen series based on Manual charts. The developers do indeed tweak things as time goes to properly fill out the corner cases for realism. When it first released I could hold max AoA and keep fighting as long as I used my rudders exclusively for lateral control. Then they fixed the model and I will stall out of the sky if I try that now. I keep the cat around 300-400kias, where I keep the Eagle between 350-450kias.

I've had the opposite thoughts often. I can't justify the expense of getting current again in 172s when for the cost of 20 hours I can get a VR ready PC, VR headset, several sims, and a full HOTAS flight control. I have flown a VR 172 that was amazing, only missing G forces and the smell of fuel.

[F-16ADF]

Yes, I know it can be preposterously expensive. The trick is buy it in blocks, if the FBO offers that. If not, keep searching for one that does. I don't know, just can't beat the feelings of the real deal. I have seen some 50+ gray hairs with pretty nice rides (obviously more exciting than 172's or 181's). And I would not say all of them are considered "wealthy". One guy owns an L-29, ....lucky bast**d.

[eloise]

I don't have a Phoenix model

Can the result from this study help at all?
http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

I was referring to the Meteor.

I see, because you said earlier that Meteor is only a tad (slightly?) better than AIM-120D and it can't be lofted. So when you talk about fearsome missiles, i thought you are talking about the Meteor.

My DCS experience with the Phoenix has been rather luke warm. Great against Tu-95s, great under 20nm, otherwise sh*t.

Isn't in DSC, AIM-120C also useless above 20 nm ?
From several video i have seen, it seem that Phoenix can fly significantly faster than AMRAAM
See the Tacview after 11:30


See the Tacview after 9:08
AIM-54 can retain Mach 1.9 after it flew 57.8 nm

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Can the result from this study help at all?
http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf


Isn't in DSC, AIM-120C also useless above 20 nm ?
From several video i have seen, it seem that Phoenix can fly significantly faster than AMRAAM
]

I'll have a look at that study.

Speed and range are not everything. The Phoenix is easy to spoof with beaming and slows down a lot in dense air.

Allow me to summarize with my own Tacview.

I launched my first Phoenix head on from 70.7nm at timestamp 15:45. I was at 36,000ft going Mach 1.06. He was at 40,000ft going 0.75M.

At 16:34, I fire again from 54.1nm. I have descended to 35,000ft but have accelerated to 1.35M. He has dropped to 30,000ft and is at 1.07M. My first missile is 35.9nm from target climbing through 60,000ft at 3.7M

At 16:45, he initiates SPAMRAAM, firing 8 AIM-120C-5s and 2 AIM-120Bs. He is at 1.08M and 30,000ft, I am at 1.37M at 38,700ft. Range is 48nm.

At 17:16 I fire my third Phoenix from a range of 39nm. I fire from 1.40M at 42,500ft. He is now diving to avoid my first two missiles. He is at 1.25M diving through 17,700ft after turning 60 degrees to his left. My first missile is dropping in from 49,000ft at 2.8M, range 9.5nm. Second missile is diving from 51,000ft at 4.0M, range 23.7nm.

6 of his AIM-120Cs collide with each other. The last two go active on me 5.4nm out but they are already down to 0.8M and are not a threat. The last of the AIM-120Cs he fired gets within 2.2nm of me as I turn defensive. Had he fired 5nm closer this may have gone very differently.

About this time he is on the deck at 1.06M and my first to missiles have slowed so much was was able to go past them. My last missile is still tracking at 1.7M diving from 11,000ft with a 2.9nm slant range. It eventually passes within 23 ft but fails to fuse because it has lost him in the ocean return clutter.

This is the thing. There is so much more to a missile engagement than just "range" or "speed". Launch parameters, target kinematics, seeker limitations, all come in to play. His missile shots were not useless because they were fired at more than 20nm, they were just fired from too far for the geometry. We had another fight where he launched from 29.7nm. He was at 1.04M at 38,400, I was at 0.90M at 40,000ft. Head on. By the time I get warning of the shot the missile is 5.0nm out and is still doing 2.24M at 39,000ft. I was at 0.95M at 38,000ft at this time.

11 seconds later.... two AIM-120s ripped my Tomcat apart. three more that were already inbound hit my debris field. My 1970 vintage radar failed to even pick him up in that engagement.

[hornetfinn]

I have to put this again here as it's very relevant to Phoenix discussion:
http://www.csdy.umn.edu/acgsc/Meeting_9 ... erview.PDF

Some interesting data about Phoenix speed and altitude capabilities as well as weight of each missile component. Of course this doesn't cover anything like seeker performance or even maneuverability.

[eloise]

Speed and range are not everything. The Phoenix is easy to spoof with beaming and slows down a lot in dense air.

Allow me to summarize with my own Tacview.

I launched my first Phoenix head on from 70.7nm at timestamp 15:45. I was at 36,000ft going Mach 1.06. He was at 40,000ft going 0.75M.

Capture.PNG

At 16:34, I fire again from 54.1nm. I have descended to 35,000ft but have accelerated to 1.35M. He has dropped to 30,000ft and is at 1.07M. My first missile is 35.9nm from target climbing through 60,000ft at 3.7M

At 16:45, he initiates SPAMRAAM, firing 8 AIM-120C-5s and 2 AIM-120Bs. He is at 1.08M and 30,000ft, I am at 1.37M at 38,700ft. Range is 48nm.

Capture.PNG

At 17:16 I fire my third Phoenix from a range of 39nm. I fire from 1.40M at 42,500ft. He is now diving to avoid my first two missiles. He is at 1.25M diving through 17,700ft after turning 60 degrees to his left. My first missile is dropping in from 49,000ft at 2.8M, range 9.5nm. Second missile is diving from 51,000ft at 4.0M, range 23.7nm.

6 of his AIM-120Cs collide with each other. The last two go active on me 5.4nm out but they are already down to 0.8M and are not a threat. The last of the AIM-120Cs he fired gets within 2.2nm of me as I turn defensive. Had he fired 5nm closer this may have gone very differently.

Capture.PNG

About this time he is on the deck at 1.06M and my first to missiles have slowed so much was was able to go past them. My last missile is still tracking at 1.7M diving from 11,000ft with a 2.9nm slant range. It eventually passes within 23 ft but fails to fuse because it has lost him in the ocean return clutter.

This is the thing. There is so much more to a missile engagement than just "range" or "speed". Launch parameters, target kinematics, seeker limitations, all come in to play. His missile shots were not useless because they were fired at more than 20nm, they were just fired from too far for the geometry. We had another fight where he launched from 29.7nm. He was at 1.04M at 38,400, I was at 0.90M at 40,000ft. Head on. By the time I get warning of the shot the missile is 5.0nm out and is still doing 2.24M at 39,000ft. I was at 0.95M at 38,000ft at this time.

Capture.PNG

11 seconds later.... two AIM-120s ripped my Tomcat apart. three more that were already inbound hit my debris field. My 1970 vintage radar failed to even pick him up in that engagement.

I think you forgot to add a video?
Moreover, it seem the issue with Phoenix has more to do with F-14 antique radar, and the antique seeker than the missile itself? Similar missile such as RVV-BD and R-37 do not have that issue

[eloise]

Speed and range are not everything. The Phoenix is easy to spoof with beaming and slows down a lot in dense air.

Does that mean AIM-120 is much harder to spoof with beaming and don't decelerate as fast in thicker air?
shouldn't the massive weight of AIM-54 help its retain speed while diving down ?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

The massive diameter (We are talking twice the diameter, four times the area.) and fins grab a lot of drag. Remember that every iteration of the AIM-120 came with improvements to guidance and ECCM.