Air to Air Help

[Rogue187]

I have been playing the Desert Strike as the US and I am frustrated with air-to-air. The mission opens with your ships being attacked by 5 MiG-25s and 3 Tu-16s. I understand that there has to be some RNG that will lead to different results, but today I had my worst outcome. I launched two flights of four F-14s with the Air Intercept loadout. Normally I may get one or two hits before the merge, and usually lose one F-14 in return. Today, I hit one MiG, lost two F-14s, and in the subsequent dogfight, lost the other two. Usually, I change the weapons to Weapons Free as they get closer since I can't control the planes well enough manually in a dogfight. It was the four Jolly Rogers that saved the day and shot down the MiGs. Almost all of the AIM-54s missed their targets including the bombers.

Here are my questions:

1. Am I doing anything wrong? I have the F-14s at a higher altitude than the MiGs, but I keep losing them anyway.

2. Are the Phoenix's really that bad?? I miss a lot with those things. The game doesn't model evasive maneuvers, but they don't hit very often.

3. Is this just a limitation of the game engine? This is supposed to be 1990 and I am not running any of the weapon upgrade mods. Are the vanilla versions of the weapons just too old for the time period?

[Julhelm]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Generation_Ugly:

Imho air combat is broken right now. I have a test scenario pitching two Tomcats against four Bears. Clear skies, 20.000 ft, Tomcats heading 270, Bears 090, 100 nm apart and an AWACS close by. The results should be a no-brainer.., but NO... 50 % of all fights i end up losing one, sometimes all Tomcats.. vanilla, no mods, using beta branch.

How do you lose Tomcats to the Bears?

[Julhelm]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Rogue187:

I just tried the air to air battle again and got an even worse result!

4xF14 at 20K feet
5xMiG 25 at 3K feet

The F-14s fired 5 AIM-54s as soon as they were in range. I changed things a little by turning on the F-14's air search radar hoping for a better result. Of the initial five AIM-54s fired, I got one hit. This is pretty typical. The F-14s then fired 3 more AIM-54s and scored one more hit before getting in range of the MiGs. The F-14s also engaged the three TU-16s with one AIM-54 each. The MiG return fire was the worst I have received. Two F-14s shot down in the first volley and the second two shot down just as they were going to merge. The F-14s did fire some closer range sidewinders and sparrows, but none hit. In the end, the Iraqis lost two MiG 23s and one TU-16, and I lost all four F-14s.

Am I just bias for the US side, or should I come to expect this kind of performance?

How fast are the MiG-25s flying? Are they flying towards you or away from you? What altitude are they at? F-14 should be able to engage MiG-25 in the merge well beyond the range that MiG-25 can engage the F-14, so how exactly is the tactical situation playing out?

[Dot]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Generation_Ugly:

Imho air combat is broken right now. I have a test scenario pitching two Tomcats against four Bears. Clear skies, 20.000 ft, Tomcats heading 270, Bears 090, 100 nm apart and an AWACS close by. The results should be a no-brainer.., but NO... 50 % of all fights i end up losing one, sometimes all Tomcats.. vanilla, no mods, using beta branch.

Losing Tomcats to whom? Bears?

[Frankgrim]

the main problem is that aircraft dont go defensive when under attack. no evasive action, they just fly straight and the chaff is rather ineffective for the tomcats while the russian chaff is very effective at defeating the aim-54.
its something the devs need to work on.

[soldier6661111]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Julhelm:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Lord of the Exiled Winks:

Seems there might be an issue with the American AIM54

There is no 'American AIM-54' in the game. There's a single usn_aim-54 and it's used by Tomcats and Alicats alike.

Per wikipedia:

"The AIM-54 Phoenix is an American active radar-guided, beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (AAM),"

[undercovergeek]

Diposting pertama kali oleh soldier6661111:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Julhelm:

There is no 'American AIM-54' in the game. There's a single usn_aim-54 and it's used by Tomcats and Alicats alike.

Per wikipedia:

"The AIM-54 Phoenix is an American active radar-guided, beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (AAM),"

I think he meant in the game 🤦‍♂️

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Diposting pertama kali oleh soldier6661111:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Julhelm:

There is no 'American AIM-54' in the game. There's a single usn_aim-54 and it's used by Tomcats and Alicats alike.

Per wikipedia:

"The AIM-54 Phoenix is an American active radar-guided, beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (AAM),"

What he is saying is, the same missile (defined in one and the same game file) is used by the US Tomcats and the Tomcats operated by Iran.

I'd imagine because it has been claimed time and time again that the missiles on the non-US Tomcats somehow work perfectly while those on the US Tomcats don't.

[Generation_Ugly]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Julhelm:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Generation_Ugly:

I...using beta branch.

How do you lose Tomcats to the Bears?

Oh, that was "easy" - Tomcats engaged with Phoenix, missed and decided to engage the Bears from the rear with guns, despite nearly full racks of missiles - and sometimes made some russian gunners very, very happy.

Disclaimer: no micro management from my side, i just let things happen. And truth to be told: this behaviour stopped some patches ago. Did around forty test runs yesterday and the results were as expected, though very expensive on missiles.

[ThingGoBoom]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Mr.Gold:

Diposting pertama kali oleh patton610:

Oh it's totally a dogfight missile it has a active on the rail ARH mode. But I highly doubt all the launch modes are modeled and they are not accessible to the user

The AIM 54 is not a dogfight missile. It has a hot mode launch but the missile is not manoeuvrable at all. The AIM 7 was used as a dogfighting missile in the Vietnam war to terrible results. Getting improved results when Iran used it in the Iran Iraq war buy not using it in a dogfight. The AIM 7 can pull 25 to 30Gs. The AIM-54A more like 18Gs. The AIM-9L can pull 32Gs and can flip itself on launch to keep target on gimbal so aiming itself before boosting.

The AIM-54 was for a time and debatably through it's entire life considered better than the AIM-7 in visual range due to it's active seeker and more than enough maneuverability to defeat any Soviet fighter. The USN favoured the AIM-7 for fighter vs fighter combat because the AIM-54 was reserved for fleet defence against bombers due to it's huge cost and lack of availability. And of course the pilots would also mention the weight of the fuselage pylons even after launching all AIM-54s as being rather detrimental to the F-14's maneuverability.

[Mr.Gold]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ThingGoBoom:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Mr.Gold:

The AIM 54 is not a dogfight missile. It has a hot mode launch but the missile is not manoeuvrable at all. The AIM 7 was used as a dogfighting missile in the Vietnam war to terrible results. Getting improved results when Iran used it in the Iran Iraq war buy not using it in a dogfight. The AIM 7 can pull 25 to 30Gs. The AIM-54A more like 18Gs. The AIM-9L can pull 32Gs and can flip itself on launch to keep target on gimbal so aiming itself before boosting.

The AIM-54 was for a time and debatably through it's entire life considered better than the AIM-7 in visual range due to it's active seeker and more than enough maneuverability to defeat any Soviet fighter. The USN favoured the AIM-7 for fighter vs fighter combat because the AIM-54 was reserved for fleet defence against bombers due to it's huge cost and lack of availability. And of course the pilots would also mention the weight of the fuselage pylons even after launching all AIM-54s as being rather detrimental to the F-14's maneuverability.

That is a very bold claim considering that the only times the USN fired the missile, they missed, and that the claims of success come all from Iran. I am sure they enjoyed success but to claim it had a higher success rate than the AIM 7 is a bit bold. To what version are you comparing the two missiles? AIM 7 of the Vietnam war? Later AIM 7s?

[Rogue187]

Just to clarify on my part. I'm playing the Desert Spear scenario (I accidentally said Desert Strike in my first post).

US F-14, altitude 20K or 30K depending on when I run it
Iraqi MiG-25, altitude 3K

Range is closing. I start off beyond engagement range (100+ NM) and close to missile range. The first AIM-54s are launched at 75NM.

[101GHOST]

Diposting pertama kali oleh cccpmoscow:

1 you haven't done anything wrong. But alt is not the only key to win a AA fight
2: USN had no score kill with AIM54 through the whole cold war. To get a AIM54 kill
you need:
continuous guide from F14 before msl radar active
msl radar could track taget correctly
target won't do high G maneuver or high speed escape to deplete msl's energy
3: Actually. AIM54a/b AIM7s and AIM9s are the only AA weapons you have got in1990. While AIM120 was still in progress.

That is true only of you ignore the iranian Tomcats and their massive kill count. There is a time where they shot down 3 MiG-23 with a single missile thanks to the 60 kg warhead. And that múltiple kill thing did happen two more times But with only 2 kills.

In “Iran - Irak, War in the Air” by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop you can read about it. The Tomcats won air superiority for Iran almost on their own.

Only the arrival of the Mirage F1 and french trained pilots finally ended that supremacy.

[ThingGoBoom]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Mr.Gold:

Diposting pertama kali oleh ThingGoBoom:

The AIM-54 was for a time and debatably through it's entire life considered better than the AIM-7 in visual range due to it's active seeker and more than enough maneuverability to defeat any Soviet fighter. The USN favoured the AIM-7 for fighter vs fighter combat because the AIM-54 was reserved for fleet defence against bombers due to it's huge cost and lack of availability. And of course the pilots would also mention the weight of the fuselage pylons even after launching all AIM-54s as being rather detrimental to the F-14's maneuverability.

That is a very bold claim considering that the only times the USN fired the missile, they missed, and that the claims of success come all from Iran. I am sure they enjoyed success but to claim it had a higher success rate than the AIM 7 is a bit bold. To what version are you comparing the two missiles? AIM 7 of the Vietnam war? Later AIM 7s?

It's not bold at all. You're the one measuring missile performance by success rate, which is a variable that takes many outside factors into account. Take for instance the early AIM-7s over Vietnam... roughly a 30% hit rate by the end of the war... but that includes duds and launches outside the missile's performance envelope, as well as issues to do with the launch platforms. It's lack of effectiveness early on lead to pilots ripple-firing in some cases their entire payload of AIM-7s... so if one hits, the others may well count as misses. Excluding the AIM-7s that had malfunctions either due to mishandling or equipment failure, the hit rate was closer to 80%.

Of the 3 AIM-54 launches by the USN, 2 were duds that dropped off the rails like bombs. I recall the reason being found to be improper wiring when the missiles were loaded onto the pylons, and they were launched by the same aircraft. The sole example that actually worked was near it's maximum launch envelope, and the target ran as soon as it spotted the F-14 on RWR. A "miss" is the expected result in such a situation It is not something that can be attributed to the missile being inaccurate or supposedly unmaneuverable despite being rated for 18G maneuvers.

If you want to understand actual missile performance, you need to look at capabilities and engagement envelopes, not strictly success rate. The AIM-54 had an active seeker and greater maneuverability than any fighter. It was also known to in live fire exercises be capable of accurately engaging scattering debris if the target was destroyed by a different missile only a couple of seconds ahead, so fighters attempting to "dodge" it shouldn't be a problem. The lower Gs compared to an AIM-7 in practical terms contributed to a larger minimum launch range, but that was offset by the active seeker enabling simultaneous engagements... something the AIM-7 could never do.

[Mr.Gold]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ThingGoBoom:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Mr.Gold:

That is a very bold claim considering that the only times the USN fired the missile, they missed, and that the claims of success come all from Iran. I am sure they enjoyed success but to claim it had a higher success rate than the AIM 7 is a bit bold. To what version are you comparing the two missiles? AIM 7 of the Vietnam war? Later AIM 7s?

It's not bold at all. You're the one measuring missile performance by success rate, which is a variable that takes many outside factors into account. Take for instance the early AIM-7s over Vietnam... roughly a 30% hit rate by the end of the war... but that includes duds and launches outside the missile's performance envelope, as well as issues to do with the launch platforms. It's lack of effectiveness early on lead to pilots ripple-firing in some cases their entire payload of AIM-7s... so if one hits, the others may well count as misses. Excluding the AIM-7s that had malfunctions either due to mishandling or equipment failure, the hit rate was closer to 80%.

Of the 3 AIM-54 launches by the USN, 2 were duds that dropped off the rails like bombs. I recall the reason being found to be improper wiring when the missiles were loaded onto the pylons, and they were launched by the same aircraft. The sole example that actually worked was near it's maximum launch envelope, and the target ran as soon as it spotted the F-14 on RWR. A "miss" is the expected result in such a situation It is not something that can be attributed to the missile being inaccurate or supposedly unmaneuverable despite being rated for 18G maneuvers.

If you want to understand actual missile performance, you need to look at capabilities and engagement envelopes, not strictly success rate. The AIM-54 had an active seeker and greater maneuverability than any fighter. It was also known to in live fire exercises be capable of accurately engaging scattering debris if the target was destroyed by a different missile only a couple of seconds ahead, so fighters attempting to "dodge" it shouldn't be a problem. The lower Gs compared to an AIM-7 in practical terms contributed to a larger minimum launch range, but that was offset by the active seeker enabling simultaneous engagements... something the AIM-7 could never do.

Ok, part of what it is a bold claim is that the AIM 7 after Vietnam just with a change of doctrine increased it's effectiveness 2x. That doctrine change? Don't use AIM7s in dogfights. By the Gulf war with upgrades to then aim 7 it's effectiveness was near perfect. Then you have the "half g force is still twice the g force pulled by a fighter jet" which is true. But the 54 is also going faster than a jet fighter. So the turning radiusnis bigger. And in the Iran Iraq war the early efficiency of the AIM 54 can be attributed in part to launching without a hard lock which was something that probably surprised Itaqui fighter pilots. As when the missile went Pitbull they were not manoeuvering. And big warhead means big splash. Now if they were actively trying to spoof the missile how accurate would it be? No idea. But in BVR there is no indication of the AIM 54 being better than the AIM 7. And the AIM 7 will of course be more manoeuvrable and that is really important in terminal approach. I mean if fighters can spoof and dodge more manoeuvrable missiles why do you think the AIM 54 would be different?

[ThingGoBoom]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Mr.Gold:

Ok, part of what it is a bold claim is that the AIM 7 after Vietnam just with a change of doctrine increased it's effectiveness 2x. That doctrine change? Don't use AIM7s in dogfights. By the Gulf war with upgrades to then aim 7 it's effectiveness was near perfect. Then you have the "half g force is still twice the g force pulled by a fighter jet" which is true. But the 54 is also going faster than a jet fighter. So the turning radiusnis bigger. And in the Iran Iraq war the early efficiency of the AIM 54 can be attributed in part to launching without a hard lock which was something that probably surprised Itaqui fighter pilots. As when the missile went Pitbull they were not manoeuvering. And big warhead means big splash. Now if they were actively trying to spoof the missile how accurate would it be? No idea. But in BVR there is no indication of the AIM 54 being better than the AIM 7. And the AIM 7 will of course be more manoeuvrable and that is really important in terminal approach. I mean if fighters can spoof and dodge more manoeuvrable missiles why do you think the AIM 54 would be different?

As far as I'm aware, there were no instances of NVAF MiGs dodging AIM-7s purely attributed to their maneuvering. There were plenty of factors surrounding the failures of early missile combat, and a lot of it came down to the humidity and improper storage of sensitive parts. The humidity also guaranteed a loss of radar lock in look-down situations over rainforested areas, which worked well for the NVAF ambush tactics approaching from below.

By comparison the missile test ranges in the US, and Iran's war with Iraq were very dry locations, and Iran had the advantage of being trained how to handle weapons based on US lessons from the Vietnam war.

Wide turns don't matter, because the faster the missile is the less time a fighter has to complete any given maneuver. And a subsonic launch in a dogfight is still just as deadly since the missile will be slow enough to outmaneuver any potential target, especially if it remains powered for the entire engagement.

Now, an AIM-54 at close range? It's a fire-and-forget missile with a very long burn time, which can pull 18Gs and has an absolutely massive warhead. If you escape, you've used up your entire life's supply of luck.