Feeling lost? These topics are not simple to understand. If you need resources and information, check here: flyandwire.com/training-centre-video-landing-page/
Thanks! This video took much longer than usual, but I also had more time to work on it. I also changed a lot of parts whilst editing, another reason why I am not sending scripts to Ghost Dog, I can't ask him to re-record bits and pieces every few hours :|
Nice video as always!!!! the energy state of the phoenix in the game is deplorable, the missile that should according to documentation have 97000lb of total impulse has just over 82000lb which makes it a much slower missile at high altitudes than it should in theory be.
This is a complicated topic. I don't have access to the numbers. All docs I have seen have a nice black box covering them (ergo, they are redacted). The Phoenix in-game is quite similar to the real thing. However, it is also the best devs can do without having access to more tools. I can imagine, for example, that a faster cruising missile may result in comically high terminal speeds. Remember the missile API that was announced 4 years ago? Eh, AFAIK we are still waiting.
Great video! One thing to look out for, however, is that DCS *seems* to use different missile aerodynamic and/or guidance models when launching against AI in single-player, than it does for PvP ( this might be due to 'balancing', as an attempt at saving computational resources, or something else.). I'm not familiar with DCS's code and I haven't even played in over a year, so this might not be relevant anymore, but I just wanted to give you a heads up to check some of your numbers in a PvP scenario where both parties are flying "full fidelity" modules. I'd love to know how big the differences are today. I do know for a fact (from watching the missiles' fins and the resultant G's over their flight path) that your radar mode and settings does affect a launched missile's *guidance* efficiency and its effectiveness against maneuvering targets. For example, guiding an AMRAAM while having your radar set to its largest azimuth and bars scan volume, in RWS or even TWS mode (since DCS's "track files" don't actually make use of any proper tracking filters to 'fill- in' the temporal gaps in radar coverage), would obviously increase the target revisit time; However, this then somehow also translates into the missile receiving an instantaneous step-function-shaped jump in its guidance feedback error, each and every time that your radar scans back over that same maneuvering target. The only way to make sure the missile's midcourse guidance doesn't intermittedly pull large G's for a short time, only to go back to 1G coasting for multiple seconds (which is obviously a lot less efficient than just smoothly turning with a constant, but relatively low, acceleration), is to keep the target in an STT lock for as long as possible, or failing that, to use the smallest possible radar scan volume to minimize the amplitude of those guidance steps. Therefore I'd also recommend that you use STT wherever able to get the most consistent and repeatable results. P.S. In case someone reading this thinks it's reasonable for ED to implement missiles' midcourse guidance updates like this, "because the missile wouldn't know it's off-course until the radar has confirmed that the target has moved", that would be the same as thinking that a missile couldn't lead its target, because it "doesn't know where the target will be in the future". In fact, there are numerous tracking filters and maneuverability aware extrapolation techniques that are known in the public literature to solve these problems.
Hey, thanks for your comment. I'm a bit in a hurry, but: - In primis, the vast majority of players play SP. I can put together some tests to see if there's any difference in a PvP scenario; it won't take long. The only concern is about the precision of the scenario. - What you described is well shown by the AIM-54A: in TWS, it changes course every 2s rather than constantly. A sort of "boom-boom but not really" because the surfaces are not fully actuated, just more than normal to compensate more. The 54C has an INS and better guidance, and it can lead as required. However, last time I checked, the difference was really negligible in any scenario (IIRC
interesting study. To complete the JF-17 part, its radar is weaker than F-14/16/18 one. But the Thunder get an enormous advantage in combat thanks to the SPJ pod : thanks to it, the ennemy is not enable to open fire early, when the JF-17 can track in TWR. For example, in some tests I made a year ago, F-18 can't get a firing solution over 28Nm while jammer active. And SD-10/JF-17 stay pretty lethal, even firing on an jamming plane.
Good point, but a non-factor in the current EW simulation. I can kill jamming targets at 60nm in the Tomcat (check old related videos). Hopefully, one day, we will have either a more believable EW simulation or see it removed altogether.
Well, until recently, the Tomcat was the only FW fighter I played with (now I can add the F-4E). Can't you angle-track in the F-18? Then manually loft the 120 and call it a day? IRL it does not work like that, but this is DCS...
With the SD-10, it's worth noting that the missile will not loft at all unless the aircraft is pitched over 9 degrees, whereas the AIM-120 will loft on its own in a number of scenarios regardless of manual loft. It is essentially required to at least do a small manual loft in the JF-17 for the SD-10 to be anywhere near as effective as an AIM-120 in my opinion. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the SD-10 will respect whatever manual loft degree you do, up to about 45 degrees in my testing (past that it seems to go dumb and fly to space). This can result in some really crazy terminal dives. I'm still testing the tradeoff of actually doing such huge lofts, since you essentially dump all your airspeed for such a shot.
You are correct, but I purposely kept most of the employment details out, leaving them for part II or III. It's an almost 19-minute long video already. The details I will add later, besides what you correctly mentioned, regard how to WCS handles the AIM-54, which is far from intuitive for ab initio players, how to take advantage from the manual loft of the R-77, and so on. Regarding the angle, the most efficient, before falling into guidance / tracking issues and diminishing returns, will probably be between 20° and 30°. This is where the AIM-54 falls as well. I made a thorough study months ago, with several thousand launches. It's somewhere on the website - I need moar coffe to remember how the video is called :S
@@FlyAndWire Interesting. I've been making a ton of 35-45 degree shots and getting very impressive results, but it's usually at the cost of dumping too much energy, given that the JF-17 usually sits at M0.7 - 0.9 with a full CAP loadout. Seems I should tone it down a bit and see if I get a bit better results at 20-30 degrees. Great video btw!
Found it: ruclips.net/video/D0A5JQyaqN0/видео.html You can find charts and whatnot there. As mentioned, I tested it up to 50°, but then you introduce too many issues, or the results are just not worth it. Besides guidance, the WCS + INS sometimes can't keep up with sudden manoeuvres, especially in TWS. The JF has the problem of being a modernised F-5. It uses zero fuel, but, as you said, it's a bit of a brick once loaded up. If there's enough interest, I can make a brief study to figure out how different pitch angles affect the results.
I was watching an interview with a former tomcat pilot, I think the channel was "10% true", and he was saying how the pheonix was completely useless outside of 10 nautical miles because even a 5 degree heading change outside of that distance would cause the missile to lack the energy to reach the target because it was huge and slow. Struck me as odd, but at the same time there's no reason why he would lie and he was a former tomcat pilot.
Yeah, well, on the other side, there are some accounts of the Phoenix diving at Mach 5. The problem with such a conclusion is that there are no details: which missile, what motor, what range, what type of target, jamming or not, radar mode, altitude and much more. On Steve's channel, there's the interview with "Puck" Howe. His explanation of the ranges at which the Phoenix worked better is what I have found to be the most common description of the missile.
Odd, I don't remember such a passage. Neither on 10% True or F-14 Tomcast. It has been a while, though. I clearly remember him explaining the ranges thing I mentioned because I put it in my book/manual.
@@FlyAndWire I was misremembering the figures slightly but it is from the "F-14 Tomcat Sunset" video on 10% true, in the "AGP-71 and the Phoenix" chapter. He describes how they would only use it within 20 (not 10) miles, it had a deadzone from 20-30 (he never explains what this deadzone was), and then they'd employ it again past 30 but even a slight 25 degree course correction would defeat the missile at those kinds of distances. And he is describing this in the context of the phoenix gaining increased capability from the AGP-71.
Yep, that's the range bit I was talking about. The APG-71 is a non-factor, the problem is Soviet tactics and manoeuvres as they get closer. If a section splits and manoeuvres, and you are not as fast or high as you can be in DCS servers, then, of course, most missiles get thrashed. Rewatching the video, Puck said that 30-40 is the long-range shot. Then hold because the target at that point will follow Soviet doctrine and manoeuvre (which is a problem for any radar and missile, and that's their purpose), and employ again when they come hot, usually within 20 nm. However, put this into context: the longest ever AMRAAM kill apparently was by a Turkish AIM-120C-7 at a range of 28nm around 2010. With this in mind, a 40nm 20 years earlier is a hell of a shot. That being said, if you are at are normal altitude and not supersonic, 40nm against a target with an offset is challenging.
For instance, the RWR simulation makes it impossible to be hit without knowing a missile is coming. For example, the Iraqi Mirage F1's RWR could not detect the incoming Phoenix (at least in the beginning). In more recent times, the first four MiG-29 splashed by NATO never detected the missiles coming. Another example is the coalition embedded in the aircraft: IRL, you want to be extremely sure before pulling the trigger and, when in doubt, you may want to VID. Here you have Focke-Wulf replying correctly to M4 interrogations oO"
I'm a non-native using an AI for voiceover. Chances are that it's my fault, not yours :) Just to reiterate, as we have seen with the F-4E, people complained its RWR could not detect certain missiles. Imagine if this was applied to most modules without programmable or updated suites. Many would call it unfair when, in reality, it's their potato-level situational awareness that's killing them. Also, I haven't checked recently, but the last time I looked into the Hornet RWR, I could complete a full intercept just with that and no radar. The real pilots and crews I showed the video to had a good laugh about how nonsensical it is.
@@FlyAndWire Copy, bear with my pontification for a moment here. Assuming everyone (ED and Third Parties) agree on an RWR/IFF methodology, and it can be modeled “accurately” (within OPSEC limitations) for all current aircraft, would the community entertain a gamified version for pvp and a “real” version for servers/individuals/squadrons that want it? Now that I’ve said all that, the mountain of effort and coordination required probably inhibits its feasibility.
Well, players already set squawk codes (in sim servers), radio frequencies, laser codes and many other parameters. Many servers demand SRS or other forms of voice comms. All it would take is a proper briefing listing what setting to punch in, imo.
Feeling lost? These topics are not simple to understand. If you need resources and information, check here: flyandwire.com/training-centre-video-landing-page/
your videos are amazing. I wish DCS radar quality was a good as your production
With this video you really nailed the pace. I was able to follow along, consume the numbers and understand the reasoning. Well done.
Thanks! This video took much longer than usual, but I also had more time to work on it. I also changed a lot of parts whilst editing, another reason why I am not sending scripts to Ghost Dog, I can't ask him to re-record bits and pieces every few hours :|
love this series!
Great video again! Thank you!
A brilliant study !
Nice job dude.... congrats!! ❤🔥
Outstanding work!
Nice video as always!!!! the energy state of the phoenix in the game is deplorable, the missile that should according to documentation have 97000lb of total impulse has just over 82000lb which makes it a much slower missile at high altitudes than it should in theory be.
This is a complicated topic. I don't have access to the numbers. All docs I have seen have a nice black box covering them (ergo, they are redacted). The Phoenix in-game is quite similar to the real thing. However, it is also the best devs can do without having access to more tools. I can imagine, for example, that a faster cruising missile may result in comically high terminal speeds.
Remember the missile API that was announced 4 years ago? Eh, AFAIK we are still waiting.
S untyped by mistake 06:40 - Gotta love AI
Yes, I noticed post edit. I have no idea why it skipped it, since it's the script/article :|
Great video!
One thing to look out for, however, is that DCS *seems* to use different missile aerodynamic and/or guidance models when launching against AI in single-player, than it does for PvP ( this might be due to 'balancing', as an attempt at saving computational resources, or something else.).
I'm not familiar with DCS's code and I haven't even played in over a year, so this might not be relevant anymore, but I just wanted to give you a heads up to check some of your numbers in a PvP scenario where both parties are flying "full fidelity" modules. I'd love to know how big the differences are today.
I do know for a fact (from watching the missiles' fins and the resultant G's over their flight path) that your radar mode and settings does affect a launched missile's *guidance* efficiency and its effectiveness against maneuvering targets. For example, guiding an AMRAAM while having your radar set to its largest azimuth and bars scan volume, in RWS or even TWS mode (since DCS's "track files" don't actually make use of any proper tracking filters to 'fill- in' the temporal gaps in radar coverage), would obviously increase the target revisit time; However, this then somehow also translates into the missile receiving an instantaneous step-function-shaped jump in its guidance feedback error, each and every time that your radar scans back over that same maneuvering target.
The only way to make sure the missile's midcourse guidance doesn't intermittedly pull large G's for a short time, only to go back to 1G coasting for multiple seconds (which is obviously a lot less efficient than just smoothly turning with a constant, but relatively low, acceleration), is to keep the target in an STT lock for as long as possible, or failing that, to use the smallest possible radar scan volume to minimize the amplitude of those guidance steps.
Therefore I'd also recommend that you use STT wherever able to get the most consistent and repeatable results.
P.S. In case someone reading this thinks it's reasonable for ED to implement missiles' midcourse guidance updates like this, "because the missile wouldn't know it's off-course until the radar has confirmed that the target has moved", that would be the same as thinking that a missile couldn't lead its target, because it "doesn't know where the target will be in the future".
In fact, there are numerous tracking filters and maneuverability aware extrapolation techniques that are known in the public literature to solve these problems.
Hey, thanks for your comment. I'm a bit in a hurry, but:
- In primis, the vast majority of players play SP. I can put together some tests to see if there's any difference in a PvP scenario; it won't take long. The only concern is about the precision of the scenario.
- What you described is well shown by the AIM-54A: in TWS, it changes course every 2s rather than constantly. A sort of "boom-boom but not really" because the surfaces are not fully actuated, just more than normal to compensate more. The 54C has an INS and better guidance, and it can lead as required. However, last time I checked, the difference was really negligible in any scenario (IIRC
@@FlyAndWire Thank you for considering it and for the detailed response, I really do appreciate it.
interesting study.
To complete the JF-17 part, its radar is weaker than F-14/16/18 one. But the Thunder get an enormous advantage in combat thanks to the SPJ pod : thanks to it, the ennemy is not enable to open fire early, when the JF-17 can track in TWR. For example, in some tests I made a year ago, F-18 can't get a firing solution over 28Nm while jammer active. And SD-10/JF-17 stay pretty lethal, even firing on an jamming plane.
Good point, but a non-factor in the current EW simulation. I can kill jamming targets at 60nm in the Tomcat (check old related videos). Hopefully, one day, we will have either a more believable EW simulation or see it removed altogether.
@@FlyAndWire i guess the Tomcat is a special case, cause JF-17 jammer is a real pain in the *ss for my F-18 friends ^^
Well, until recently, the Tomcat was the only FW fighter I played with (now I can add the F-4E). Can't you angle-track in the F-18? Then manually loft the 120 and call it a day? IRL it does not work like that, but this is DCS...
With the SD-10, it's worth noting that the missile will not loft at all unless the aircraft is pitched over 9 degrees, whereas the AIM-120 will loft on its own in a number of scenarios regardless of manual loft.
It is essentially required to at least do a small manual loft in the JF-17 for the SD-10 to be anywhere near as effective as an AIM-120 in my opinion.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the SD-10 will respect whatever manual loft degree you do, up to about 45 degrees in my testing (past that it seems to go dumb and fly to space). This can result in some really crazy terminal dives. I'm still testing the tradeoff of actually doing such huge lofts, since you essentially dump all your airspeed for such a shot.
You are correct, but I purposely kept most of the employment details out, leaving them for part II or III. It's an almost 19-minute long video already.
The details I will add later, besides what you correctly mentioned, regard how to WCS handles the AIM-54, which is far from intuitive for ab initio players, how to take advantage from the manual loft of the R-77, and so on.
Regarding the angle, the most efficient, before falling into guidance / tracking issues and diminishing returns, will probably be between 20° and 30°. This is where the AIM-54 falls as well. I made a thorough study months ago, with several thousand launches. It's somewhere on the website - I need moar coffe to remember how the video is called :S
@@FlyAndWire Interesting. I've been making a ton of 35-45 degree shots and getting very impressive results, but it's usually at the cost of dumping too much energy, given that the JF-17 usually sits at M0.7 - 0.9 with a full CAP loadout. Seems I should tone it down a bit and see if I get a bit better results at 20-30 degrees. Great video btw!
Found it: ruclips.net/video/D0A5JQyaqN0/видео.html
You can find charts and whatnot there.
As mentioned, I tested it up to 50°, but then you introduce too many issues, or the results are just not worth it. Besides guidance, the WCS + INS sometimes can't keep up with sudden manoeuvres, especially in TWS.
The JF has the problem of being a modernised F-5. It uses zero fuel, but, as you said, it's a bit of a brick once loaded up.
If there's enough interest, I can make a brief study to figure out how different pitch angles affect the results.
@@FlyAndWire Thanks, will check this out!
I was watching an interview with a former tomcat pilot, I think the channel was "10% true", and he was saying how the pheonix was completely useless outside of 10 nautical miles because even a 5 degree heading change outside of that distance would cause the missile to lack the energy to reach the target because it was huge and slow. Struck me as odd, but at the same time there's no reason why he would lie and he was a former tomcat pilot.
Yeah, well, on the other side, there are some accounts of the Phoenix diving at Mach 5. The problem with such a conclusion is that there are no details: which missile, what motor, what range, what type of target, jamming or not, radar mode, altitude and much more.
On Steve's channel, there's the interview with "Puck" Howe. His explanation of the ranges at which the Phoenix worked better is what I have found to be the most common description of the missile.
@@FlyAndWire Puck is the guy I am talking about.
Odd, I don't remember such a passage. Neither on 10% True or F-14 Tomcast. It has been a while, though.
I clearly remember him explaining the ranges thing I mentioned because I put it in my book/manual.
@@FlyAndWire I was misremembering the figures slightly but it is from the "F-14 Tomcat Sunset" video on 10% true, in the "AGP-71 and the Phoenix" chapter.
He describes how they would only use it within 20 (not 10) miles, it had a deadzone from 20-30 (he never explains what this deadzone was), and then they'd employ it again past 30 but even a slight 25 degree course correction would defeat the missile at those kinds of distances.
And he is describing this in the context of the phoenix gaining increased capability from the AGP-71.
Yep, that's the range bit I was talking about. The APG-71 is a non-factor, the problem is Soviet tactics and manoeuvres as they get closer. If a section splits and manoeuvres, and you are not as fast or high as you can be in DCS servers, then, of course, most missiles get thrashed.
Rewatching the video, Puck said that 30-40 is the long-range shot. Then hold because the target at that point will follow Soviet doctrine and manoeuvre (which is a problem for any radar and missile, and that's their purpose), and employ again when they come hot, usually within 20 nm.
However, put this into context: the longest ever AMRAAM kill apparently was by a Turkish AIM-120C-7 at a range of 28nm around 2010. With this in mind, a 40nm 20 years earlier is a hell of a shot. That being said, if you are at are normal altitude and not supersonic, 40nm against a target with an offset is challenging.
Pl-12/SD10 over performing for years now.
I’m confused by your gameplay over realism comment. What did you mean by that?
For instance, the RWR simulation makes it impossible to be hit without knowing a missile is coming. For example, the Iraqi Mirage F1's RWR could not detect the incoming Phoenix (at least in the beginning). In more recent times, the first four MiG-29 splashed by NATO never detected the missiles coming.
Another example is the coalition embedded in the aircraft: IRL, you want to be extremely sure before pulling the trigger and, when in doubt, you may want to VID. Here you have Focke-Wulf replying correctly to M4 interrogations oO"
@ I see, i think i was getting caught up on the wording. My bad.
I'm a non-native using an AI for voiceover. Chances are that it's my fault, not yours :)
Just to reiterate, as we have seen with the F-4E, people complained its RWR could not detect certain missiles. Imagine if this was applied to most modules without programmable or updated suites. Many would call it unfair when, in reality, it's their potato-level situational awareness that's killing them.
Also, I haven't checked recently, but the last time I looked into the Hornet RWR, I could complete a full intercept just with that and no radar. The real pilots and crews I showed the video to had a good laugh about how nonsensical it is.
@@FlyAndWire Copy, bear with my pontification for a moment here. Assuming everyone (ED and Third Parties) agree on an RWR/IFF methodology, and it can be modeled “accurately” (within OPSEC limitations) for all current aircraft, would the community entertain a gamified version for pvp and a “real” version for servers/individuals/squadrons that want it? Now that I’ve said all that, the mountain of effort and coordination required probably inhibits its feasibility.
Well, players already set squawk codes (in sim servers), radio frequencies, laser codes and many other parameters. Many servers demand SRS or other forms of voice comms.
All it would take is a proper briefing listing what setting to punch in, imo.
Russian invasion of Crimea...you forgot to add "Nuland regimechange"....was also in 2014