Heatblur F-14 and Forrestal Update

dcs

#1868

I’d tell you, but…


#1869

And that, my friends, is why you always rely on Mr. M61 to get your kills.

Franze have yet to meet man outsmart boolet.


#1870

Somewhat pertinent to the AIM-54 and DCS in general… Or maybe not, but whatever:

I’m not sure what mechanism is used by DCS to guide missiles, but ~10ish years ago when I toyed around with my own missile guidance scripting, the very first guidance mechanic I used was straight up pursuit. As this was used for a JDAM system at first, it kinda sorta worked, but only within certain distances. This led up to changing the scripting to loft the weapon given certain parameters in order to hit the designated coordinates, so it got to where it worked pretty good. Later, this served as the basis for missile guidance and the parameters changed, notably that now weapons were powered. Proportional navigation arithmetic was not my strong suit at the time, so I did the usual scripter thing and half- took the lazy way and instead did a simple velocity-time calculation to put the missile in roughly the right spot to hit. Thus, the system became effective with the AIM-9 and AIM-120 I was developing at the time.

Curiously enough, when the scripting got pushed over to the AH-64, I decided that the HELLFIRE didn’t need to be able to do that and so went to pure pursuit; the result was missiles almost always missed if targets were moving even slightly(!). Turns out at the typical engagement distances in ArmA, units weren’t updating their position as often, so they’d tend to skip around. So every missile that used the scripting had the velocity-time calculation applied in order to correct for that. It’s worth noting that the calculation was very simple (which was good) but had a degree of inaccuracy (which was bad). As it worked “good enough,” there wasn’t much need to change it and so it remained the de-facto standard.

From what I’ve read, DCS did use a similar simplified guidance logic for all missile systems and I am unsure if the recent updates will change that or if Heatblur will have a separate system of their own design for the AIM-54. It’d be fair to say any logic would likely have to be on a best-guess basis as I’m pretty sure stuff like that remains heavily classified.


#1871

Just a reminder to people that it’s ok to agree to disagree. We don’t have to defend our opinions with pitch forks, harsh words or veiled sarcasm (until Mudspike starts selling branded forum pitchforks, anyway - don’t want to close off a potential revenue stream for @BeachAV8R).

I was just silently reminding myself how, in a few months when we are all able to experience the Heatblur Tomcat in DCS, this will all blow away and we won’t have … oh … yeah … that’s not going to go how I am expecting it to go, is it? I wonder if we can just suspend the forum for a few months right around that time. :wink:

I know it is all in good fun but it doesn’t take a lot for that to turn nasty.

EDIT: Wow! I can do the colour thing too! Nifty! It will be @Troll’s turn next :slight_smile:


#1872

Did I miss the Christmas deadline for that?


#1873

More importantly, will there be a forum badge if I take a picture of my pitchfork?


#1874

Asking the hard questions like always


#1875

Anyone plan on being a deadicated RIO or a deadicated pilot. I am keen on flying back seat a lot with this bird. Just need a Maverick @TheAlmightySnark :grinning:


#1876

Oh that sounds good, not sure how much our schedules align unfortunately! I miss flying with the 229th a lot!


#1877

Yes, sure, dedicated RIO sounds very good! To all Mavericks out there pls do not forget to buy the two-pack :slight_smile:


#1878

Please! Somebody step out of line!!!


#1879

The Viggen was okay, but nothing special.


#1880

image


#1881

Screams in Swedish


#1882

I don’t doubt it. :slightly_smiling_face: I can only go by what I saw and heard in the fleet in the mid-to-late 1980s…to include formal ready room tactics discussions and Topgun instructor lectures at NAS Fallon.

Could the AIM-54 be used in fighter-v-fighter engagements? Sure. We knew that at teh time. The 2-2-2 load was common if not the norm. However, this was the height of the Cold War and the focus for AIM-54 employment was hitting fairly large and less nimble targets at long range…and putting several into the air at the same time to offset the Soviet’s numerical superiority in aircraft.

Then the Soviet Union collapsed…do I think that there may have been an impetus at NSAWC to relook at the AIM-54 and highlight its qualities as an anti-fighter weapon? I wouldn’t bet against that. I’ve been to NSAWC several times and worked closely with the staff. They–and I for that matter–would see that as their responsibility, and rightly so. As the keepers and promulgators of naval strike aviation warfare doctrine, highlighting the capabilities of the AIM-54 as a viable weapon in the post-Cold War world is smart.

Regardless…With regard to AIM-54s an fighter-v-fighter engagements, Heatblurt’s F-14 in MP will be an interesting “experiment” in what might have been. I’m looking forward to it. :sunglasses:


#1883

What do you guys say about this:

33 A2A kills with the Phoenix against mostly fighter sized targets…


#1884

Mustaches? Oh please…IRIAF F-14 squadrons have nothing on USN F-14 squadrons in that regard.

Look, even Hangar200 is sporting a 'stache (extra Mudspike Bonus points for the first one to spot him.) :sunglasses:


#1885

That the Iraqis didn’t have Backfire regiments. :slightly_smiling_face:

I can only speak for myself and from my fleet experience. Yes, the AIM-54 can be used against fighters and is pretty good at that. No argument at all.

Just that, during my time the fleet, that wasn’t considered its primary purpose.


#1886

I am going with Fifth from left, standing.


#1887

Nope…hint…I was an intel officer, not aircrew…was not in a flight suit.