CMO 1.05 official update BVR missile performance.

[TBLackey]

My question is, is it normal that a Phoenix missile has 7 seconds of fuel versus the AA-9 which has 52 seconds of fuel? The Sparrows have 4 seconds, and the Sidewinders have 1 second of fuel whilst the AA-8 has 1 second of fuel and the AA-6 has 12 seconds of fuel. Just thought I'd put this out there.

1) Read this: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p5068024

2) The AA-9 doesn't loft, so it needs a lot more boost in order to reach its nominal range. Lofting drastically reduces the boost time necessary to reach a given range, for a couple of reasons.

gravity and momentum?

[thewood1]

I did test the AIM-54C on a head on shot and it does have a 7-9 s motor burn out time.. Most of the sources I see state that the AIM-54C has a motor burn time of 27-30s. The attached pdf is a DCS design document, but its one of the few sources with details on the motor of the AIM-54. Unfortunately, they don't list sources other than a list at the end.

There is this source that confirms the near-30 sec burn time...

https://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-82 ... %20missile.

Same source...

https://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-82 ... 10-110.htm

Again, DCS-oriented, but highlights how unrealistic DCS can be when you look under the covers...

https://karonshome.files.wordpress.com/ ... draft5.pdf

This is a good video from a pilot stating they basically had little faith of a hit beyond 60 miles...

https://youtu.be/YJW5As4Os4U?t=841

edit: if you listen to 20 min., the pilot will state the 30 sec. motor burn time.

I'll leave it to the devs to sort out what is what from that.

[Dimitris]

This may indicate that we're being generous with some of the hardcoded assumptions (e.g. drag coefficient, post-burnout weight percentage etc.).

[Tcao]

FYI, I am doing more tests ,
I have collected the NEZ data for AA-9/R-33 and AA-6/R-40, will update the sheet later this week.
Then I am running the test for WRA at 50%
Right now it seems the AA-9 totally outclass the AIM-54 on all aspects. Expect a hard fight for USN in scenario "Northern Pacific Shootout" , and if you are playing a PBEM game against a human Soviet player, you absolutely need to a good plan/tactics to overcome the superior Mig-31 + AA-9.

At the same time , it looks like when the lofting missile dive down, the speed bleeding seems to be too severe. I will run a few more tests then report.

[Dimitris]

Right now it seems the AA-9 totally outclass the AIM-54 on all aspects.

This is the kind of statement you can make only if all other parameters (incl. firing platforms) are equal; which they are not.

As Sarah previously said, you are not comparing missiles, you are comparing total weapon systems.

In a NEZ-dictated confrontation _of course_ the MiG-31 has the advantage, because it's a bloody fast airplane. I could have told you that years ago. It's exactly what was happening back in the H2/3 years when NEZ-dictated shots were the only shots available (except when the DB was ludicrously western-biased, naturally).

To everyone from the rest of the dev team reading this: Called it.

[thewood1]

The thing that shocked me in the research about the AIM-54 was that pilots were restricted from firing the AIM-54 to below 40 miles. The reason: The AIM-54 was easy to evade with mild maneuvering. This was especially true of the older AWG-9 guided missiles. IOW, the NEZ for the AIM-54 was between 20 and 40 miles.

[Blast33]

I heard a F14 pilot stating they didn't shoot the AIM -54 earlier than 30-40 Nm. Indeed because it was developed for non-manouvring bombers. Was a Top Gun advice.
If you shoot at 50Nm and a tgt would move 25 degrees, you would miss.

29-30 sec of engine burntime
Active from half the range+5 (20nm range/2+5=15NM)
It was possible @ 13Nm to shoot the missile active.
of the rail.

The F-14D had medium PRF (AWG-9 only low and high PRF) and was therefore more capable to track tgts maneuvering to the beam.

Podcast from about 14 min in:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1mZ0bk ... oOCSNWZymw

[thewood1]

I heard a F14 pilot stating they didn't shoot the AIM -54C earlier than 30Nm. Indeed because it was developed for non-manouvring bombers.

The AIM -54D was different.
Don't remember those ranges..

I suspect its the same video you heard it from. The video has made the rounds on the DCS boards before. The most interesting part is that the lofting profile was only trusted between 30-40 miles. The direct shot was considered a high pK but only out to 20 miles. But they had a gap in AIM-54 of most makes between 20 and 30 miles. He stated its why they carried AIM-7s and the driving force behind the AIM-120. He sounded very envious of the AMRAAM. It was also stated that the AIM-54D by itself was not a huge deal. It was the new APG-71 radar that made the difference. Enemy aircraft could notch all makes of the AIM-54 when engaged with the AWG-9. But the APG-71 was designed to counter that.

[Blast33]

Sounds like it.
I edited the previous post with a link to that podcast.

[TBLackey]

I think I figured out the J-8 vs F-22 thing.

In Hail Mary, Raptors are equipped with AIM-120C, with boost time comparable to PL-12. Radar on Hainan can detect F-22s if they get close enough. Which puts J-8s with radar support and PL-12s on an even footing with the F-22 with AIM-120C.

[Dimitris]

I think I figured out the J-8 vs F-22 thing.

In Hail Mary, Raptors are equipped with AIM-120C, with boost time comparable to PL-12. Radar on Hainan can detect F-22s if they get close enough. Which puts J-8s with radar support and PL-12s on an even footing with the F-22 with AIM-120C.

That still doesn't explain how they can shoot these PL-12s, without CEC and (presumably) without being able to radar-detect the F-22s on their own so that they can actually shoot. Again, system vs system not missile vs missile.

We'd need to see a specific pre-fire save.

[Tcao]

Right now it seems the AA-9 totally outclass the AIM-54 on all aspects.

This is the kind of statement you can make only if all other parameters (incl. firing platforms) are equal; which they are not.

As Sarah previously said, you are not comparing missiles, you are comparing total weapon systems.

Loud and clear.
But missile is an important component in the platform.
It’s very hard to get a clear picture of the platform comparison without the knowledge on the missiles.

Think about this, a new player who had 10 hours CMO game experience decide to take a PBEM challenge in “North pacific shootout”. And….His Tomcat fleet are massacred by Foxhound. To help him understand what happened we’d better to lead him go through two steps, 1st analysis missiles, 2nd compare the platforms. And then we will leave the young man digest all the new knowledges. Hopefully he will be enlightened, he needs a magic tools called “tactics” in the next challenge. In a single player game he would bring up enough OECM assets, coordinate attack through different angles, setup some long range suppressing fire to keep the foxhounds into the defensive posture while other Tomcats get close to finish the kills. Of course in another PBEM re-match he could still be badly beaten because the human player on the other side of the screen could quickly adapt to the new changes. Anyway, understanding how the missile perform is the very first step.

[Tcao]

And updates

NEZ 2.24.jpg (315.23 KiB) Viewed 2199 times

BVR NEZ update 2.24.23.zip

(13.73 KiB) Downloaded 29 times

[Tcao]

And updates

NEZ 2.24.jpg

BVR NEZ update 2.24.23.zip

Well, hopefully I will have time to finish the test on the WRA at 75% max range next week
Regarding the column WRA 50% and 25%, some of the cells are "N/A" highlighted with red color. That means the missile failed to intercept the target. And the other numbers in those two columns are come from this value during PH calculation

1/31/2023 5:41:51 PM - Weapon: AA-9 Amos [R-33, SARH] #41 is attacking Il-76M Candid B with a base PH of 80%. PH adjusted for weapon speed: 39% (pure-aerodynamic attitude control). Il-76M Candid B has nominal agility: 1, adjusted for altitude: 0.5. Agility adjusted for proficiency (Regular): 0.4. Aircraft has a weight fraction of 0.94 - Agility adjusted to 0.17. Agility adjusted for rear-oblique impact effect: 0.1. Final agility modifier: -1%. Final PH: 38%. Result: 57 - MISS

PH adjusted for weapon speed .

Most of the missiles that successfully go through final PH check has no reduction compare to base PH value, because their speed are relatively high (at least > 960kt). Some of the missiles suffered a tremendous reduction. For example, Meteor shooting at 50nm distance target, the Ph reduced from 95% base to 38% before go through target A/C agility check, when Meteor hits the target its speed was bleed to around 700kt (if my memory is correct, I got to check the screenshot saved on the other laptop)

[Tcao]

some notes here:

1, Meteor is a weird kid. Shooting at 50nm it can hit the Su-27 but shooting at 25nm it failed to catch the target. He is the only one here. I guess the lofting flight profile, when the missile diving could be the reason for this phenomenon

2, looking at the data in DB you get the feeling that AIM-54A and AIM-54C are two totally different designs.

AIM-54.jpg (31.27 KiB) Viewed 2118 times

[thewood1]

As was stated before, the AIM-54C should have a 30 sec burn time per several sources.

[Tcao]

Hi all
Finally, here is the updated spreadsheet.

I changed the color to make the spreadsheet easier on the eyes.

BVR update 3.22.jpg (511.09 KiB) Viewed 1773 times

I classify these missiles into four tiers, it is based on the NEZ range, Tier 1 missiles have NEZ greater 25nm. Tier 2 NEZ is between 15nm and 25nm. Tier 3 NEZ is between 5nm and 15nm. Tier 4 NEZ is less than 5nm.

The test is designed as a target (Su-27P) close in at 920kt , 36000ft. The Su-27P assigned to an intercept mission, it is put on WPN hold but by the game logic it will try to intercept the shooter
The shooter is also assigned to an intercept mission, most of the A/C will be automatically running at 920kt, 36000ft. But some of the A/C might increase to a higher altitude (Su-57, Mig-31 etc)
If you increase the height to 45000ft the combat result will be a little different. No surprise that loft missiles will have a much better performance in that band.

All the western and Chinese missiles take a loft flight profile while Russian missiles take a direct flight path.

BVR NEZ update 3.22.23.zip

(18.64 KiB) Downloaded 27 times

[Tcao]

For now, the missile performance is dominate by the motor burnout time, longer burnout time equals to longer NEZ range / better performance at 25%, 50%, 75% max WRA range.
It’s just my speculation, but it looks like the loft missiles flight profiles are not optimized. or the loft missiles' interception logic have some bugs.
As you can see from the table below,

bvr 3 missiles.jpg (70.84 KiB) Viewed 1772 times

AIM-120D , AIM-260 and PL-12 have interesting record. They failed to intercept a closer target but were able to hit target at longer distance.

I have also noticed that there are several cases, loft missile has greater terminal speed when fire at longer distance target than fire at shorter distance target.

And here is a screenshot I cannot explain.

BVR 2 missiles difference.jpg (289.67 KiB) Viewed 1771 times

Sorry, I don’t have the save file before the missiles were fired, so it could take a while to re-produce what happened.
Anyway, two AIM-120C-7 missiles, #36 fired first and #37 fired 5 seconds later. I believe when #36 fired the two A/C are still in closure and when #37 fired the Su-27P is in a beam position (in the process of tunning around). These two missiles have significant difference on the speed and height.