Release: Better AIM-7 and AIM-120 with clipped fins

[walmis]

Err...

 

Why are you doing a clipped wing AIM-120?

 

That missile is for the F/A-22A Raptor. Possibly the F-35 Lightning II aswell.....

 

Just seem a waste of time. You go on about realism etc n you do something that isn't....

 

waste of time?

don't think so. Take a read here http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html... The game states that it's a AIM-120C, but the actual model was AIM-120B. And btw this model was originally dedicated for falcon 4.

[Pilotasso]

The clipped missile has been even seen on portuguese F-16MLU's and others so its not for the raptor per se. they are all being manufactured with the same external components now.

[Spad]

I quote "The AMRAAM P3I (Pre-Planned Product Improvement) program led to the AIM-120C, first delivered in 1996. The major new feature of the basic AIM-120C (P3I Phase 1) are the clipped wings and fins. Although this feature was introduced to allow carriage in the internal weapons bays of the F/A-22 Raptor, the -120C can also be used from other AMRAAM-capable aircraft"

 

And if you read what I put you'll find that i did not deny that it could be carried by other aircraft. All I meant was why don't you do something more relavent. There's a very good AMRAAM in the game. So why not do something like a Python or ASRAAM. Something tha isn't already in the game....

[walmis]

1.

And btw this model was originally dedicated for falcon 4.

2.

[GGTharos]

Current AIM-120C will become AIM-120B in Black Shark, and there will be a new model for AIM-120C with clipped fins and enhanced performance.

 

HOwever, Walmis, thanks muchly for the effort :)

[Cosmonaut]

Current AIM-120C will become AIM-120B in Black Shark, and there will be a new model for AIM-120C with clipped fins and enhanced performance.

 

HOwever, Walmis, thanks muchly for the effort :)

 

Will we also be getting some smoke when we fire an Aim120? I just don’t get the same satisfaction from a missile, when I fire it, if it doesn’t smoke ;)

 

Also any chance the HUD will get an update..? I know probably not but the Eagle’s HUD is pretty awful, IMO it’s the worst piece of graphics in the sim….Flanker 2.5 pits never had anything that bad.

[Spad]

The AIM-120 has a smokeless motor dude!!

 

Walmis I aint slaggin yer dude.....

 

You are a damn site more clever than me...its just theres already a aim120 in both lomac n f4....sorry if i pee'd you off, wasn't my intention. Sometimes i need to reel my neck in n shut me gob......:doh:

[Cosmonaut]

The AIM-120 has a smokeless motor dude!!

 

All missiles smoke dude ;) even the Aim120 .. it just smokes much, much less than others. Have a look at any F22 footage when its firing amraams and you can see plainly that they smoke.. right now in LO bullets smoke more ;).. this isn’t a priority by any means just saying if they are updating the model then maybe throw some smoke our way too. :)

[Spad]

Well Raytheon who manufacture the AIM-120 say its a smokeless motor and compaired to the Sparrow and Sidewinder it is virtually smokeless. The idea is so u dont have a clue of the missiles approach. Unlike Sidewinder/Sparrow/Skyflash smoke plume wich give u a pretty good indication of the missiles approach. And its not necessarily the motor that is smoking you see. Its a damn good bet its condensation.....The missiles are fired in cold air and the higher you get the colder the air becomes.....So you will get some condensation. You may say "why don't the engines of the sircraft smoke then"....because the motor on the missile has a higher burn temprature...

 

"The AIM-120 has four moving fins that provide directional control (located

at the rear of the missile, and four fixed wings that provide longitudinal

stability to the missile in flight (located half-way down the missile body). The

AIM-120 has a solid rocket propellant missile motor. The rocket motor is as

highly advanced as the guidance systems on the AIM-120, utilising a

smokeless motor system, and uses a hydroxyl terminated, polybutadiene

propellant that gives the missile a superb boost-sustain capability on longrange

engagements."

 

 

And thats from there Operation's Guide.

 

Source of quote:http://perso.orange.fr/f22oma/Download/Pratique/OG-AIM120.pdf#search=%22amraam%20smokeless%20motor%22

[Cosmonaut]

I assume that’s smokeless with in reason I doubt they are talking about absolutes when they refer to a smokeless motor. Similarly when they say the Aim120 is a fire and forget missile which isn’t exactly true because you must still hold lock until it goes active. I mean for all intensive purposes the aim120 is smokeless but it does have a smoke signature even though its very, very faint.

[Spad]

Where do you get your information from....

 

You need to read more my friend. AMRAAM is true fire and forget....

 

It takes its information from the Radar to programme its own autopilot system to put the target into a basket for its own terminal guidance systems to engage the target. IE. ITs own radar goes active at a certtain point and before this does not need any other imput from the aircraft. BUT...it CAN, doesn't mean it has to, also update its own inertial guidance by obtaining information from the launch aircraft via datalink.

 

That why its is called ARH Active Radar Homing instead of SARH Semi Arctive Radar Homing wich AIM-7 Sparrow is....

 

READ THIS:

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html

[Cosmonaut]

The fighter would have to take no evasive action for it to hit under those circumstances.

 

“Before launch, the launching aircraft's fire control system programs the missile's inertial autopilot in the WGU-16/B guidance unit to bring it into a homing basket in the vicinity of the target. The autopilot can receive mid-course updates from the aircraft via a data link. The AMRAAM's WCU-11/B control section controls the missile in flight with the four movable tail fins. As soon as the target is within range, the AMRAAM activates its active radar seeker for autonomous terminal homing”

 

For a shorter range shot where the seeker goes active soon after it leaves the rails then yes but for longer range shot you most likely wont hit anything with out mid course corrections.

 

“For the lower portions of the AMRAAM's range envelope (minimum range is said to be 2 km (2200 yds)), where the mid-course guidance updates are not needed, the AIM-120 is a true fire-and-forget weapon.”

[Spad]

Thats max ranging the missile and that is all to do with energy. The closer you launch a missile the chance of it hitting goes up substantially. At optimum range its is still fire and forget. If it wasn't fire and forget and needed constant updating from the launch aircraft it would be classed as a SARH and not ARH.

 

Also,

 

It says "The autopilot CAN receive mid-course updates from the aircraft via a data link" it does not say or mean "The autopilot HAS TO receive mid-course updates from the aircraft via a data link".....

 

This basically mean if it needs to update it will and if doesn't need to it wont.

[Cosmonaut]

Its to do with the small radar on the Aim120 not having the distance to go active at Rmax.. if it could then the f15 wouldn’t need a radar.

 

You fire at Rmax to get your opponent to go defensive then fire at a closer range. .. it doesn’t have to be done that way but it is the most competitive way when facing a capable opponent… well a high percentage of the time anyway.

[Spad]

I am not disputing that. But the missile uses its own inertial guidance systems to get it in the vaccinity of its target before engaging its own terminal guidance systmes. It only gets mid course information updates if it needs them. It does not require constant target illuminarion by the launch aircraft. Hense fire and forget. It is not like a Sparrow that in Semi Active Radar Homing where it needs constant information to engage the taget. AMRAAM does not. Its has its own guidance systems and uses its autopilot. It takes itself there and if during its flight it decides its needs updating it will get that info via datalink not direct command guidance from the launch aircraft....

 

In other words, the missile gets the information itself. It doesn't require the pilot or the aircraft to give it that info. Its autonomous.....

[Cosmonaut]

Yes but those are extremely ideal circumstances where the Aim120 wouldn’t need any mid course corrections after it's launched. I am not disputing the fact that the Aim120 is fire and forget .. because it is under the correct parameters but if you start firing your missiles then switching to nav mode you most likely wont hit a thing unless you’re in active range of the amraam.

[Spad]

I assume that’s smokeless with in reason I doubt they are talking about absolutes when they refer to a smokeless motor. Similarly when they say the Aim120 is a fire and forget missile which isn’t exactly true because you must still hold lock until it goes active. I mean for all intensive purposes the aim120 is smokeless but it does have a smoke signature even though its very, very faint.

 

You put that....

 

THat is inacurate because you do not have to maintain a direct lock because you are engaging it vie track while scan so the radar has the info of the target but is not locked onto it. Its trackin it but not directly feed the misile the info. The AMRAAM was designed to be used in conjunction with Track While Scan. So once the missile has left the rail it no longer needs any more imput from the pilot or needs to be guided to the target by keeping a constant lock it. Its gets any information it needs automatically itself so it can coreect its flight path etc. So it is Fire and forget. Fair enough you still have to be in air to air mode but come on, the likelyhood of immediately switchin from a2a to a2g is very remote at best. If you still had to maintain a lock onto the specific target, like while in range while scan, then it isnt a fire and forget weapon because u are using the sytems to point it at the that target.

 

Your points are valed but like i said, once its left the rail its left to its own systems. wen it needs mid range guidance it gets it itself. So it is autonomous and hence fire and forget.

[Cosmonaut]

TWS has all the targets locked and is sending all the missiles fired course corrections when needed via a data link until the seeker is in range. This is different from the Aim 7 where the Eagle has to focus its radar on the target but the idea of maintaining lock until you can A-pole is similar. Once the missile has gone active then it is left to its own systems until then, if you loose TWS lock, it will fly to your last known spot and if you are unluckily enough to fly into the seeker then it will start to track you again.

[Spad]

Yes i know....

 

 

But what you are not grasping is the simple fact that AMRAAM is autonomous. Once it has left the rail it is on its own. FAir enough it may still need updating etc but it does this itself. It has inertial guidance. Sparrow does not thats why it needs cosntant information feeding to it.

 

AMRAAM is Fire and FOrget because once it off the rail it needs no more imput from the pilot adn if it needs to update its info it will get that info itself via data link.....in other words once its in the air u can put your attention somewhere else.....

[GGTharos]

Cosmonaut was precicely right ....

 

You put that....

 

THat is inacurate because you do not have to maintain a direct lock because you are engaging it vie track while scan so the radar has the info of the target but is not locked onto it. Its trackin it but not directly feed the misile the info.

 

Yes, it feeds info directly to the missile via datalink, actually, whereas earlier versions of the sparrow had to ride the beam.

 

The AMRAAM was designed to be used in conjunction with Track While Scan. So once the missile has left the rail it no longer needs any more imput from the pilot or needs to be guided to the target by keeping a constant lock it. Its gets any information it needs automatically itself so it can coreect its flight path etc. So it is Fire and forget.

 

Wrong. The AMRAAM needs to have position updates delivered via datalink until it gets into range to lock on with its own radar. It will -very- likely miss without these updates from the launching fighter ... this has been proven.

 

Fair enough you still have to be in air to air mode but come on, the likelyhood of immediately switchin from a2a to a2g is very remote at best.

 

Really? The F/A-18 can do -exactly- that. It has an 'AA' and an 'AG' switch, and it will automatically set up all its avionics for whichever button you push :)

 

If you still had to maintain a lock onto the specific target, like while in range while scan, then it isnt a fire and forget weapon because u are using the sytems to point it at the that target.

 

You have to maintain a TWS trackwhich, while not the same, still results in sending information to the missile via data link.

 

Your points are valed but like i said, once its left the rail its left to its own systems. wen it needs mid range guidance it gets it itself. So it is autonomous and hence fire and forget.

 

 

The missile doesn't get mid-course updates itself. It receives them from the launching aircraft.

[GGTharos]

Yes i know....

 

 

But what you are not grasping is the simple fact that AMRAAM is autonomous. Once it has left the rail it is on its own. FAir enough it may still need updating etc but it does this itself. It has inertial guidance. Sparrow does not thats why it needs cosntant information feeding to it.

 

And, wrong again. All missiles have an INS :) Sparrow did not have a datalink until the F version I believe, at whichpoint you could launch it in TWS and go STT on the target like 10 sec before the missile is to hit. Not to mention it extends the range thanks to enabling a lofted trajectory (which you cannot do when you're riding then beam)

The AMRAAM does no target position updating by 'itself' until it goes active...until it goes active, those updates come from the launcher.

 

AMRAAM is Fire and FOrget because once it off the rail it needs no more imput from the pilot adn if it needs to update its info it will get that info itself via data link.....in other words once its in the air u can put your attention somewhere else.....

 

No missile need input from the pilot - but it may well need input from the launching aircraft, and the AMRAAM certainly does need it! Drop the track or turn away before it has the chance to get into its kill basket and it may very well miss! AMRAAM is -not- fire and forget because of that.

 

The only time it -is- fire and forget is when shooting at close ranges, much like IR missiles.

[Spad]

i give up......

 

Seems all the info i've got seems to be incorrect.

[Spad]

OK

 

Why are the F3's carrying AMRAAAM and not Skyflash if its that bad?

 

I also have over 20 years worth of copies of Air Forces Monthly and how come i've never came accross a single topic saying such about the missile? Also the Shar pilot's seemed to have been very happy with the missile. But the Blue Vixen Radar was designed to be used in conjunction with AMRAAM something the Foxhunter wasn't and after all the probs they had with it, maybe it could be the radar not missile?

 

I also never said it didn't need get info from the aircraft. What I was trying to say was - The missile uses the systems to its best advantage because once the pilot has fired the weapon and its off the rails he has nothing more to do with it. All updates everything is supplied autmatically by the systmes....So from a certain point of view it is fire and forget.....

 

And as for the F/A-18. I did not say that it wasnt possible for it to just switch from a2a to a2g at the switch of a buttom. What i said was the likelyhood of it actually happeneing was very slim....as in.....the pilot is engaged in a fight with another aircaft and suddenly see's a nice juicey tank & deicdes to egages it while he still has bandits to deal with....don't twist my words.

 

And as for RAF pilots laughin in my face.....let them. I find them to be rather arrogant and much preffer talkin to pilots of other nations because they are much more approachable and don't have an air of arogance about them....

[GGTharos]

OK

 

Why are the F3's carrying AMRAAAM and not Skyflash if its that bad?

 

I also have over 20 years worth of copies of Air Forces Monthly and how come i've never came accross a single topic saying such about the missile? Also the Shar pilot's seemed to have been very happy with the missile. But the Blue Vixen Radar was designed to be used in conjunction with AMRAAM something the Foxhunter wasn't and after all the probs they had with it, maybe it could be the radar not missile?

 

The F.3 did not provide AMRAAM with a datalink, this is why things went so poorly. Once the datalink capability was installed in the aircraft's radar (yes, it is the radar) things went just peachy.

 

I also never said it didn't need get info from the aircraft. What I was trying to say was - The missile uses the systems to its best advantage because once the pilot has fired the weapon and its off the rails he has nothing more to do with it. All updates everything is supplied autmatically by the systmes....So from a certain point of view it is fire and forget.....

Yes, that's the same for -any- missile. NO air to air missile requires anything from the pilot once fired, EXCEPT having to actually steer the aircraft such that the radar can still maintain a track on the target. A true fire and forget missile would have -no- such requirement, and thus the AMRAAM is not fire and forget. There is not 'certain point of view' this is the /only/ 'point of view' ... the definition of tire and forget for BVR weapons.

The -difference- is that once the AMRAAM reaches its activation point, you can turn away and hit the road, whereas with a SARH missile you have to guide it all the way to impact.

 

And as for the F/A-18. I did not say that it wasnt possible for it to just switch from a2a to a2g at the switch of a buttom. What i said was the likelyhood of it actually happeneing was very slim....as in.....the pilot is engaged in a fight with another aircaft and suddenly see's a nice juicey tank & deicdes to egages it while he still has bandits to deal with....don't twist my words.

What do you mean don't twist your words? You only now supplied an example, what you said before had no context and made little sense. Yeah, no pilot will go after a ground target while engaged with bandits.

 

And as for RAF pilots laughin in my face.....let them. I find them to be rather arrogant and much preffer talkin to pilots of other nations because they are much more approachable and don't have an air of arogance about them....

 

Bull :D

[Spad]

And how many RAF pilot shvae you run into?

 

Even tho I go to an awful lot of airbases and airshows in the UK....I still find the RAF pilots are arrogant twats....

 

Everyone else is brilliant....escpecially the swedes!!!