AIM-120D

[CybrSlydr]

My understanding is that the F-16 we are simming represents an F-16 circa 2007ish.

 

If that is the case, will the F-16 be receiving the AIM-120D in future updates?

 

http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/AIM-120D-AMRAAM_a001164006.aspx

 

"On 15 September 2006, Raytheon received a $113 million contract from the US Air Force for the supply of 12 AIM-120D AMRAAM Air Vehicles Instrumented (AAVIs), 50 AIM-120D Captive Air Training Missile, 104 AIM-120C7 AMRAAM Air Vehicles, and 112 Non-Developmental Item, Airborne Instrumentation Units (NDI-AIUs). The contract also provided funds for the AIM-120D production transition with AIM-120D deliveries beginning December 2007 through January 2009. This contract was part of the AIM-120 Lot 20 order and the first production contract for the AIM-120D missile."

 

(bolding is mine)

 

If I'm reading that correctly, the 120D started production in December 2007 - would that put it within the acceptable timeframe for usage in-game with the F-16 we have?

 

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=100&ct=2

 

"Joint procurement of the AMRAAM continues with the AIM-120D version starting in fiscal 2006, which features improved navigation, kinematics, lethality and hardware and software updates to enhance its electronic protection capabilities against more capable threats."

 

(bolding is mine)

[razo+r]

If there is enough public data available to it, which i highly doubt, maybe.

[CybrSlydr]

What more would you need, in a DCS manner, than speed, range?

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[razo+r]

Behaviour and all those things?

[GGTharos]

What more would you need, in a DCS manner, than speed, range?

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Speed and range - just those two data-points, mean nothing by themselves.

 

There are possible changes to the rocket motor as well as the electronics - on particular the two way data link.

[CybrSlydr]

Speed and range - just those two data-points, mean nothing by themselves.

 

There are possible changes to the rocket motor as well as the electronics - on particular the two way data link.

 

I understand they need more than that - I was hoping someone who might know could provide some info as to how detailed the modeling of the missiles performance is and what they include in it.

[GGTharos]

The airframe remains the same, so the drag model remains the same. The weight probably increases. We don't know about any changes to the rocket motor (some say larger, some say no change from the C5) and of course there are features like 2-way data-link which I suppose can be guessed at.

 

 

Basically there's no good reason to model one, as it wouldn't be that different from what we have now, if at all.

[CybrSlydr]

The airframe remains the same, so the drag model remains the same. The weight probably increases. We don't know about any changes to the rocket motor (some say larger, some say no change from the C5) and of course there are features like 2-way data-link which I suppose can be guessed at.

 

 

Basically there's no good reason to model one, as it wouldn't be that different from what we have now, if at all.

 

You're joking, right?

 

"The LREW also emerges as Chinese and Russian militaries reportedly are pursuing new air intercept missiles with ranges significantly longer than the AIM-120D. The range of the AIM-120D is classified, but is thought to extend to about 100mi (160km)"

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/new-long-range-missile-project-emerges-in-us-budget/125963.article

 

"The latest version, AIM-120D, has a range of approximately 100 miles, GPS guidance, improved high-angle boresight capability, and a two-way datalink."

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a28883/new-air-to-air-missile-amraam/

 

"Range

"over 15 km" to "up to 25 km"

20+ miles (17.5+ nautical miles)

40 km = AMRAAM-ER

?? 55–75 km = AIM-120A/B

?? >105 km = AIM-120C-5

?? >180 km = AIM-120D(C-8)"

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-120-specs.htm

 

"AIM-120D: this variant incorporates still greater range (about 160 km), better guidance, and a higher kill probability. By 2016 the AIM-120D was still not fully operational."

 

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/aim120_amraam.htm

 

That's AIM-54 range for the F/A-18 and F-16. I sure as heck would want it!

[Sierra99]

My understanding is that the F-16 we are simming represents an F-16 circa 2007ish.

 

If that is the case, will the F-16 be receiving the AIM-120D in future updates?

 

You have to remember just because something has a " New" designation it The changes may not be anything noticeable different to the end user. in this case:

 

"The United States Air Force (USAF) assessment of the AIM-120C variant on the F/A-22 Raptor aircraft determined that vibration levels in certain frequencies are harmful to the missile's electronics. AIM-120D AMRAAM missile variant tries to fix it. In April 2006 the USAF released that the AIM-120D was undergoing testing on the F-22 aircraft monitored by Raytheon at Edwards Air Force Base, California."

 

The upgrades appear to address the issues discovered but probably don't add any significant new capabilities to the -120 that we as end users would notice. Also, if these weapons were initially procured to address issues discovered with the Raptor...they would have been sent to F-22 bases. Not F-16s bases. There are -120Cs that are perfectly suitable for use on F-16s available.

[CybrSlydr]

You have to remember just because something has a " New" designation it The changes may not be anything noticeable different to the end user. in this case:

 

The upgrades appear to address the issues discovered but probably don't add any significant new capabilities to the -120 that we as end users would notice. Also, if these weapons were initially procured to address issues discovered with the Raptor...they would have been sent to F-22 bases. Not F-16s bases. There are -120Cs that are perfectly suitable for use on F-16s available.

 

The F-16s still utilize the AIM-120D - while one of the changes made from the -C to the -D appears to be resolving harmonics issues in the F-22, other changes apparently took place as well. Else the 120D wouldn't have a reported range of nearly 100nm instead of the anemic 30nm of the 120C we have in-game currently.

 

"AIM-120 AMRAAM variants

The AMRAAM has a length of 3.6m, diameter of 17.7cm and wingspan of 52.5cm.

Four variants of the AMRAAM have been manufactured. The AIM-120A is the first variant, which is no longer in production. The AIM-120B is an improved variant introduced in 1994. The AIM-120C has smaller control surfaces to enable internal carriage on the F/A-22 aircraft and carries an improved warhead. It was further upgraded to create a new variant called AIM-120C-7, which was successfully tested in 2003.

 

The AIM-120D is the newest member in the family of AMRAAM. The variant completed its seventh test flight in May 2009, and integrates advanced hardware and software systems for improved navigation, range and HOBS (High-Angle Off-Boresight) capability."

 

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/aim-120-advanced-medium-range-air-to-air-missile-amraam/

Edited December 29, 2019 by CybrSlydr

[GGTharos]

You're joking, right?

 

 

Nope.

 

 

"The latest version, AIM-120D, has a range of approximately 100 miles, GPS guidance, improved high-angle boresight capability, and a two-way datalink."

 

 

I know all that, so what?

 

 

"AIM-120D: this variant incorporates still greater range (about 160 km), better guidance, and a higher kill probability. By 2016 the AIM-120D was still not fully operational."

 

 

So, do you know how this greater range is happening exactly? Is it because an F-22 is shooting from M1.8 at 50000'? :)

[Eldur]

I'd prefer getting the B and C before that... still waiting for the FM and guidance logic overhaul

[CybrSlydr]

I'd prefer getting the B and C before that... still waiting for the FM and guidance logic overhaul

 

Don't we already have the -B and -C versions?

[Sweep]

OP you realize your very first post in this thread refutes your point, right?

 

The 120D started testing back then. It entered service within the past few years.

You're gonna need a Viper from 2017 at least, AFAIK, if you want 120D. That's totally ignoring the apparent lack of data on how the 120D works.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Sweep
formatting error

[Makempay]

All I know is. It sure is funny how ED are quick to remove weapons that don't belong on this particular Viper. But they sure don't update it with the ones that do belong.

[Slug72]

It sure is funny how ED are quick to remove weapons that don't belong on this particular Viper. But they sure don't update it with the ones that do belong.

 

Phase 1 Early Access:

BDU-33, BDU-50LD/HD, Mk-82LDGP, Mk-82AIR, Mk-84LDGP, CBU-87 CEM, and CBU-97 SFW unguided bombs

2.75” rockets LAU-68 and LAU-131

AIM-9L/M/P/X Sidewinder

AIM-120B/C AMRAAM

M61A1 20mm cannon

 

Phase 2 Product Sustainment:

AGM-65D/G/H/K Maverick

AGM-88C HARM

GBU-10, GBU-12, GBU-24A/B laser-guided bombs

BRU-57/A Smart Rack

CBU-103 CEM and CBU-105 SFW Inertially Aided Munitions (IAM)

GBU-31/A and GBU-38/B JDAM

AGM-154A and AGM-154B JSOW

ALE-50 towed decoy

 

(source here)

 

At least one in the Phase 2 list isn't accurate for "our" Viper but was included by ED due to pressure from the community.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Slug72
Premature pickle

[sk000tch]

My understanding is that the F-16 we are simming represents an F-16 circa 2007ish.

 

If that is the case, will the F-16 be receiving the AIM-120D in future updates?

 

http://www.deagel.com/Defensive-Weapons/AIM-120D-AMRAAM_a001164006.aspx

 

"On 15 September 2006, Raytheon received a $113 million contract from the US Air Force for the supply of 12 AIM-120D AMRAAM Air Vehicles Instrumented (AAVIs), 50 AIM-120D Captive Air Training Missile, 104 AIM-120C7 AMRAAM Air Vehicles, and 112 Non-Developmental Item, Airborne Instrumentation Units (NDI-AIUs). The contract also provided funds for the AIM-120D production transition with AIM-120D deliveries beginning December 2007 through January 2009. This contract was part of the AIM-120 Lot 20 order and the first production contract for the AIM-120D missile."

 

(bolding is mine)

 

If I'm reading that correctly, the 120D started production in December 2007 - would that put it within the acceptable timeframe for usage in-game with the F-16 we have?

 

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=100&ct=2

 

"Joint procurement of the AMRAAM continues with the AIM-120D version starting in fiscal 2006, which features improved navigation, kinematics, lethality and hardware and software updates to enhance its electronic protection capabilities against more capable threats."

 

(bolding is mine)

 

As others have explained, you're confusing earmarks w/ production awards. 120D didn't come online until M6+, and took a bit before all functions of the missile were fully integrated. As much as I would enjoy playing, we ain't getting them. They were not deployed until M6, which had a lot of stuff in it.

 

They are still playing games with range, which we know to be slightly more than twice the 120c (so, 100nm, with the normal grain of salt - 55k 1.5M launch). That said, it does have excellent range, it is the equal of the Phoenix in this respect. It is vastly improved in more important ways, however. Pk is still not published, they took 120A's from (i forget, we have good data on this?) around 65-ish% to an estimate 83-85% on 120Cs, 120Ds are a significant improvement...

 

Range is not disclosed but well known as roughly double the Cs, real hush stuff is other areas. drtart looking for info on ECCM. Two way datalink is not an insignificant detail, nor is passive launch on IRST or datalink from awacs or buddy. AESA changed everything and the 120D arrived at the right time.

 

FWIW - the same major tape that brought 120D also brought small diameter bombs, Laser Jdams, and actually, someone mentioned hobs, which is cool for 120s but the LOAL in the 9X-II are next level. A few missiles (Iris-t, asraam) are rumored to have got parthian shot capability at roughly the same time, but this is when we got the ability to employ all aspect missile against a target on your 6, at impressively close range.

 

IIRC we got updated self protect/RWR then as well. US already has best spike management by a mile, the new suite of integrated self protection jamming (AESA can DECM in very targeted manned), coupled with rapid identification of incoming thread and migration.

Edited January 4, 2020 by sk000tch

[dimitrischal]

The F-16s still utilize the AIM-120D - while one of the changes made from the -C to the -D appears to be resolving harmonics issues in the F-22, other changes apparently took place as well. Else the 120D wouldn't have a reported range of nearly 100nm instead of the anemic 30nm of the 120C we have in-game currently.

 

"AIM-120 AMRAAM variants

The AMRAAM has a length of 3.6m, diameter of 17.7cm and wingspan of 52.5cm.

Four variants of the AMRAAM have been manufactured. The AIM-120A is the first variant, which is no longer in production. The AIM-120B is an improved variant introduced in 1994. The AIM-120C has smaller control surfaces to enable internal carriage on the F/A-22 aircraft and carries an improved warhead. It was further upgraded to create a new variant called AIM-120C-7, which was successfully tested in 2003.

 

The AIM-120D is the newest member in the family of AMRAAM. The variant completed its seventh test flight in May 2009, and integrates advanced hardware and software systems for improved navigation, range and HOBS (High-Angle Off-Boresight) capability."

 

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/aim-120-advanced-medium-range-air-to-air-missile-amraam/

 

I highly doubt you can get 100 miles out of that thing unless you launch from 50000+ feet at M2 a target at similar heights and speeds that won’t manouver. Same motor? LOL talk about drinking the cool aid

[sk000tch]

I highly doubt you can get 100 miles out of that thing unless you launch from 50000+ feet at M2 a target at similar heights and speeds that won’t manouver. Same motor? LOL talk about drinking the cool aid

 

 

They are still playing games with range, which we know to be slightly more than twice the 120c (so, 100nm, with the normal grain of salt - 55k 1.5M launch). That said, it does have excellent range, it is the equal of the Phoenix in this respect.

 

 

 

:huh:

[Frederf]

A lot of AIM-120 range comes from improvements in guidance logic alone. Between a couple of the C variants there was a dramatic improvement in range that was only due to software changes.

 

A good airframe and motor can be hobbled by sub optimal guidance logic.

 

I would think the C-6 would be the latest one included with the Viper module. The C-8 (D) is later than modeled and drastically different in capability and mechanization. With a D you can shoot at a target supplied by wingman or AWACS without ever turning your radar on. The Viper module is "circa 2007" which doesn't mean including everyone on the drawing board 11:59pm Dec 31 2007.

[CybrSlydr]

Then do you think there could be a compromise in there somewhere to give us a C-model AIM-120 with better range? Say... 45nm?

 

Having to wait until the plane is within 10nm for a decent chance at a hit is frankly ridiculous for an aircraft of this vintage.

[GGTharos]

There's no compromise needed, and you don't need to wait until its inside 10nm.

[sk000tch]

Then do you think there could be a compromise in there somewhere to give us a C-model AIM-120 with better range? Say... 45nm?

 

Having to wait until the plane is within 10nm for a decent chance at a hit is frankly ridiculous for an aircraft of this vintage.

 

No.

 

It’s getting into a time period that from everything I’ve observed about ED, and what I know about dealing with USML tech, they cannot model. There’s a million different viper configs (slight exaggeration), but 120D was generally coincident with 9X block II, SDBs, which was 3-4 years after ljdam, jassm. Iirc some ANG vipers and USMC legacy hornets were getting SABR upgrades around that time. You get into modern self protection suites, net centric datalink, enhanced mode 5 IFF, gen5 tactical interoperability upgrades to name a few that, well, let’s say that ‘DCS will not have the documentation necessary to accurately model.’

 

But ya know, actually DCS has been around a loooong time, has dedicated and passionate people that don’t plan on going anywhere. So maybe 10 years from now AESA will be 20 years old and DCS will be able to. Of course by then we’ll be pissed we can’t have the newest air launch hypersonic or directed energy missile defense system.

 

So I guess maybe, eventually... but not in 2-weeks

 

Honestly though man there is so much stuff they can do that will add more fun factor and make the game feel like a living, breathing theater. We have 1 ISR asset, 1 drone, no way to attack the C3 assets to degrade enemy ability to acquire/disseminate tactical information or force management capability. Of course, we would need that ability to be built first. I mean, integrated air defense with some 1970s era tactics would be a start...

 

So, short answer- don’t stress it dude, shooting shit 100 miles away ain’t all that fun anyway. Modern battlefield has cool toys, but the more “pilot shit” takes a back seat to systems operator, the more time you spend head down than head up. Go listen to some dos gringos and drop some Mk 82s on some tanks