Aim-120 Range

[AeriaGloria]

AFAIK Range of no escape does not take everything into account, like altitude change, acceleration, it is a useful estimate, but certainly no guarantee. Blame whoever first called it that.

[Oceandar]

Everyone with long enough experience in DCS knows that "No Escape Zone" is actually escapable in DCS

[Chizh]

I would imagine at this range that I would be within “range no escape.” Perhaps this is the confusion you speak of. Regardless, is any of this even going to matter after the update? What can we expect to see in the future? What are your predictions? What will this virtual wind tunnel do that has not already been done?

I'll able to say when we finish work on the new dynamics.

[metzger]

I believe NEZ doesn't literally mean you can't survive the shot. It just means that if the target is cold and keeps the current parameters, the missile will catch him. As soon as target changes parameters(speed, altitude, manuever etc.) or start pulling G, this is no longer valid.

[Harker]

In my understanding, NEZ means that the target shouldn't be able to (or it should have a low chance to) kinematically defeat the missile and is based on the target's current heading, altitude and speed. An estimate on its maneuvering potential is also probably included (a fighter can't do an instant 180 and maintain its current speed, for example). There are probably further limitations in this definition that I'm unaware of, but for all practical purposes, I understood NEZ to mean that you can shoot with a high Pk, not a 100% Pk.

 

I find NEZ to work well in the Hornet since the last update and I can certainly achieve very long range shots in ideal conditions.

[metzger]

In my understanding, NEZ means that the target shouldn't be able to (or it should have a low chance to) kinematically defeat the missile and is based on the target's current heading, altitude and speed. An estimate on its maneuvering potential is also probably included (a fighter can't do an instant 180 and maintain its current speed, for example). There are probably further limitations in this definition that I'm unaware of, but for all practical purposes, I understood NEZ to mean that you can shoot with a high Pk, not a 100% Pk.

 

I find NEZ to work well in the Hornet since the last update and I can certainly achieve very long range shots in ideal conditions.

 

If you STT a target at 0 TA (completely cold), you will see that Max and nez are the same. Of course you can make 180 without loosing speed. You can see also that during the target is maneuvering, the max range changes based on aspect, while NEZ remains fairly similar in case the target or you remain with constant speed. So is why I believe NEZ is a function of speed and distance to calculate the max distance where the target can turn cold and outrun the missile.

 

NEZ can't take into consideration maneuvering or energy state per se, as it has no idea what the locked aircraft capabilities are, how hard it can maneuver and so on.

[Harker]

If you STT a target at 0 TA (completely cold), you will see that Max and nez are the same. Of course you can make 180 without loosing speed. You can see also that during the target is maneuvering, the max range changes based on aspect, while NEZ remains fairly similar in case the target or you remain with constant speed. So is why I believe NEZ is a function of speed and distance to calculate the max distance where the target can turn cold and outrun the missile.

 

NEZ can't take into consideration maneuvering or energy state per se, as it has no idea what the locked aircraft capabilities are, how hard it can maneuver and so on.

I should've worded it better, you can't make a 180 instantly and fly away at the same speed, you still take some time to actually turn and you do have to expend some energy to do it, ie go 180 in dt~0 and fly away with the same speed. That's a likely assumption made by the system.

 

Again, in my understanding, NEZ is an estimation of a range that if you fire from, you'll have a high Pk shot. It does take the target's relative energy state into account, since its given by its relative speed and altitude and these are taken into account (altitude also for missile kinematic performance with respect to air density).

 

The fact that NEZ remains fairly constant (but not completely) against a maneuvering target is normal, since it gives you a max range for that high Pk shot and indeed, a fighter can turn cold very quickly and also trade altitude for speed, taking the missile into denser air. From what I've seen though, NEZ definitely changes when a cold target turns towards you, unless there were some recent changes that I haven't noticed.

[metzger]

I should've worded it better, you can't make a 180 instantly and fly away at the same speed, you still take some time to actually turn and you do have to expend some energy to do it, ie go 180 in dt~0 and fly away with the same speed. That's a likely assumption made by the system.

 

Again, in my understanding, NEZ is an estimation of a range that if you fire from, you'll have a high Pk shot. It does take the target's relative energy state into account, since its given by its relative speed and altitude and these are taken into account (altitude also for missile kinematic performance with respect to air density).

 

The fact that NEZ remains fairly constant (but not completely) against a maneuvering target is normal, since it gives you a max range for that high Pk shot and indeed, a fighter can turn cold very quickly and also trade altitude for speed, taking the missile into denser air. From what I've seen though, NEZ definitely changes when a cold target turns towards you, unless there were some recent changes that I haven't noticed.

 

Well, technically shooting within NEZ is a higher PK shot as the target can't outrun the missile he has to maneuver, notch, chaff whatever else but just turn cold and outrun it wont work(unless he can accelarate but NEZ doesn't know that).

 

So in your opinion what is the difference in PK 300 feet outside NEZ vs 300 feet inside NEZ or why exactly that is the distance where NEZ is calculated ? - I can tell you as I have already tested it :) This is exactly the distance where if I am cold the missile will or will not catch me as long as I keep the same speed for the attacker and defender.

 

The time for the 180 turn doesn't matter really, it just tells you that during he is turning you are still closing in and he will be or not be inside nez depending when he started the turn.

 

And you don't have to trade energy to turn - it is called energy sustaining turn, but I understand what you mean. This really doesn't matter for NEZ calculation as every aircraft will have different energy on the same altitude/speed - different aerodynamic performance, different engines, weight etc..

 

EDIT: E.g. bf109 at 1000feet with 250 knots has less potential energy than F-16 at the same alt/speed but NEZ is the same as your aircraft systems doesn't know that. So if you shoot on the edge of nez against bf109 you will probably kill it, while the f-16 will accell and outrun the missile. But NEZ will be the same for both at the moment of fox3

Edited February 18, 2020 by metzger

[Harker]

Well, technically shooting within NEZ is a higher PK shot as the target can't outrun the missile he has to maneuver, notch, chaff whatever else but just turn cold and outrun it wont work(unless he can accelarate but NEZ doesn't know that).

 

So in your opinion what is the difference in PK 300 feet outside NEZ vs 300 feet inside NEZ or why exactly that is the distance where NEZ is calculated ? - I can tell you as I have already tested it :) This is exactly the distance where if I am cold the missile will or will not catch me as long as I keep the same speed for the attacker and defender.

 

The time for the 180 turn doesn't matter really, it just tells you that during he is turning you are still closing in and he will be or not be inside nez depending when he started the turn.

 

And you don't have to trade energy to turn - it is called energy sustaining turn, but I understand what you mean. This really doesn't matter for NEZ calculation as every aircraft will have different energy on the same altitude/speed - different aerodynamic performance, different engines, weight etc..

 

EDIT: E.g. bf109 at 1000feet with 250 knots has less potential energy than F-16 at the same alt/speed but NEZ is the same as your aircraft systems doesn't know that. So if you shoot on the edge of nez against bf109 you will probably kill it, while the f-16 will accell and outrun the missile. But NEZ will be the same for both at the moment of fox3

In your scenario with a cold, non-maneuvering target, the NEZ calculation seems to works correctly and as expected. You are at the very limit of the NEZ calculation.

 

As for taking energy into account, it's done indirectly. Relative velocity is taken into account, correct? Relative altitude is also taken into account, for the missile's performance, so indirectly, the relative energy is taken into account. You (should) get a different NEZ for a target 10k ft above you or 10k feet below you. The system is target-agnostic, but I assume some average values for a fighter-type target are used. I don't think an F-16 pilot expects to encounter a Bf-109.

 

About the energy sustaining turn, yes it's certainly, but it's not the fastest way to turn cold, as that would be the limit to test NEZ against. It's possible if you have the energy potential to spare. You have inertia and are altering your velocity and you have to either provide more energy in order to maintain your current level or you'll lose some energy if you can't provide any extra. A limitation of NEZ is that it doesn't know the extra energy potential of the target.

 

I think our only difference is that in your case, NEZ is the max range that you can achieve a kill with the target turning immediately cold at the same speed, while in my case, I define it as the target taking any kinetic evasive action at the same speed, including turning cold. And we both agree that NEZ does not account for any other defensive tactics, such as notching or for drastic speed changes.

[TAW_Blaze]

Typical defensive maneuvers involve significant altitude loss while gaining airspeed i.e. a slice turn or a split s. As soon as your target does this your DLZ numbers are in the dumpster.

 

DLZ is a crutch that should be used with a big grain of salt. The only solution is to have truckloads of experience and based on that you can judge what a good shot is in a given scenario. If it was tuned differently it might be significantly more accurate, but it just isn't. However none of the DLZ makes up for pilot skill to plan and execute fights right.

 

pK is also severely influenced by the environment you fly in. Just as an example:

 

- a pK of 40-50% with 120B / 120C is possible in online airquake against decent pilots

- fighting a coherent group of good pilots you're likely to not have above 20% pK

- fighting an ace in a duel you're unlikely to have more than 10% pK

 

.. assuming you're a very skilled DCS fighter pilot, always firing within good parameters. Your average DCS fighter jock won't be hitting much more than 20% of his 120s even in airquake environments. This is all based on years of flying on multiple servers and looking at our own stats.

 

Bottom line the expected pK talk is laughable at best without any proof. In the end you only have some expectations on what you think the weapon should do which is just an opinion. How far a missile goes does not matter much in terms of competitive play unless the opposition is ludicrously out of proportions (i.e. SD-10).

 

What really matters is guidance. Having the high pK ranges distorted is fine, but your "practically" guaranteed kill shots missing for no reason is hard to deal with. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does it can be infuriating. Imagine losing fights because your missile despawned from the game a half mile before hitting the target and you getting killed as a result.

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

Below are two Videos from Falcon BMS 4.34. I know it is usually frowned upon to bring other simulations in to the discussion but I really wanted to share this with you guys. I'm not saying this is right, I HAVE ZERO MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT THIS IS, and I have no idea where benchmark got their sources but it just seems like it is more what it should be. As I have said, I think ED is getting close to getting this thing right and I hope the new virtual wind tunnel simulations will be the icing on the cake. As you will see in the videos, the Aim-120C behaves similarly to what ED has modeled but the BMS missile has a bit more energy in the end and is able to get me. The Aim-120B also gets me, barley, but is nowhere near what the ED 120B is. Also note that the top speeds of each missile seem to be the same across simulators. In each video, I am a clean F-16 and am fighting as hard as I can to defeat these missiles, unlike in the tracks. Each was fired at around 11-12nm under similar conditions from the tracks. Plus One if you like and agree with this.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eViSOhIud9Y&feature=youtu.be Aim-120C

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdPNUlQAjQw Aim-120B

Edited February 19, 2020 by DCS FIGHTER PILOT

[Hoarfrost]

DCS FIGHTER PILOT, as for me, they are now perfectly popadaut targets, especially at close distances and at large angles of the lapel.

[nighthawk2174]

From my own comparisons DCS is on the right track IMHO it is still to draggy as placing the thrust values from DCS into 'that other sim' results in

(C3 - Standard 'that other game' values)

(C5 - DCS thrust)

 

The biggest issue now is guidance not that drag is still most likely high. But fundamentally guidance issues made the drag issues worse, especially the high lift induced drag. The biggest improvements to the amraam will be the addition of:

 

- Optimal control theory

- English Bias commands

- A more variable PN structure that can take altitude into account as it does on the AIM-7E/D

- Kalman filters

- Reworked chaff

- High prf search

- Medium PRF tracking (significantly smaller notch than high prf)

- Proper INS guidance (no more magic ins - note may have already been fixed)

 

Note AIM-7 doc is called "Summary of Navy Study Program For F4H-1 Weapon System". From August of 1960. It was declassified and made unrestricted in 1966.

[Fri13]

I have thought that NEZ is when target maintains its speed, but can turn anyways at any direction, even to dive down or start climbing etc. But if target accelerates and turns cold then NEZ changes.

 

As the radar is taking in consideration your and target altitude, so if one goes straight up/down (notching) then it isn't really much changing distance but just altitude. And NEZ shouldn't go crazy because target just changes its altitude but not range.

[mattag08]

Missile dynamics aren't perfect, but they are better than they ever have been. People expecting older MRMs to be amazing wonder missiles that perfectly track and kill maneuvering/ECM/CMing targets from over 30 NM away are sorely mistaken as to the actual capabilities and physics involved.

 

Realistically we should be focusing on IFF and the ridiculous fixed red/blue status of aircraft which often invalidates BVR missiles in real life.

[Max1mus]

The biggest issue now is guidance not that drag is still most likely high. But fundamentally guidance issues made the drag issues worse, especially the high lift induced drag. The biggest improvements to the amraam will be the addition of:

 

[...]

 

- Kalman filters

- Reworked chaff

- High prf search

- Medium PRF tracking (significantly smaller notch than high prf)

- Proper INS guidance (no more magic ins - note may have already been fixed)

 

Its off topic although you started it, but this list is incomplete.

 

- Smaller radar cone

- Difference in chaff resistance when supported in STT (properly) and unsupported (i.e. the thing not magically tracking everything, but possibly more like some SARH missiles that just go unrecoverably ballistic vs a barrel roll+chaff)

- Different active seeker detection range, i.e. the missile never even finding the target if not supported with STT in some cases + missile going for chaff while looking (Su-27SK guide quotes difference in seeker lock on range between 40km for hot high bomber vs 1.5km for cold, lookdown, low RCS target).

 

 

The way ED models chaff resistance from all i have seen is just an estimation, where Multiplayer or AI (programmed by ED) PK stats are used as evidence. The things you listed may make it overall more realistic, but if the 120s become undefeatable silver bullets you will see ED adjusting the other ECCM features like chaff accordingly to represent what they think are accurate hit chances. If you think that the missiles will somehow become more effective at doing the work for you, i am very certain that this will not happen as long as such changes are applied to all DCS missiles.

 

 

I agree with previous posts pointing out things much more important than missile ranges. This 10-20% change in range that ED dedicated resources to has not changed anything major as far BVR combat goes, except that it has elevated 2 missiles (-7,-120) to a different standard, which for example makes all russian flyable fighters incapable to even fight back at all until ED adresses the russian missiles similarly. To name a few features DCS is missing that i consider much more important:

 

- Finishing the missile API so that Deka Ironworks/HB can make their SD-10 (secondary boost stage)/54(seeker/F-14 radar support) more realistic and thus more in line with the simulator.

- More MODERN russian/chinese AI air units to counter the 2000s DCS modules/missiles.

- More MODERN SAM AI units along with better AI, overall organization to make JSOW/JDAM less of a point and click adventure (latter can currently not be shot down at all!) and require things like saturation attacks + SEAD to be used effectively.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Max1mus

[falcon_120]

From my own comparisons DCS is on the right track IMHO it is still to draggy as placing the thrust values from DCS into 'that other sim' results in

 

 

(C3 - Standard 'that other game' values)

 

(C5 - DCS thrust)

 

 

 

The biggest issue now is guidance not that drag is still most likely high. But fundamentally guidance issues made the drag issues worse, especially the high lift induced drag. The biggest improvements to the amraam will be the addition of:

 

 

 

- Optimal control theory

 

- English Bias commands

 

- A more variable PN structure that can take altitude into account as it does on the AIM-7E/D

 

 

- Kalman filters

 

- Reworked chaff

 

- High prf search

 

- Medium PRF tracking (significantly smaller notch than high prf)

 

- Proper INS guidance (no more magic ins - note may have already been fixed)

 

 

 

Note AIM-7 doc is called "Summary of Navy Study Program For F4H-1 Weapon System". From August of 1960. It was declassified and made unrestricted in 1966.

Hey nighthawk, it'd be cool a comparison with the latest 2.5.6, it seems Aim120c has improved range significantly.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Edited February 25, 2020 by falcon_120

[nighthawk2174]

In terms of improvement, 30K ft M1.0 launch

 

Very old VS 2.5.5 VS Latest 2.5.6

 

TAS VS TIME

 

- 120C

- 120B

 

TAS VS DISTANCE

 

- 120C

- 120B

[falcon_120]

In terms of improvement, 30K ft M1.0 launch

 

Very old VS 2.5.5 VS Latest 2.5.6

 

TAS VS TIME

 

- 120C

- 120B

 

TAS VS DISTANCE

 

- 120C

- 120B

Thanks! Your data shows data the difference is marginal, even non existance on some regimes. I guess the biggest improvements that could emerge from the new lofting logic are not well reflected here (these are no lofting shots right?)

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[nighthawk2174]

Yeah I tired over and over again to get the in game missiles to loft but they refused to so I gave up after a while, I may try again here at some point.

[Fisu_MAD]

Here a comparison SD10 vs 120C.

https://youtu.be/sLX02w8gWfw

This is hilarious. See specification section. Range information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-12#SD-10 and compare with https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM.

If is modeled C5 versión have the same Range.

70–100 kilometres (43–62 mi) SD10 ~ AIM-120C-5: 105 km (56,6955 mn)

 

In DCS im firing 120C at 5000ft to a chopper in RMAX 6 mn, how is this possible??.

Hot contacts 15 mn at 25.000ft and 19 mn at 35.000ft.

 

I think the characteristics of the missiles are far from being modeled on DCS. I am not an arms expert, but here the numbers do not deceive anyone. It can not be that the performance of the missiles have losses of 50% of their effective range.

[Spartan111sqn]

Loft only happens if you are heading north...amazing, it is a shame from the simulation point of view.

[falcon_120]

Here a comparison SD10 vs 120C.

https://youtu.be/sLX02w8gWfw

This is hilarious. See specification section. Range information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-12#SD-10 and compare with https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM.

If is modeled C5 versión have the same Range.

70–100 kilometres (43–62 mi) SD10 ~ AIM-120C-5: 105 km (56,6955 mn)

 

In DCS im firing 120C at 5000ft to a chopper in RMAX 6 mn, how is this possible??.

Hot contacts 15 mn at 25.000ft and 19 mn at 35.000ft.

 

I think the characteristics of the missiles are far from being modeled on DCS. I am not an arms expert, but here the numbers do not deceive anyone. It can not be that the performance of the missiles have losses of 50% of their effective range.

Dcs numbers and ranges are very close to the real thing. In fact you can already achieve a 56mn kill... you just need to have a non maneouvering stupid target, which happens to be the range you see in wikipedia (something lile 50.000 ft altitude going mach 1.5 against a non moving target coming at you at 40.000ft and M0.9).

 

At those altitude the missiles are amazing. Try that and you will see you get a 40 plus nm kill easily.

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[falcon_120]

Loft only happens if you are heading north...amazing, it is a shame from the simulation point of view.

Its just WIP and probably not intented to be there.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[Fisu_MAD]

Dcs numbers and ranges are very close to the real thing. In fact you can already achieve a 56mn kill... you just need to have a non maneouvering stupid target, which happens to be the range you see in wikipedia (something lile 50.000 ft altitude going mach 1.5 against a non moving target coming at you at 40.000ft and M0.9).

 

At those altitude the missiles are amazing. Try that and you will see you get a 40 plus nm kill easily.

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

mmm i think isnt normal 5000ft RMax 7 miles, head to head Su25T vs F18C, no man, 2 miles more and can use IR missiles, something is wrong here.

Im not expert are you one? Because you are saying that this is correct.

 

Time ago missiles had reached more far away.