New Aim-120 Thoughts?

[NineLine]

Hey guys, so using the attached mission, based on the comments above we did some testing of our own, and the AIM-120 was successful in killing the target 7 out of 10 times, this seems very reasonable, especially if the target is executing defensive maneuvers.

 

Remember the AIM-120 isn't a 'wish-you-dead' weapon unless you are within 10nm, it can be defeated, so try out the attached mission and let's see your feedback, if you have a result that just seems odd, include a track.

 

We appreciate the feedback, thanks guys.

Client AIM120 Test-1.miz

[Max1mus]

Hey guys, so using the attached mission, based on the comments above we did some testing of our own, and the AIM-120 was successful in killing the target 7 out of 10 times, this seems very reasonable, especially if the target is executing defensive maneuvers.

 

Remember the AIM-120 isn't a 'wish-you-dead' weapon unless you are within 10nm

 

You could run the same tests with the old missiles and get the same result, given a specificly skilled/unskilled pilot. If youre already beaming slowly, you can defeat 99% of amraam launches at even close distances, no matter how high the chaff rejection is. Overall people in MP have improved their notching skills simply out of necessity due to it being the only method to deal with magic INSed phoenixes etc. So you will get different results on average with the exactly same missiles.

 

The 10nm comment makes no sense. 10nm against a low target is nowhere even near the no escape zone for both 120B and C. For the DCS AIM-54, sure.

 

The new AIM-120 is a wish-you-dead weapon against some players and will practically never kill someone with a ton of practice (and you will need to use an AIM-9+Guns to finish him). Certainly the amount of players that will die to it 100% of the time has multiplied with this new patches chaff rejection. I dont think AI can successfully defeat the new missile within a few miles at all. Or even at longer ranges, since it has not been updated to deal with the new effective ranges and ends up flying right into the missile.

[NineLine]

 

The new AIM-120 is a wish-you-dead weapon against some players and will practically never kill someone with a ton of practice

 

Which seems pretty reasonable, no? I am sure in an MP environment it's impossible to really gauge the effectiveness of a missile unless you are 100% confident you know all the players and their abilities. So I think we are mixing variables a little. The 120 is an instrument and is dependant on the person wielding it, and the person defending against it, and then all the other factors to its usage.

[Max1mus]

Which seems pretty reasonable, no? I am sure in an MP environment it's impossible to really gauge the effectiveness of a missile unless you are 100% confident you know all the players and their abilities. So I think we are mixing variables a little. The 120 is an instrument and is dependant on the person wielding it, and the person defending against it, and then all the other factors to its usage.

 

Range and the minimum amount of maneuvering required to beat the missile is measurable at all times, so the effectiveness of the missile there is not so dynamic.

 

If we are just talking about ability to defeat the missile non kinematically (notching/chaff), you can roughly measure the amounts of mistakes someone can get away with relative to other missiles/previous implementations of the AMRAAM. This room for mistakes has massively reduced, and against AI or someone that does not have perfect SA, enough chaff left, isnt prepared to defend (unlike in these test missions), the PK within a few miles head on is going to be pretty much 100% with the new chaff rejection. The amraams last patch were not so flawless at tracking through chaff, especially the B.

 

If the goal of the recent update was to increase the PK at close distance on the average bandit (AI included) drastically to close to 100 percent, then yes, reasonable.

 

PS: I dont think the average casual pilot is more interested in a reasonable effectiveness or a realistic one. Better missiles, especially when the opponent cant carry them (like in singleplayer campaigns) let those players get away with less practice/tactics or knowledge of missiles/methods of defeating them and focus more on easier, (for those players more fun) tasks like managing avionics. So in short, imo if you ask people here about if they like the new missiles, they will give you positive feedback on any buff of their missiles and dislike anything that will require them to do more work instead of the missile.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Max1mus

[Badlego]

The new flight model is beautful now, thx ED for the great work. Finally the missile has to pull AoA to keep tracking and now has turn rates and turn radii that seem reasonable.

I also really love the new notching behaviour of the missile. Before the patch a notch resulted in the missle to pull enormous amounts of G's away from the target which meant that the missile was dead after notching in a split of a second. It was too easy and seemed dubious.

 

Before this patch you could just do a turn and the missile was dead as soon as the turn entered the notch gate + some chaff. Now with a reasonable autopilot the missile can still be notched, but now the autopilot keeps it in an intercept course based on last known INS data, sothat a notched missile passes a few hundred feet away, and you should therefore never dare to turn into a notched missile as long as it didnt pass you ;)

 

Some points i would still improve based on some sources i found in the web:

1. I read that the AMRAAM can be fired in two modes: Inertial Active mode and Command Inertial mode:

"The preferred launch mode is the Command Inertial mode in which the missile receives targeting instructions from the aircraft through the use of an RF data link which is updated every 0.5 to 1 second depending on the launch mode of the aircraft radar." -> This is the one we have in DCS currently.

"Inertial Active is a complete launch and leave mode in which the AMRAAM guides to an inertial point provided to the missile pre-launch with no updates during flight." -> We dont have this mode in DCS afaik, and it would be awesome if this could be implemented, because it would then be possible to loft the missile without the need to track the target with the radar. Would be a nice tactical feature to let the missile attack certain areas.

 

2. I also read, that the one-way datalink to update target positions for the missile is done via a radio frequency signal sent by the airfraft radar: "When launched, the AMRAAM [...] guides towards the target using proportional navigation based on target data transmitted from the fighter aircraft radar" -> That means the missile has to be within a cone in front of the fighter, representing the radar, to receive target updates. I dont see this implemented, as you currently support your missile as long as you have a target track (including memory track!!!), no matter wich angle your missile is...with the high memory settings of the hornet you could even support your missle when you are already cold....please dont misunderstand this to be related to some "magic INS bug". In memory mode, the radar is correctly extrapolating the flight-path and the missile should correctly follow this flight path, and not the actual target, but flying cold to the missile should cut the support although the radar still has a target track from the memory...

 

I can only guess the cone size and therefore the angle at which the support stops....If the radar has a secondary device to send the signals, the limit may equal the gimbal limit of the radar, therefore 140° for the hornet and 120° for the viper...If the radar does not have such a device, which sounds reasonable for me, the limit would be related to the actual radar mode, as the update signals have to be send with the main radar, which means the radarbeam has to "hit" the missile: TWS with 30° azimut, 4bar search could then only support missiles within a 60°x 12° cone. Having this feature in DCS would be very interesting especially when cranking the target to the left or right radar limits, as the missile may fly out of the radar zone due to its proportional navigation. Much practice and a "feeling for your missile" would then be needed to be able to use and support it properly.

 

3. It is possible to resupport your missile when you regained a lock after you lost it. But it seemed that target sorting is currently hardcoded: launching on a target within a group in TWS, losing lock on the group, regaining lock on the group and turning all targets to system targets will result in the missile intercepting the one it was fired on before, although in theory the missile and the radar can not know wich one out of the group that was. The missile ignores which system target is bugged in the f16, but this may be a f16 related issue...

 

Well, this post became a bit long, so thank you for taking your time reading it ;)

[SFAL]

I found that we can use the Aim120 to kill safelites.

 

Quite a few times the missiles went above 100.000ft at 1400kts+.

I guess its still wip....

[Max1mus]

Full agreement with everything except this:

 

Now with a reasonable autopilot the missile can still be notched, but now the autopilot keeps it in an intercept course based on last known INS data, sothat a notched missile passes a few hundred feet away, and you should therefore never dare to turn into a notched missile as long as it didnt pass you ;)

 

1. Even before, active missiles could reaquire you despite having previously grabbed your chaff.

 

2. The autopilot is a good thing, and all missiles that have it should get it in the sim. However the 120s still grab chaff (i.e. you CAN recommit into them before they pass), but ED messed with the coefficients there so they will do so much, much less than before. So the new notching mechanics are not just due to the realistic memory mode of the missile, but also a very significant buff in chaff resistance. From all i have seen so far the current 120B is like last patches 120C in that regard, which as we both know was already considered a very nasty missile mainly due to its strong chaff resistance.

[ruxtmp]

This sounds like the old missile again. Post update, my AIM-120 doesn't really care about chaff unless it's combined with a good notch attempt.

 

EDIT

 

Doing an abbreviated version of the testing ruxtmp did, I can't get the AMRAAM to go for chaff. I only did about 10 launches. 18 nmi at 25000 ft. 0 went from chaff. 1 missed because I didn't pitch up on launch and the MiG ran away. Everything else was 1 missile to destroy the MiG.

 

Also I have a question for people testing the AIM-120. Previously it was perfectly accurate, as in unless the target was maneuvering to the point where the missile was low on energy, it would always strike about the center mass of the target. The new AMRAAM seems to have some fallibility, as sometimes even with good energy it won't score direct hits, but instead relies on the proximity fuse. Anyone else seeing this?

 

I did two repairs on my open beta prior to testing prior to repair the aim120_family.lua file was 3kb in size and dated 04/01/2020. After the repair the file size remained the same at 3kb and only the date changed to the date of the repair 6/04/20. Not sure if I am not getting the appropriate file in the repair but it has zero impact on the performance of the missile on my system.

[HetzerII]

For me notching seems so much harder... any tips?

[Oceandar]

For me notching seems so much harder... any tips?

Dont forget also use bunch of chaffs, I mean like quite alot. Not that it will guarantee a success but worth a try.

[Max1mus]

For me notching seems so much harder... any tips?

 

You have to be extremely accurate with it now, and slow. Sloppyness is punished very hard since last patch. Just with 120s though, other missiles are fine like before, apart from the AIM-54 desync at long ranges where you just have to guess the position of the missile and spam chaff.

[dundun92]

I did two repairs on my open beta prior to testing prior to repair the aim120_family.lua file was 3kb in size and dated 04/01/2020. After the repair the file size remained the same at 3kb and only the date changed to the date of the repair 6/04/20. Not sure if I am not getting the appropriate file in the repair but it has zero impact on the performance of the missile on my system.

Thats not the file with the new data. Look at the bottom of "missiles_table.lua" in "DCS World OpenBeta\Scripts\Database\Weapons"

[hawk4me]

The new Aim-120C won't hit anything even less than 5nm out at 22K feet they literally fly at target you get a LOST flash on your HUD and missile goes stupid. I literally flew behind a TU-23 biggest radar signature you could get 5nm away fired 8 missiles they all missed. Gave no Chaff/Flare to the AI. It flew in a straight line. Give me a break with this crap the missile does all kinds of wonky jerking around in flight so much so that it looses half it's energy 10nm after being fired.

[falcon_120]

The new Aim-120C won't hit anything even less than 5nm out at 22K feet they literally fly at target you get a LOST flash on your HUD and missile goes stupid. I literally flew behind a TU-23 biggest radar signature you could get 5nm away fired 8 missiles they all missed. Gave no Chaff/Flare to the AI. It flew in a straight line. Give me a break with this crap the missile does all kinds of wonky jerking around in flight so much so that it looses half it's energy 10nm after being fired.

What? O_o. I mean upload a track and fill a bug report, for me its hitting nicely.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[stormrider]

I tried it against a Mig-21 and couldnt hit it whatsoever.

[HWasp]

If you don't post a track or at least a screenshot, nobody can help you

[nickos86]

It easy to reproduce. Just go to ED's F/A-18C AIM-120 mission and try to fire the weapons against all of the targets in TWS from around 20NM. You'll see that at least part of the missiles will LOFT but won't guide to the target (instead they'll try to shoot down a satellite :) ).

 

I don't think it's only an AIM-120 issue. They wrote that it's can't go MAD DOG at the moment, so I guess what happens is that the missiles are not getting a proper lock at the lunch moment or after. I think the issue is with the F/A-18Cs radar (or radar API in general... Didn't check with the F-16 or any other jet). Seems like the radar connection is lost at the lunch moment or during the flight phase and the missile is unable to guide.

[WOPR]

 

I don't think it's only an AIM-120 issue. They wrote that it's can't go MAD DOG at the moment, so I guess what happens is that the missiles are not getting a proper lock at the lunch moment or after. I think the issue is with the F/A-18Cs radar (or radar API in general... Didn't check with the F-16 or any other jet). Seems like the radar connection is lost at the lunch moment or during the flight phase and the missile is unable to guide.

 

 

I see the same/similar behavior in the F/A-18 too both before and after the AIM-120 update. The LOST flag appears to be related to something not (directly) related to the missile update. I don't relaunch at long as I have the target in track and am generally successful landing hits (assuming no other factors). I've not paid attention to any differences with TWS and STT. I use both depending on the situation.

[Svend_Dellepude]

It's the TWS function that's broken, not the 120. Fire at one and the missile will guide just fine. If in the F-18 you have a secondary, you need to constantly switch between them using the undesignate button to update missiles flightpath.

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

So here is my final take on all of this, please feel free to agree/disagree.

 

The new Aim-120b/c in the new open beta is worse than before in terms of deceleration/drag in the 2000-1100 knot range. Apparently that slight increase in zero lift drag in that region caused it. Verification on this claim would be appreciated.

 

Also going back to the comment on drag racing, up until terminal guidance, where the missile has to start to maneuver to intercept it’s target, it is indeed a “drag race.” For long range shots, this dominates far more than half of the missiles flight.

 

During terminal guidance phase though, the massive decrease in induced drag allows for, 1: sidewinder like shots at close range, though I’m not sure why anyone would want to do this as it’s usually suicide to get into a WVR fight these days, and 2: far better energy management during high g turns, usually just before impact with the target. It’s just too bad that the missile is usually so slow at this point, a jet airliner could probably outrun it.

 

Regardless, this is how it is now and I’m sure ED is right. If you want to get a kill with this new AMRAAM, you should even shoot closer than you did before, around 10 nm at or above 20000ft and at or over Mach 1. Even under these conditions though, when shooting against an experienced sim pilot, (like myself) the probability of kill will still be quite low. Best bet to get a kill AND to get home alive, is to try and sneak a shot off at longer ranges but again, against veteran pilots, this is rather difficult.

 

In conclusion, it is no secret that I would have loved to have seen the deceleration far less drastic than it is now in the speed region mentioned above. To me, this is the crippling factor in its performance. You see, I was brought up on sims like Falcon 4 Allied force and BMS, where AMRAAMS can whack you even when you turn around 20nm away before impact! As such, these are how my BVR tactics developed. However it is not about what I want, it is about what is realistic and what is not and seeing how much work ED has put into this, I’m sure their closer than anyone else to getting it right. I suppose on the bright side, it far more difficult to get killed in a modern air combat scenario than previously thought right?!

[falcon_120]

So here is my final take on all of this, please feel free to agree/disagree.

 

The new Aim-120b/c in the new open beta is worse than before in terms of deceleration/drag in the 2000-1100 knot range. Apparently that slight increase in zero lift drag in that region caused it. Verification on this claim would be appreciated.

 

Also going back to the comment on drag racing, up until terminal guidance, where the missile has to start to maneuver to intercept it’s target, it is indeed a “drag race.” For long range shots, this dominates far more than half of the missiles flight.

 

During terminal guidance phase though, the massive decrease in induced drag allows for, 1: sidewinder like shots at close range, though I’m not sure why anyone would want to do this as it’s usually suicide to get into a WVR fight these days, and 2: far better energy management during high g turns, usually just before impact with the target. It’s just too bad that the missile is usually so slow at this point, a jet airliner could probably outrun it.

 

Regardless, this is how it is now and I’m sure ED is right. If you want to get a kill with this new AMRAAM, you should even shoot closer than you did before, around 10 nm at or above 20000ft and at or over Mach 1. Even under these conditions though, when shooting against an experienced sim pilot, (like myself) the probability of kill will still be quite low. Best bet to get a kill AND to get home alive, is to try and sneak a shot off at longer ranges but again, against veteran pilots, this is rather difficult.

 

In conclusion, it is no secret that I would have loved to have seen the deceleration far less drastic than it is now in the speed region mentioned above. To me, this is the crippling factor in its performance. You see, I was brought up on sims like Falcon 4 Allied force and BMS, where AMRAAMS can whack you even when you turn around 20nm away before impact! As such, these are how my BVR tactics developed. However it is not about what I want, it is about what is realistic and what is not and seeing how much work ED has put into this, I’m sure their closer than anyone else to getting it right. I suppose on the bright side, it far more difficult to get killed in a modern air combat scenario than previously thought right?!

 

I'm not sure, the improvement in guidance at least on my side means that the missile loose very little energy now doing +9g stupid corrections. Above angels 20, 20Mn are a high PK or at least its my experience. Also notching and chaffings effectiveness is reduced wich helps in MP. Although this past week i haven't played as much as i would love, so its maybe a placebo effect.

[TAW_Blaze]

I don't understand everyone being hung up on a few knots here and there. For more than the last decade the most glaring problem has been the extremely unreliable guidance allowing people to get away with a lot of scenarios where the only reality should be guaranteed death.

 

All I'm going to say is the new guidance is lightyears ahead of the previous. I think it's a little too good against notching bandits, but otherwise based on our internal testing what I can see is that they eliminated the most critical issues that caused many many missiles to miss for absolutely silly reasons.

 

Ultimately as long as you and your opponent have sticks with similar performance it does not matter how far they can fly. What matters is that they are reliable when you need them to be.

 

If @chizh ever sees this, GREAT ****ING JOB!

[evilnate]

I love the new slammers! Before they seemed like bottle rockets.

[Max1mus]

For more than the last decade the most glaring problem has been the extremely unreliable guidance

 

The guidance has always been deterministic, so it is currently exactly as reliable as it was 1 year ago, as long as you studied the thing properly through testing. What has changed is simply its actual capability. The zones in which there is no possible escape have always been consistent. The spots in which there is no possible escape with any DCS fighter have just increased massively.

 

Same for the amount of respect that needs to be given at long range, it was always consistent if you spent the time researching it. The actual number in any given situation has simply increased.

 

So in short, the thing has already been the best air to air weapon in DCS in comparision to for example the russian missiles. Now its just barely even in the same class.

[SCPanda]

I really wonder if the people are saying that the new aim-120s are worse then before are using the same missiles as I am using.

 

For me, both effective range and PK are much better than before. Also, when I watched the replay of my missiles hitting my targets, the new amraam does have better tracking and notch/chaff resistance.

 

Also, the range of the amraam has not been an issue for me since I can always fly 40k and fire the missile at 40nm+ range and it will always have the energy when it reaches the target, sometimes quite fast actually. They problem I had was the tracking and notch/chaff resistance. It had enough energy but it cannot track and hit the target that was defending.

 

But the new amraam fixed this issue / improved the tracking for me.