So what's the real performance of AIM-120C

[Red Hammer]

ED says the AIM-120 in the Lock on is C version.

But some guys here clain it's performance is not even as good as A version in real life. Is that true? Because I was thinking, Its hard enough to avoid it from 8km away in the game. If what those people said is true. Does that mean in the real life that it is impossible to avoid AIM-120C.

[mvsgas]

I don't think any of us here will ever know the real performance of modern A2A missiles. Not until they retire the R-77, AIM-120, METEOR (AKA BVRAAM), R-73, AIM-9X, Python 4, MICA, AIM-132 ASRAAM (the best acronym by far) Etc.

[Vekkinho]

Most of the LOFC missiles are produced under assumption i.e. not based on any performance charts and other technicalia...

 

So noone can really tell you what's accurate AMRAAM peformance, it's still classified!

[Shaman]

ED says the AIM-120 in the Lock on is C version.

But some guys here clain it's performance is not even as good as A version in real life. Is that true? Because I was thinking, Its hard enough to avoid it from 8km away in the game. If what those people said is true. Does that mean in the real life that it is impossible to avoid AIM-120C.

 

The AIM-120C real performance charts and graphs are classified as secret. I have already asked for it our staff in National Defense Academy, where the Simulation and War Games Center is located.

[cool_t]

We all know what the deal is, classified yes, in lomac undermoddeld yes, hard to avoid from close up sure.

 

As I have stated befor if the 120 in lomac was not "Porked" they would not call them SPAMRAMS.

 

As it is right now I use them as a deturent to obtain a larger goal.

 

Lets hopw that with Black Shark on the way that we do not see some of the misunderstandings that LOMAC has endured.

[Vekkinho]

There's an obvious downgrade in AMRAAM performance in LOFC. I remember LOMAC version of AMRAAM was also AIM-120C but it had much greater speed. Guess most of you were more satisfied with that (v1.02) version, right?!

 

The other thing that might bother the sensitive is general performance of all missiles in FC 1.12.

 

IMHO all missiles behave too sticky, as virtual pilots have lots of dodging to do to get rid of it. IRL missiles aren't that good no matter of side and manufacturer (Raytheon or Vympel)

 

Lots of you also complain of AIM-9 range. I believe it's M version that's featured in FC. AIM-9X alos saw daylight since FC was made and also remember that new AIM-120D was brought into service just a few days ago, so I guess ED's got a lot of work to do to catch up with modern time.

[Teknetinium]

watch this one a fighter pilot talks about his missiles. I say Lockon missile are way to good, all off them.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T5AbpZ3tcLg

[Pilotasso]

dude that was 18 years ago... the AMRAAM wasnt even in service yet. On the other hand AIM-7 R-27 were, and still are. I have no complaints about their perfomance.

 

I have read enough stories on the AMRAAM to think now the most critical time for it is when it drops out from inertial guidance to swcih over to guided mode, because any errors (because there are a few associated with datalink, radar and inertial sensors) in determining targets expected position relative to the position the missiles antenna is aiming at.

 

If you shoot it IRL within 10nm all these problems go away since it almost immidiatly goes active off the rail. In this scenario the real missile will vastly utperform the one in LOMAC. And this is why I judge to be the reason AMRAAMs were preferrably shot at this range during real combat.

 

In LOMAC the AMRAAM misses almost just as much at 15 miles as it does at 4, wich IMHO is just not right.

[159th_Viper]

Interesting........Sidewinder - Sparrow - Sidewinder launched WVR: All Spoofed.

 

Took a Sparrow from 6000 Feet to Splash the Bandit :noexpression:

[TorwaK]

If you fire an AIM-120C from 10nm to a target at Falcon 4.0, %99 target will destroy. That's the AMRAAM.

[Pilotasso]

The sidwinder IS a flare eater.

[Pilotasso]

There's an obvious downgrade in AMRAAM performance in LOFC. I remember LOMAC version of AMRAAM was also AIM-120C but it had much greater speed. Guess most of you were more satisfied with that (v1.02) version, right?!

 

The other thing that might bother the sensitive is general performance of all missiles in FC 1.12.

 

IMHO all missiles behave too sticky, as virtual pilots have lots of dodging to do to get rid of it. IRL missiles aren't that good no matter of side and manufacturer (Raytheon or Vympel)

 

Lots of you also complain of AIM-9 range. I believe it's M version that's featured in FC. AIM-9X alos saw daylight since FC was made and also remember that new AIM-120D was brought into service just a few days ago, so I guess ED's got a lot of work to do to catch up with modern time.

 

AMRAAM is rated as mach 4 launched from standard conditions. in LOMAC it hits 3000km/h wich makes it hardly mach 2.5. Quite a perfomance hit, not only that it also makes it more susceptible to chaff as well. AIM-9's perfomance cahrts are declassified and verified LOMAC's reproduction to have been halved over the real thing.

[GGTharos]

We also know the range of AIM-120A in one specific scenario from HUD tape, and it's quite a bit longer than LO's AIM-120.

 

The AIM-120 has a claimed pk of 0.9+ when 'everything works right'. If you want to throw in missiles launched in poor parameters (whether on purpose or not) and missile malfunctions, that Pk might go down to 0.7 - and that's still a LOT better than LO's AIM-120.

 

Not to mention - chaff working head on against radar missiles? Heh!

[Teknetinium]

dude that was 18 years ago... the AMRAAM wasnt even in service yet. On the other hand AIM-7 R-27 were, and still are. I have no complaints about their perfomance.

 

I have read enough stories on the AMRAAM to think now the most critical time for it is when it drops out from inertial guidance to swcih over to guided mode, because any errors (because there are a few associated with datalink, radar and inertial sensors) in determining targets expected position relative to the position the missiles antenna is aiming at.

 

If you shoot it IRL within 10nm all these problems go away since it almost immidiatly goes active off the rail. In this scenario the real missile will vastly utperform the one in LOMAC. And this is why I judge to be the reason AMRAAMs were preferrably shot at this range during real combat.

 

In LOMAC the AMRAAM misses almost just as much at 15 miles as it does at 4, wich IMHO is just not right.

 

were u not whining about how bad aim-9 is to, im just trying to say that in real life missiles miss even more then in lock on, let it be meteor if u like.

One thing is testing them against drones and advertising them for sale, but when u get in real environment things will be like in the video I showed. even worse

[Pilotasso]

were u not whining about how bad aim-9 is too

 

This discussion ends here. Any opinion I make you always interpret the worst possible way. bleh :P

[Teknetinium]

No pilot Its just that I don't understand why u think missiles are that effective, my last word about this is that as the missiles get better so do the plains rwr jammers to avoid them.

[Pilotasso]

your sarcasm tells me different. I would rather preffer you actualy sticked to constructive comments you claim to make.

 

Also you continue not to read my posts carefully. You draw it too quicly and deally and them make questions later.

[GGTharos]

Because they actually are that effective, and that has been proven.

 

Sidewinder Pk in gulf war as about 0.8. Sparrow Pk was about 0.3-0.4 (higher depending on where they were stored). AMRAAM Pk in real battles has always been quite high as well - even with missiles launched out of range or malfunctioning it was upwards of 0.6.

Jammers have always been and always will be hit-and-miss, especially in the current era of software upgrades for missiles that can apply new ECCM at will (and whose ECCM you won't be familiar with to build a perfect jammer to begin with).

 

That's if we're talking new, constantly updated missiles like AMRAAM. Not things of the past like R-27 and AIM-7 (though AIM-7 got some spiffy updates also)

[Teknetinium]

I must admit on that propaganda, GG, Its like shooting drones where u are 150 vs 5 ;)

[GGTharos]

The situation wasn't much different in Vietnam. Heck, the target aircraft didn't even have RWRs. What's the number of opposition have to do with launch-to-hit ratio anyway?

 

There's only one person blasting propaganda here, and that's you.

[Pilotasso]

...I did mention AMRAAM flaws IRL (not modeled ingame) and that the AIM-9 is infact a flare eater. I was critical on opposite points of view and still get flamed at. I wonder...

[GGTharos]

Well, now the question is, what's more of a flare eater ... the 9 or the 73?... hehee ;)

I guess all missiles of that era probably are.

Have you noticed in the vids though that there's no missiles shown going for flares when the aspect is head-on or tail-on? Looks like you have to do a little more than just dumb flares ...

[Pilotasso]

In lack of better data I would put both on par. The actual difference IRL would depend more on the flares used (yes they are researched after optimal IR frequence too), and ELINT.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, the only other thing available is the E-E conflict which is suspect in and of itself.

Though personally I would expect the Russian heaters to have a bit less resistance just due to manufacturing differences in electronics.

[Pilotasso]

I would not go as far since I also read Russia was more advanced in electro optical systems back in the 80's. Again this increases the uncertanty level on wich has a better seeker, thus and most likely there isnt much of a perfomance difference between them in actual combat.