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

[Groove]

Hmm....

I'm curious.

Has there ever been a single recorded bvr kill by R-27 in real life?

Just an honest question. There probably aren't many records to

go by, especially not for statistical certainty. =/

But if anyone knows of one it would be nice to hear.

 

IIRC there was a possible kill with a R-27 in the Eritrea vs Etiopia conflict with more than 20 R-27 missiles launched. You can get more info on this conflict at www.acig.org

[GGTharos]

I would go further and say it behaves like less than the A version.

 

the name is irrelevant since nothing that differentiates them is modeled in LOMAC. Given the range it has, I would be inclined to say it looks like it behaves more like the A version.

[HubMan]

I would go further and say it behaves like less than the A version.

I wouldn't say that :) At the time of Lockon (90'), most of the RWR were not able to detect an inbound AMRAAM :

 

- we know that the missile only goes active around 10/15km of the targer due to the range limitation of the small antenna and to the fact that it's better to warn the target as late as possible. As a result, the RWR only has a couple of seconds of detection before impact :)

 

- considered the level of heat/electronic noise in a RWR at this time, the computing power of the electronic and the frequency agility of the AMRAAM radar, the detection of the active seeker by integration processing would take a -long- time... To make it short, the principle of "integration" is to add multiple samples of signal over time : the background noise is supposed to almost canceled itself out as it is supposed to be purely random, and the seeker signal is supposed to grow over time if enough samples of signal are integrated (added). The problem is that the RWR cannot "sample" all the bandwith that the seeker can use : it's too large : it needs to cut it in smaller intervals. Of course, meanwhile, the radar seeker is jumping from frequency to frequency making the integration more difficult. Excepted in lucky cases, the AMRAAM should reach its target before the RWR could start singing :)

 

- the Fox 3 are "lofted" during BVR engagement. As the result, they dive on their target at an angle that puts them out of most of the RWR coverage. Not singing RWR again :)

 

To my opinion, the problem in Lockon is not the really way the missiles are modelised, but the way the SPO / RWR works : there are far too much efficient and give the opportunity to make a perfect defensive stunt. Without warnings, AMRAAM in Lockon could be far, far more efficient :)

 

But considered that the SPO / RWR perform like very recent and efficient systems like the one in the F-22, Rafale, EF... BVR in Lockon cannot be realistic.

 

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Hub.

 

 

PS : Another issue is the way the chaffs are handled by the radar : ie only the ratio noise vs SER is considered, as if the radar were simply pulse and not pulse -doppler- radar, you get some magic decoys incredibely efficient while going head on. Against a pulse doppler radar, chaff would be best if used while notching (or eventually pumping). But in Lockon it is the other way around. As a result, it is possible to push like mad, in an almost perfect immunity while flying a MiG-29 with a "small" SER. That's not the way it's supposed to be.

 

PPS : and I don't want to speak about decent missile range increase for supersonic shots : flying high and fast in Lockon is purely useless... :(

[GGTharos]

I would! Though in many cases it may be something that should apply to -all- missiles ... starting with AIM-120C alone though, I would say range is an issue :)

Other issues are lack of INS, etc etc - as well as the chaff model you've mentioned :)

 

I wouldn't say that :)

 

Do you have a source for this? I ask because I need it to back up any requests/arguments :)

This corroborates 'red side' pilot accounts from aircraft with working RWRs that had been hit, but I would like something more solid to present :)

 

Excepted in lucky cases, the AMRAAM should reach its target before the RWR could start singing :)

[Pilotasso]

The accuracy of the warning systems is indeed too much but IMHO it pales compared to the AMRAAM's slow speed (mach 2.5), chaff rejection and ECM burn through range. we are talking about small details of threat warning modeling VS major handicaping dumbdowns.

 

Flying high in LOMAC is NOT uselss! It requires MUCH skill but you are rewarded with kills that often deprive the enemy from a single return shot.

[S77th-GOYA]

the name is irrelevant since nothing that differentiates them is modeled in LOMAC.

 

There is one thing: the model itself. (fins)

[RvEYoda]

I wouldn't say that :) At the time of Lockon (90'), most of the RWR were not able to detect an inbound AMRAAM :

 

- we know that the missile only goes active around 10/15km of the targer due to the range limitation of the small antenna and to the fact that it's better to warn the target as late as possible. As a result, the RWR only has a couple of seconds of detection before impact :)

 

- considered the level of heat/electronic noise in a RWR at this time, the computing power of the electronic and the frequency agility of the AMRAAM radar, the detection of the active seeker by integration processing would take a -long- time... To make it short, the principle of "integration" is to add multiple samples of signal over time : the background noise is supposed to almost canceled itself out as it is supposed to be purely random, and the seeker signal is supposed to grow over time if enough samples of signal are integrated (added). The problem is that the RWR cannot "sample" all the bandwith that the seeker can use : it's too large : it needs to cut it in smaller intervals. Of course, meanwhile, the radar seeker is jumping from frequency to frequency making the integration more difficult. Excepted in lucky cases, the AMRAAM should reach its target before the RWR could start singing :)

 

- the Fox 3 are "lofted" during BVR engagement. As the result, they dive on their target at an angle that puts them out of most of the RWR coverage. Not singing RWR again :)

 

To my opinion, the problem in Lockon is not the really way the missiles are modelised, but the way the SPO / RWR works : there are far too much efficient and give the opportunity to make a perfect defensive stunt. Without warnings, AMRAAM in Lockon could be far, far more efficient :)

 

But considered that the SPO / RWR perform like very recent and efficient systems like the one in the F-22, Rafale, EF... BVR in Lockon cannot be realistic.

 

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Hub.

 

 

PS : Another issue is the way the chaffs are handled by the radar : ie only the ratio noise vs SER is considered, as if the radar were simply pulse and not pulse -doppler- radar, you get some magic decoys incredibely efficient while going head on. Against a pulse doppler radar, chaff would be best if used while notching (or eventually pumping). But in Lockon it is the other way around. As a result, it is possible to push like mad, in an almost perfect immunity while flying a MiG-29 with a "small" SER. That's not the way it's supposed to be.

 

PPS : and I don't want to speak about decent missile range increase for supersonic shots : flying high and fast in Lockon is purely useless... :(

 

:thumbup: x a million!

 

200+ km RWR detection of F-15 radar in wide scan rws mode .... ye right :P

[Red Hammer]

I would go further and say it behaves like less than the A version.

 

So why ED made it less usefull??:huh:

Although I don't like the idea to make the westen side better since the easten side lost a lot in v1.1. But to make the game reality, they shoud make it at least a Real A version performance.

[HubMan]

Hi GGTharos :)

 

I would! Though in many cases it may be something that should apply to -all- missiles ... starting with AIM-120C alone though, I would say range is an issue :)

Other issues are lack of INS, etc etc - as well as the chaff model you've mentioned :)

I think missile range in Lockon is almost fine :) The problem is elsewhere to my opinion :)

 

The AIM-7M is estimated to have at least a range of 30nm, but most of the AIM-7 used by the F-15 during Gulf War 1 were fired under 15nm.

 

I know that you know it :) But similary 30nm for an AIM-120A/B is overly optimistic : both shooter and target should be flying supersonic, at high altitude, on a direct intercept course and the target should not be manoeuvring, as a light course offset should be enough to trash the AMRAAM.

 

I agree that the missiles are a little bit undermodeled, but it's only because firing them while flying enough over the mach is not taken in account : going supersonic is really energy consuming even for a missile with its sleek profile.

 

Maximum missile range is just like maximum aircraft speed (going mach 2 in a fighter in Lockon) : that requires to be within very specific parameters that are not likely to occur really often.

 

Honestly, I think ED made a very decent job at modelling the missiles flight performances :)

 

But the gameplay required for a "midcore" game ie the way the ECM and the RWR/SPO were designed really ruined the -effective- range of the missiles for BVR engagement : its exactly as trying to throw a glass of water (only the water, not the glass :D) at a friend standing 5 meters from you. Depending if your buddy is aware or not of what you are doing, you will have to go far closer to be able to touch him, otherwise he will have time to defend :) It's the same with Lockon : we can defend too well, because we have godlike "missile inbound" alerts :)

 

Try to think about Lockon with almost no warnings excepted a very few seconds before impact for the Fox 3 and just a "lock" alert for the Fox 1... "Effective" missile range would get really increased :)

 

But I guess that the idea behind the actual game balance is to help people to go to the merge, as CAC was probably considered funnier than BVR (and I partly agree : -seing- your opponent, missile smoke, flares and a big fireball is always sweet :) )

 

Do you have a source for this? I ask because I need it to back up any requests/arguments :)

This corroborates 'red side' pilot accounts from aircraft with working RWRs that had been hit, but I would like something more solid to present :)

I sent you a MP ;)

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Hub.

[HubMan]

The accuracy of the warning systems is indeed too much but IMHO it pales compared to the AMRAAM's slow speed (mach 2.5), chaff rejection and ECM burn through range. we are talking about small details of threat warning modeling VS major handicaping dumbdowns.

 

Hi Pilotasso, :)

 

AMRAAM is kind of "slow" is you consider its maximum top speed because firing it at high altitude -over- the mach, let's say around mach 1.4 is not correctly modelized and does not give to the missile the extra boost it should get.

If you think about it, mach 1.4 for the shooter + mach 2.5 should give almost mach 4 :)

 

...

Flying high in LOMAC is NOT uselss! It requires MUCH skill but you are rewarded with kills that often deprive the enemy from a single return shot.

In contrary to real life, the advantages of flying high in Lockon are not worth the pain :) Fox 3 are almost useless in look down and thanks to the way the RWR/SPO are designed, notching a Fox 1 is something you do not do preventively, but as a reaction to a "launch" alert.

It's obvious when you play against the AI and against human players :) And like the missile effective range, it's related mostly to one thing : the RWR / SPO gives you too much information and makes possible to notch exactly at the good time and recommit perfectly, because you know exactly if the missile was trashed or not :)

 

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Hub.

[HubMan]

:thumbup: x a million!

 

200+ km RWR detection of F-15 radar in wide scan rws mode .... ye right :P

Hi Yoda :)

 

Thanks a lot :) About the 200+ km, I would say, it depends on the RWR : if you consider

- that the F-15 can detect a fighter sized target around 100km,

- keep in mind that the energy received by the RWR is a 1/r^2 function

- but that the energy received by the radar is a 1/r^4

 

that may be be possible :) The differences in antenna performances, gain, heat noise etc... and the fact that the F-15 can integrate easily its own signal (not the case for the RWR that must handle pulses spreads all over a large bandwith) could be balanced by the difference in signal strength, provided that the RWR has an accurate "signature" of the F-15 radar :) (without the good ECM software library and the up to date intelligence, a RWR is almost useless) :)

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Hub.

[HubMan]

So why ED made it less usefull??:huh:

Although I don't like the idea to make the westen side better since the easten side lost a lot in v1.1. But to make the game reality, they shoud make it at least a Real A version performance.

Hi Red Hammer :)

 

If you want realism, it is less the AMRAAM that needs tweaking than the SPO / RWR that need to be downgraded (sorry for repeating myself :D)

 

 

Hub

[Teknetinium]

HubMan in some way I Agree whit u that would make the trick, but I still consist that missiles are way to good in lock on just compere ur AIM-7 and AIM-9 to the video its real pilot talking about it, and the missile miss blank range that would never happened in lock on, AIM-120/R-77 search cones are way to big so u barley need to guide them to ur target. ET/T/73/AIM-9s in lock on react only on the flares and engine heat, in real life there is much more the missile can get distracted by. so in the and the missile are to good. :)

[GGTharos]

Maybe you should have watched the rest of the video, as well as noted where those missiles were dodged at point blank in lock on. Often. You're wrong.

[RvEYoda]

Hi Yoda :)

 

Thanks a lot :) About the 200+ km, I would say, it depends on the RWR : if you consider

- that the F-15 can detect a fighter sized target around 100km,

- keep in mind that the energy received by the RWR is a 1/r^2 function

- but that the energy received by the radar is a 1/r^4

 

that may be be possible :) The differences in antenna performances, gain, heat noise etc... and the fact that the F-15 can integrate easily its own signal (not the case for the RWR that must handle pulses spreads all over a large bandwith) could be balanced by the difference in signal strength, provided that the RWR has an accurate "signature" of the F-15 radar :) (without the good ECM software library and the up to date intelligence, a RWR is almost useless) :)

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Hub.

 

partially agree, but one of the things you mentioned, signature, is something

I believe is most important.

The radar knows almost exactly what kind of signal he wants. It

also knows approximately from where to look, and has no totally obvious

weak angles. It can be made to be many times more sensitive to some

returns than others, while RWR must cover, as you say, an entire library of signal types.

The RWR does not know, has to cover a lot broader spectrum in

both frequencies and other factors.

 

Also I would like to comment on your notes about amraam range.

It is specified in F-16 MLU handbook from lockheed martin that

Aim120 A is a missile with an approximate _CRUISING_ speed of mach4.

Not top speed. "approximate cruising speed".

Note also that initial speed of firing aircraft in lockon is not useful to

take into consideration because lockon models all missile accellerations

SUPER high (i believe you were onto this), so regardless of if you fire from mach

2 or mach 0.3, missile will reach max speed in lockon within 1-2 seconds. In fact lockon

models amraam accelleration to 33 G(!!) and then a top speed

of around mach 2.5-3.5 (speed cap.) Tests show that lomac

amraam ALWAYS reaches it's maximum speed, and it is not simply another

burn phase timer after the first 2 seconds. if flying X thousand feet it always reaches

a fixed speed cap for this altitude, regardless of initial speed of the launch platform.

(assuming the missile flies straight).

 

This also makes missiles going slightly up able to catch targets further away than a missile

fired slightly downwards (by the opponent). One of the more sad results =/

 

I would attribute this to :

 

1. Insane initial accelleration

2. Fixated top speed

3. Lack of missile loft course

4. Very very very very high drag for a 0 AoA missile going almost straight down.

 

Following is some data from tests I've made. I will show you a picture in a few

minutes with data!

 

[S77th-GOYA]

If you want realism, it is less the AMRAAM that needs tweaking than the SPO / RWR that need to be downgraded (sorry for repeating myself :D)

 

Please post any data you have regarding the actual performance of the RWRs modelled in LO. Specifically relating to your alleged overmodelling.

[HubMan]

Hi Yoda, Hi Goya :)

 

My apologies, I will not be able to answer your posts before a couple of days (not enought free time to do it properly) :) But I will do it as soon as possible :)

 

Hub.

[Red Hammer]

But if in the real life it has a higher speed, does that make it a bigger turning radio.

[HubMan]

Hi Yoda :) I finally found the time to post something :

 

partially agree, but one of the things you mentioned, signature, is something

I believe is most important.

The radar knows almost exactly what kind of signal he wants. It

also knows approximately from where to look, and has no totally obvious

weak angles. It can be made to be many times more sensitive to some

returns than others, while RWR must cover, as you say, an entire library of signal types.

The RWR does not know, has to cover a lot broader spectrum in

both frequencies and other factors.

+10 000. :)

The RWR really does not have much advantages :

- the radar antenna is really optimized for the central frequency it uses

- a radar can integrate its own signal almost perfectly, because even though it is jumping in frequency, it knows the exact bandwith to process.

- like you precised as well, a RWR must cover a large bandwith and does not have the advantage of being very directionnal

 

...

Also I would like to comment on your notes about amraam range.

It is specified in F-16 MLU handbook from lockheed martin that

Aim120 A is a missile with an approximate _CRUISING_ speed of mach4.

Not top speed. "approximate cruising speed".

Word for word : "The range of the missile is approximately 30 miles with a cruising speed of approximately Mach 4". :)

 

30 nm sounds to me more like the RAERO than the Rmax1 :) ("The RAERO cue represents the maximum kinematic range of the AMRAAM and is the longestrange shot that a pilot can take a shot and have a chance of hitting the target. RAERO assumes that the target will not maneuver; that the missile is perfect; and optimum loft conditions are achieved.")

As a result, I would tend to think that Mach 4 is more a maximum than a nominal speed.(and if the missile is fired during a CAC at low altitude on a target that is coming hot, I doubt it would use a lofted trajectory

and reach a mach 4 speed :) )

 

 

About your missile behavior analysis : thanks a lot for your nice schema :) I (and a couple of buddies of mine) reached the same kind of conclusion :) I do agree with you about the general principles, as the tests I / we ran were against a target running hot (and not cold) like in your schema :)

 

By the way, the high drag value of the AMRAAM under 1500km/h is probably related to the fact that the missile is beginning to run out of speed and not that far from its stall speed : with very small aerodynamic surfaces, optimized for supersonic manoeuvring, it does not sound like such a bad idea to me :)

 

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Hub.

 

 

PS : sorry for answering you kind of late, my life has been just too busy those last weeks :)

[HubMan]

Please post any data you have regarding the actual performance of the RWRs modelled in LO. Specifically relating to your alleged overmodelling.

Hi Goya :)

 

For a RWR / SPO in use at the time frame of LO (mid 90s) :

 

- firing a Fox 1 should not raise a different alert than a radar lock, considered that the missiles are guided by the same monopulse emission than the one used for tracking a target.

As a result, in real life, most of the time, you had to notch preventively, because you never really knew if a missile was fired or not. Getting spiked should make you -really- think about it... :)

 

- firing a Fox 3 should not raise any alarm than a TWS scan. It was only when the missile was really close to its targer (different from when it goes active), that the RWR would start raising an alert (ie at best, just enought time to pull the black and yellow magic handle...) :)

Bye bye barrel roll, orthogonal roll, ninja pull up etc... Fox 3 would be far more lethal, as they would hit you without warning...

 

- there are no false alerts (friendly ECM), all warnings are raised almost always immediatly

 

- the range estimation to the emitter is just too perfect ! It makes possible to know exactly at what distance the radar is, and in the case of the Fox 3, to time perfectly your defensive manoeuvers. That's spoiling the "realism", but brings as well a lot of fun for people who likes stunts and going to the merge :)

 

 

Making the RWR / SPO less godlike would give the opportunity to make long range kills with the R-27ER and medium range kills with the AIM-120, without changing the way the missile are modelized :)

 

The balance of the game could be preserved, but people that plays Lockon for its "mid core" modelization would be probably disappointed : fighting without knowing if you were shot at or not and exploding suddenly without warnings would probably be too much of a frustration for them :) (and me probably : as I have spent recently far more time modding than playing the game :D and the easiness is easy :D )

 

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Hub.

[HubMan]

HubMan in some way I Agree whit u that would make the trick, but I still consist that missiles are way to good in lock on just compere ur AIM-7 and AIM-9 to the video its real pilot talking about it, and the missile miss blank range that would never happened in lock on, AIM-120/R-77 search cones are way to big so u barley need to guide them to ur target. ET/T/73/AIM-9s in lock on react only on the flares and engine heat, in real life there is much more the missile can get distracted by. so in the and the missile are to good. :)

Hi Teknetium :)

 

It depends :) It would say, Fox 2 in Lockon are just too good, Fox 1 are more or less ok (chaff modelization vs pulse doppler radar is just revolting...) and Fox 3 are not up to what they are supposed to do :)

It's only my personnal opinion, but I think, ED did it purposefully, to have some balance in the game between the Fox 3 fighters (F-15, MiG-29S) and the others and "help" the players to go to the merge, where the real fun is :D

 

It has to be this way in a game :) Personnaly I would have prefered to have to "pay" for the missile I use, on line or during the mission (Fox 3 = expensive = do not waste them, you won't get many of them) like in the old game like Strike Commander or ATF / US Navy Fighter, but it seems that the "mid core" way does not interest the game editors anymore (hardcore seems to be the future, like BS or Fighter Ops, a shame, as the "casual" gamer will perhaps buy the sim, but probably play it or enjoy it much...) :)

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Hub.

[HubMan]

/AUTO BUMP :D

 

Hub.

[A.S]

nice posts HuB.. :smartass::pilotfly:

[Pilotasso]

Actualy no, fox 2 is not as good as the real thing, be it the sidewinder or AIM-9, for different reasons.

 

For the R-73, no TVC modeled. It overshoots targets when at the extreme off boresight angles.

 

AIM-9 range and speed is basicaly halved in this game. It drops short ridiculously fast, if your target is not goin STRAIGHT at you it will miss 95% of times.

IRL frontal aspect shots are the ones that miss the most. You get a major discrepancy right here.

[RvEYoda]

Hi Yoda :) I finally found the time to post something :

 

 

+10 000. :)

The RWR really does not have much advantages :

- the radar antenna is really optimized for the central frequency it uses

- a radar can integrate its own signal almost perfectly, because even though it is jumping in frequency, it knows the exact bandwith to process.

- like you precised as well, a RWR must cover a large bandwith and does not have the advantage of being very directionnal

 

 

Word for word : "The range of the missile is approximately 30 miles with a cruising speed of approximately Mach 4". :)

 

30 nm sounds to me more like the RAERO than the Rmax1 :) ("The RAERO cue represents the maximum kinematic range of the AMRAAM and is the longestrange shot that a pilot can take a shot and have a chance of hitting the target. RAERO assumes that the target will not maneuver; that the missile is perfect; and optimum loft conditions are achieved.")

As a result, I would tend to think that Mach 4 is more a maximum than a nominal speed.(and if the missile is fired during a CAC at low altitude on a target that is coming hot, I doubt it would use a lofted trajectory

and reach a mach 4 speed :) )

 

 

About your missile behavior analysis : thanks a lot for your nice schema :) I (and a couple of buddies of mine) reached the same kind of conclusion :) I do agree with you about the general principles, as the tests I / we ran were against a target running hot (and not cold) like in your schema :)

 

By the way, the high drag value of the AMRAAM under 1500km/h is probably related to the fact that the missile is beginning to run out of speed and not that far from its stall speed : with very small aerodynamic surfaces, optimized for supersonic manoeuvring, it does not sound like such a bad idea to me :)

 

 

Cheers :)

 

 

Hub.

 

 

PS : sorry for answering you kind of late, my life has been just too busy those last weeks :)

 

Mostly I agree, but on the point of range and max speed I see no real

reason why mach 4 is a problem. Consider a missile being launched from

a fighter flying mach 1.2 at 35.000 ft. This guy fires slightly upwards,

and under these conditions the missile has to work very hard NOT to

reach mach 4 :P. At these altitudes the missile would probably even

need to compensate for overspeed close to mach 5 i believe.

 

Before anything more, consider that flying up compared to

a rocket engine is probably a very small problem, that is easily

compensated by the lack of AoA drag, since the missile could fly

a 0g loft path.

 

So let's assume missile is going mach 1.2 on launch,

which is around 1200 km/h at this altitude(even less), alright

so the missile's average net accelleration required to reach mach 4

is ~10 G(assuming burn time as specified to 8 sec). Is this unreasonable?

 

Let's consider this. The amraam most likely has a high G boost stage

(at least I have some ....ehum....sources ^^ of this) and a medium

acc cruise stage. The drag up here isn't a big factor unless you go really

fast. The amraam is surely more aerodynamic than most planes (0 AoA path).

 

Bring here the SR-71, well known mach 3 aircraft. Although this mach 3

was achieved at high altitude, the plane did this with only

0.39-1.0 T/W ratio (source wiki, please correct if wrong). Obviously the

drag reached close to this ~1 G around mach 3.

(-1.5 because of less fuel)

 

If we make some CLEARLY VERY UNFAVORABLE assumptions for the

amraam, we could say it is around the same or double as draggy/w

as the sr-71. K so for the assumption let's say the amraam needs to

push 2-3 G at mach 3. Let's also say we increase drag as a

^4 function of these very supersonic speeds. This incredibly

unfavorable assumption gives a required thrust of 8 G drag at

mach 4. Very high, but clearly not big deal.

 

So once again, making the EXTREMELY unfavorable (from

the amraams point of view) simplification that the amraam

ALWAYS suffers this super-drag during boost and cruise phase.

So what happens? ..... well.....we needed 10 G net accelleration.

with 8G drag that means 18 G mean accelleration. And we are

not even considering that the missile also becomes lighter and

lighter(fuel) and goes through less and less dense air(climbing!)

 

Is 18 G accelleration unlikely for a missile?

I would say no. Even under these almost stupidly

unfavorable assumptions for the amraam, 18 G of thrust

for an a2a missile is not strange. In fact lockon models 33 G constant

and Falcon(OF 4.5) models around 25 G for boost and ~15 for cruise phase of the amraam.

 

So we see that mach 4 is very simple to reach for a small piece like

the amraam. This is how i reason anyway. 4 is just a number, like 3,2 or 1.

The only reason for not reaching mach 4 should be the missile wanting to

save fuel, thus instead increasing burn time. (Structural integrity is not

an issue here, this is a high G a2a missile ^^)

 

Also one other point I find very frustrating about this thread overall

is why everyone find it unlikely that an american made missile could never

reach mach 4 while the russian ones flying mach 4.5 arent a problem.

 

Heck, I'm neither russian or american myself, Im swedish, but R-27 are

performing above official specifications from manufacturers and amraam

is clearly below.

 

I believe GG has some simulation data showing a ballistics test Rmax hit at

60 nm of reasonable amraam data, however here the missile BATTERY

(for maneuvering and course stabilization) becomes a bigger issue. The missile

was still supersonic on impact.

 

That missile was launched from angels 60 and lofted to angels 100.

 

Also I can provide lockon data showing that the amraam (and other missiles)

are as aerodynamic 0 AoA as a flying cow(same terminal velocity)

 

Another point...that is 30nm Aim120A.....we (should) have aim120C-5 ;)

maybe this model provides longer range, maybe not.

 

Also there are some f-15 accounts of pilots saying "At less than

60 nm we will already have a missile flying at them"