AIM-120C max range, not finding target at pitbull

[Anubis_94]

Hello

 

For science, I tried the max range well beyond the Raero

TLDR: The 120 has the kinematic to intercept a non manoeuvring target hot FL300 at ~80Nm, but the guidance law behave seems off.

 

Tests ran with a F18 vs IL76, hot, FL300, TWS (because STT has its own issue to keep the lock at long range, let's not debate it here)

On this first track/ACMI (attachment "120Miss*"): https://imgur.com/a/tL2J7w7

• The first 120 shot at 80Nm range pull up at pitbull time
• The second 120 shot at 50Nm range intercepts well, but doesn't see the IL at pitbull

 

I ran again the test at multiple ranges, even a ~40Nm shot result in a miss (attachment "120Miss_4*") : https://imgur.com/a/hJIN8NJ

 

EDIT: I Did another test at 42Nm&39Nm (attachment "120OK_42KO_39OK*") :

• The 120 shot at 42Nm miss the target at pitbull, it is not guided
• The 120 shot at a range little less than 40Nm (39.7Nm ACMI) fit the target at pitbull

 

 

Some questions a potentials bugs :

• Is the Raero correct ? The 120 can motor to a 80Nm range but the Raero doesn't reflect that (the manual indicate that the Raero is for when the missile can pull 5g to intercept, but such a precise indication for interception seems to be a Rmax description)
• Why the first 120 shot at 80Nm range pull up when passing the target instead of intercept the target (even without finding it. It is not the predicted intercept point)
• Why the 120 can't see the target when "pitbulling" with the target in the radar cone (in front of the missile)?
• Is it linked to a 40Nm range mark ? It is not Raero (Raero is 34Nm on last test, 120 shot at 39 hit)

120Miss.trk 120Miss.acmi 120Miss_4.acmi 120Miss_4.trk

120OK_42KO_39OK.trk

120OK_42KO_39OK.acmi

Edited June 2, 2022 by Anubis_94
Typo and another test

[unltd]

How long from launch?  You only get 80 sec of battery time for the 120. See this thread:

 

[Anubis_94]

Didn't though one second of this parameter...

Attached here the screenshot from the linked acmi (120OK_42KO_39OK.acmi) above with the time of fire, and interception of the IL is the same for both missile.

 

42Nm missile have a 89sec flight, 39Nm 83sec.

That's a good lead, thanks

 

 

 

I just took a look in the F18 manual but I didn't see this information in it. Maybe I missed it ?

Edited June 5, 2022 by Anubis_94
typo

[MARLAN_]

It's almost certainly because of the battery life.

I think one of the ED developers has mentioned they will improve the battery on the AIM-120C, if I understood correctly, they sourced the 80 second life time from the AIM-120B, and it would be logical for a newer missile with more range to have a slightly longer battery life that would support that kinematic potential. Maybe they'll bump it to 90-95 seconds or something.

[Anubis_94]

Yeah that's a side question.

It seems odd from manufacturer to increase the range from B to C without providing the missile the battery to remain active during the time of flight.

[Hobel]

vor einer Stunde schrieb MARLAN_:

It's almost certainly because of the battery life.

I think one of the ED developers has mentioned they will improve the battery on the AIM-120C, if I understood correctly, they sourced the 80 second life time from the AIM-120B, and it would be logical for a newer missile with more range to have a slightly longer battery life that would support that kinematic potential. Maybe they'll bump it to 90-95 seconds or something.

It would be interesting which version is meant there now exactly.

 

does anyone know in which manual and page this is mentioned exactly?

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Hobel

[OldIronsides]

4 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

It's almost certainly because of the battery life.

I think one of the ED developers has mentioned they will improve the battery on the AIM-120C, if I understood correctly, they sourced the 80 second life time from the AIM-120B, and it would be logical for a newer missile with more range to have a slightly longer battery life that would support that kinematic potential. Maybe they'll bump it to 90-95 seconds or something.

Wonder what they are waiting for? Takes all but 1 minute to change value in code from 80 sec to 90... 

[Cmptohocah]

On 6/3/2022 at 5:03 AM, OldIronsides said:

Wonder what they are waiting for? Takes all but 1 minute to change value in code from 80 sec to 90... 

There is no data to support longer than 80s battery life, available.

[Anubis_94]

Maybe they should knock knock the PR of Raytheon

Edited June 5, 2022 by Anubis_94

[dundun92]

On 6/5/2022 at 3:35 AM, Cmptohocah said:

There is no data to support longer than 80s battery life, available.

There actually is, it just hasnt been posted publically here...

[Hobel]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb dundun92:

There actually is, it just hasnt been posted publically here...

can you tell us the name of the manual?

[Hobel]

• Weapons. AIM-120 Battery life increased to 100 seconds.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.7.15.25026/

Interesting

[Cmptohocah]

On 6/6/2022 at 6:16 PM, dundun92 said:

There actually is, it just hasnt been posted publically here...

Would be so kind as to provide the source?

[Whiskey11]

On 6/8/2022 at 11:27 AM, Hobel said:

• Weapons. AIM-120 Battery life increased to 100 seconds.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.7.15.25026/

Interesting

It certainly seems the issue in this thread has been addressed... a squadron mate and I were testing guidance issues with the AIM-54 against F-15C launched AIM-120C's and he was taking shots at 60+nmi and landing them against maneuvering targets.