On the Topic Of AMRAAM C-Variants: A Request For The AIM-120C-4, C-5, C-6 and C-7

[ACS_Dev]

This post is an attempt to conclusively answer the question of which AMRAAM variants each applicable module in DCS should have access to. Several claims have been made in favor of adding new variants but I wanted to try and do the research to get a concrete answer that question. I believe I have succeeded here.

All sources used are confirmed unclassified and either explicitly Distribution-A or available directly from their respective organization's website for download. Two main categories of sources were used: Director of Test & Evaluation reports and annual U.S. Air Force Budget documents.

This post is very long. The intent was to be very thorough and use direct quotes from sources wherever possible. Direct quotes are in blue, italicized text while analysis/commentary is in default text. The proposal/recommendation section is at the bottom.
 

EXPLANATION OF THE C-X DESIGNATION:

"The AMRAAM program uses an acquisition strategy that improves missile capability through incremental software and hardware modifications that have been grouped into three pre-planned product improvement (P3I) phases. All are known as the AIM-120C. Phase 1 (AIM-120C-3) was developed in the mid-1990s and incorporated clipped wings to enable the F/A-22 to carry additional missiles in its internal weapons bays. This variant is compatible with all aircraft that carried earlier variants of the AIM-120. Phase 2 improvements incorporated a new warhead (AIM-120C-4), lengthened rocket motor (AIM-120C-5), and new target detection device (AIM-120C-6). All current production deliveries to U.S. forces are the Phase 2 configuration."  DoT&E FY04 Annual Report P.253
 

AIM-120C-5/6/7 EXPLAINED:

"AIM-120C-6 – Lots 13 and up. Implements improved fuzing via new Quadrant Target Detection Device (QTDD)" USAF Weapons File (Distribution A) 2003 P.17

"The Phase 3 missile is largely a new missile with distinct capabilities from previous variants of the AIM-120. In particular, there are significant hardware and software changes in the guidance section of the missile." DoT&E FY04 Annual Report P.254

Phase 3 of the AMRAAM P3I development program plans to improve weapons systems effectiveness and lethality and provide the system with the capability to deal with emerging threats. The Phase 3 missile, designated AIM-120C-7, includes new guidance section hardware and software. Raytheon incorporated the following key changes in the Phase 3 upgrade:
• Upgraded antenna, receiver, and signal processing portions of the missile to satisfy operational requirements to counter new threats.
• Smaller electronic components to create room for future system growth.
• Re-hosting some elements of the existing software to a new higher-order programming language (C++).
• Re-hosting and modifying some existing software to function with the new hardware.
• Developing new software algorithms that will enable the system to deal with newly defined Phase 3 threats. DoT&E FY07 Annual Report P.253

 

 

DEVELOPMENT/OPERATIONAL TIMEFRAMES:

AIM-120C-5

"AIM-120C-5 – Lot 12. Implements 5 inch longer enhanced Rocket Motor and shortened control section" USAF Weapons File (Distribution A) 2003 P.17

As will be shown below, the AIM-120C-5's delivery preceded that of the 15th lot and thus would have to have occurred some time prior to FY2002, the time frame of ED's F-18C. We don't actually have a proper AIM-120C-5, as will be proven later on in this write up.

 

AIM-120C-6

Image Source: RDT&E Report Vol. 3 FY06 P.188

As you can see, lots 13, 14 and 15 were delivered prior to October of 2003. These lots are detailed below:

"The Lot 13 program plan involves Air Force, Navy and FMS participants....The Processor Modernization program with
a Higher Order Language Processor will replace 1970s vintage hardware with Commercial Off the Shelf components and modern more flexible
programming languages." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY99 P.59.

This is alone is not a very clear indicator that any missiles are being procured, much less what type. Page 61 of the same document reveals that the plan is to procure 180 new missiles with the funding provided (about $112,000,000) and that they will feature the aforementioned processor update as well as P3I Phase 2 implementation. This, along with the linked weapons file, supports the idea that these missiles are C-6s.

"The Lot 14 program plan involves Air Force, Navy and FMS participants... This procurement is for 210 AIM-120C-6 missiles which incorporate increased kinematics and improved lethality developed under the P3I Phase 2 program." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY00 P.71

"The Lot 15 program is a continuing procurement of missiles for the AF, Navy, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants. The plan includes 204 AF AIM-120C-6 missiles and two Separation Test Vehicles funded under Program Element 0207590 for the Seek Eagle program." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY01 P.53

 

AIM-120C-7

Image Source: RDT&E Report Vol. 3 FY09 P.181

As you can see, Lots 16-19 were delivered by early January of 2008. These lots, in addition to Lot 20 (the Cut-In in procurement for the AIM-120D) are detailed below:

"The Lot 16 program is the first procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the AF and Navy. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants will continue to procure AIM-120C-5 missiles. The plan includes 190 AF AIM-120C-7 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY02 P.89

"Continue the procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the AF and Navy Lot 17. The plan is to procure 161 AF AIM-120C-7 missiles. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants will continue to procure AIM-120C-5 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY03 P.89

"Continue the procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the AF and Navy Lot 18. The plan is to procure 201 AF AIM-120C-7 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY04 P.79

"Continue the procurement of the AIM-120C-7 missile with improved electronic protection (EP) updates for the Air Force, Navy, and Army in Lot 19. The budget allows for the procurement of 202 AIM-120C-7 missiles for the Air Force. In addition, 46 AIM-120C-7s will be procured for the Navy ,and 6 AIM-120C-7s for the Army" USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY05 P.75

"Cut in the procurement of the AIM-120D missile with GPS-aided navigation capability, a two way datalink, and new guidance software updates for the Air Force and Navy in Lot 20. The budget allows for the procurement of 166 missiles for the Air Force. In addition, 101 missiles will be procured for the Navy, and 35 AIM-120C-7s for the Army. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participants will continue to procure AIM-120C-5 and/or start the procurement of AIM-120C-7 missiles." USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY06 P.53

The history of the AIM-120C-7 is more complex than the C-5 and C-6. Initial mentions of the C-7 in these documents were very optimistic, expecting a release schedule not unlike the short timeframe between the C-5 and 6. This turned out not to be the case. Comparison of the C-7's development timeline with others is difficult due to this chart not being present in the relevant year's documents. Whatever the case, the USAF had received several hundred AIM-120C-7s by the time operational testing completed, very nearly the entire non-FMS production run of the variant.

"The first Phase 2 AIM-120 C4 missile was delivered in Aug of FY99. The Phase 2 AIM-120 C5 missiles started delivery in Jul of FY00. The Phase 3 missile is the first major upgrade to the seeker hardware and software to meet performance requirements for the FY04 and out time-period. The Phase 3 Cost Plus Award Fee EMD contract was awarded in Oct FY99. This missile will begin deliveries in FY04" (RDT&E FY04 Vol. 2 P.136)

"The latest version, the AIM-120C-7, completed operational testing in August 2007" DoT&E FY07 Annual Report P.185

These lots all mention "improved electronic protection" as the main feature of the missile. This in itself isn't very clear and fails to mention the other improvements, namely the guidance section hardware/software, antenna/receiver section and signal processing updates. The "AIM-120C-5/6/7 EXPLAINED" section contains a quote from 2007 that references these upgrades as having occurred but the lots themselves do not. This may raise questions as to whether or not the C-7 actually included these upgrades. Fortunately, that question can be answered by analyzing the contracts being funded during the C-7's development.

In the USAF RDT&E Budget Request for FY00, the contract for the "advanced EP" also explicitly includes an improved seeker. The total expenditure for this contract was planned to be $120.5 million over fiscal years 99-01. This same document also mentions the improved fuzing contract, whose timeline lines up with the production of the AIM-120C-6. The USAF RDT&E Budget Request for FY05 also mentions a $12 million contract for software upgrades to the missile. Together, these contracts confirm the veracity of the 2007 quote.
 

 

SUMMARY:

The C-4, 5, 6 and 7 variants of the AIM-120 are all part of a family of upgrades known as P3I Phase 2 (or 3 in the case of the -7) and were incrementally developed between the late 90s and 2007. The C-4 had a new warhead (not to be confused with the target detection device), the C-5 featured a lengthened rocket motor and shortened control section module, the C-6 had a new proximity fuze and the C-7 brought increased lethality via a new seeker, enhanced signal processor and software developments. I have concluded based on the research that each variant has a tangible benefit over the previous, enough details are present to model them, and all 3 have a place in DCS' current teen-series aircraft lineup.

 

 WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN DCS?

If you remember the AIM-120C being referred to as the AIM-120C-5 in the past, you are correct. At some point in the past few years Eagle Dynamics deliberately removed the -5 prefix from the missile and most things referencing it. It is however still referred to as the AIM-120C-5 in some of the in-game manuals, namely the F-16C's:

Image Source: DCS F-16 Early Access Guide P.33

This is not an open-and-shut case. While researching for this writeup I concluded that we must have an earlier version because the missile length is the same as the AIM-120B's. This was an incorrect conclusion; the control section module was shortened 5 inches to maintain the missile's length.

ED's AIM-120C model does not feature this change:

Image Source: ModelViewer, AIM-120B above.

ED made a conscious effort to differentiate the models of the two missiles by trimming the fins appropriately and changing the labels on each section. The decision not to change the length of the CSM is noteworthy. ED has made such errors in the past, so this by itself is not a guarantee that it was intentional. 

 Another discrepancy can be found in the missile's respective lua files; The AIM_120.lua   and AIM_120C.lua  feature identical warheads. As previously stated, the AIM-120C-4 features an upgraded warhead. Therefore, again assuming ED knows this (which, as evidenced by the lack of mention of the new warhead in the aforementioned manual screenshot, they don't), the newest missile we could have is an AIM-120C-3. As the clipped wings were first featured as part of the AIM-120C-3, this lines up with the 3D model.

The weapons file describes the AIM-120C as having slightly more (4.72kg/10.2 pounds) of fuel mass than the AIM-120B, which conversely is a sign that they are trying to model the AIM-120C-5. It is also a better missile in a number of areas, none of which clearly point to it being a C-5.

There is a serious problem with the files however, first brought up to me by @DCS FIGHTER PILOT . The AIM-120B actually burns longer than the AIM-120C in DCS. Eagle Dynamics has given the AIM-120C a longer (6.5 seconds instead of 5) sustain motor burn time with an impulse of 234 instead of 227. At the same time though, they have entirely deleted the AIM-120C's boost section! As the 2003 USAF Weapons File states, all versions of the AMRAAM, at least up to that point (including the AIM-120C-5), had a boost AND sustain phase. The AIM-120B thus has 2.1 seconds of boost burn time with an impulse of 236 where the AIM-120C has nothing. It just goes straight to sustain. A crude comparison created by multiplying the burn times of the various stages by the impulse units assigned to them reveals that the C has 1521 total impulse units while the B has 1630.6, a difference of more than 7%. Consider also that the AIM-120C weighs 2.2% more than the B. At least in terms of raw power, the AIM-120B is likely the superior missile by a fairly wide margin. If the AIM-120C retained the AIM-120B's boost phase and added the more powerful, longer sustain phase (from the C-5's extended rocket motor) the total thrust units would be about 2016.6, an increase of more than 23%.

Taking this new information into account, it is not possible to determine what AIM-120C ED is modeling. It's too messed up to be firmly decided upon. In terms of pure kinematics, the AIM-120B is probably the superior missile, something that does not make any sense at all.

In summary, the missile has the clipped wings of the C-3, lacks the warhead of the C-4, has an incorrect implementation of the C-5's rocket motor and does not feature the appropriate external model changes.

In conclusion: The missile's characteristics fit best with the AIM-120C-3, albeit missing part of its rocket motor and at least one key seeker mode (MPRF)

 

MODULE-BY-MODULE VARIANT APPLICABILITY BREAKDOWN:

F-15E:

Image Source: Razbam Discord

The base F-15E variant in DCS would not have the C-7, however it would likely have access to the C-6. The 2010 CTU would almost certainly have the C-7. There is a distinct possibility that the 2010 CTU could also carry the AIM-120D (Deliveries seem to have begun in FY09 if not earlier per one of the previously posted charts), however I am not under the illusion that we will or should receive it.
 

F-16C:

Image Source: Official ED F-16 Roadmap

Firstly, it is important to note that at this time the Air Force was the only operator of the F-16C Block 50. The ANG would not receive the block until around 2012. The F-16C Block 50 was, at the time, one of the US' most lethal platforms and was stationed in Europe accordingly.

It is now certain that our Viper's existence coincided with the existence of hundreds (700+) of AIM-120C-7s in the air force's inventory. If a war kicked off and our (war-oriented, again because our Viper's available stores point towards a war-fighting aircraft, not a peacetime one) Bl. 50 F-16 was to go, (which it would, considering that this was pre-F-35 and the '50 was the U.S.' premiere SEAD asset with a number stationed in Germany) it would likely be carrying C-7s. The question is, would an M4.2 F-16 be able to use an AIM-120C-7?

Image Source: RDT&E Report FY06 Vol.3 P.131

Image Source: RDT&E Report FY09 Vol.3 P.138

Referring to the development of the AIM-120C-7: "The Air Force’s 53d Wing and the Navy’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron NINE will conduct the Phase 3 FOT&E under the oversight of the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center and the Navy’s Commander Operational Test and
Evaluation Force starting in late 2004, and continuing through the end of 2005... During the FOT&E, ten missiles will be launched against threat-representative aerial targets operating in various demanding operationally realistic tactical scenarios. The evaluation will include integration of the missile on the F-15, F-16, F/A-18C/D, and F/A-18E/F aircraft." DoT&E FY04 Annual Report P.254

Based on the above, I believe the answer is yes. M4.2+ was an extensive upgrade to the F-16 and was in development for years along with the AIM-120C-7. The C-7's testing directly including integrating it to the F-16 and occurred years prior to the release of M4.2+. It seems quite unlikely that the update would exclude support for it.

 

F-18C:

 

Image Source: Official ED F/A-18C FAQ

The AIM-120C-5 is a pretty safe bet for an F/A-18C in this timeframe. The C-6 is also probable. The C-7 is likely out of the question.

 

CONCLUSION:

It is clear from the evidence presented above that, especially for the F-15 and 16, the C-6 and C-7 are relevant in the sim and should be modeled. Exact data on improvements are not available publicly but we do know what was upgraded, that those upgrades would be tangible and which areas of the missile's performance these upgrades would affect. Data on aircraft systems integration is sparse but as the updates are evolutionary it is unlikely that there was any appreciable difference in the interface besides perhaps increased launch ranges.

PROPOSAL:

Model the AIM-120C-4, AIM-120C-5,  AIM-120C-6 and AIM-120C-7:

No missiles will require a new 3D model. Only  minor texture updates (the lettering on the missile and location of panel lines) will be required. All other changes will likely be edits to copies of existing AIM-120C files.

AIM-120C-4:
-Same characteristics as the current AIM-120C but with an upgraded warhead and using the AIM-120B's propulsion characteristics
AIM-120C-5:
-Same as the AIM-120C-4 but with an appropriate increase in fuel mass along with remodeled panel lines for the rocket motor and control section module and an increased sustain burn time in addition to the AIM-120C-4's boost phase (which the AIM-120C currently lacks)
AIM-120C-6:
-Same as AIM-120C-5 but increase the proximity fuze radius from 9 to ~13 meters. (A kill is still reliably produced with a 15 meter PF per user testing)
AIM-120C-7:
-Same as AIM-120C-6 but:
-reduce the missile's vulnerability to chaff and jamming
-(if possible) reduce missile's vulnerability to notching by a noticeable amount (~20-30%)
-Increase missile kinematic performance through guidance model optimizations.

Add Them to Modules In The Sim:

F-15E:
-Current version receives the AIM-120C-4, AIM-120C-5, AIM-120C-6
-Later versions also receive the AIM-120C-7 and (technically) AIM-120C-8 (also known as the AIM-120D)
F-16C:
-Receives the AIM-120C-4, AIM-120C-5, AIM-120C-6 and AIM-120C-7
F-18C:
-Receives the AIM-120C-4, AIM-120C-5 and AIM-120C-6
 

Thanks for reading.

Edited July 21, 2024 by ACS_Dev
Decided that our AIM-120C is most likely a 1990's C-3, made minor grammar fixes.

[Gunfreak]

Giving the C7 to the mud hen would really make it a BVR monster. With its excellent air to air radar.

Probably only the Tiffy would surpass it with the Meteor missiles.

The F-16 with C7 would also be very interesting. After the radar modeling improvement to the F16. You can under ideal circumstances (very big or very fast or very big and very fast, coming in hot) pick up target at around 90nm(Tu-22M as a target) However. Even going M1.5, at 45k feet. You'll not be able to launch until around 50nm because of battery life and expect a hit. My understanding is that under ideal conditions the C7 has a range of about 70nm. That would be interesting.

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

Quote

(The DCS AIM-120C may actually be an AIM-120C-4 as it is the same length as the AIM-120B).

As I mentioned in another topic, I think we say this with confidence at this point. That is, the 120C we have in game is definitely not the C5. 
 

In regards to simulating the more advanced AMRAAMS (the C5, C6, and C7) in DCS, I think the first step should be to just model the C5. This will give the missile (in my opinion) a much needed boost in speed as the C5 has a longer rocket motor. The C6 and C7’s on the other hand might be a bit trickier to model because of all the upgraded electronics. 
 

 

Edited July 12, 2024 by DCS FIGHTER PILOT

[Hobel]

vor 21 Minuten schrieb DCS FIGHTER PILOT:

As I mentioned in another topic, I think we say this with confidence at this point. That is, the 120C we have in game is definitely not the C5. 
 

In regards to simulating the more advanced AMRAAMS (the C5, C6, and C7) in DCS, I think the first step should be to just model the C5. This will give the missile (in my opinion) a much needed boost in speed as the C5 has a longer rocket motor. The C6 and C7’s on the other hand might be a bit trickier to model because of all the upgraded electronics. 
 

 

 

Hopefully the later versions will get more life time, the aim120c in dcs could theoretically fly 80-100nm but is limited by the 100 seconds.

[Skyhammer]

Redfor would be even more outclassed than it already is with more SPAMRAAM variants.....

Edited July 18, 2024 by Skyhammer

[bies]

First let's model AIM-120B in a reasonably realistic way, e.g. with HPRF/MPRF modes.

It's easy to make completely unrealistic, made up (and totally simplified) new missile, like MBDA Meteor, without any data, neither kinematic performance nor electronics, radar modes, guidance algorithms, two way datalink and peer guidance etc.

EDIT: AIM-120B, not A.

Edited July 18, 2024 by bies

[ACS_Dev]

1 hour ago, bies said:

First let's model AIM-120A in a reasonably realistic way, e.g. with HPRF/MPRF modes.

It's easy to make completely unrealistic, made up (and totally simplified) new missile, like MBDA Meteor, without any data, neither kinematic performance nor electronics, radar modes, guidance algorithms, two way datalink and peer guidance etc.

I agree that there are likely systematic deficiencies in the modeling of the AMRAAM, specifically the radar modes as you said, however that is not quite the topic of this write up. The purpose of this thread is to provide a case for the addition of new variants.

I also lack credible, officially public (not just available to download) sources at this time on the workings of the AMRAAM. You have asserted that the AIM-120 should have HPRF/MPRF modes, what are your sources?

[bies]

32 minutes ago, ACS_Dev said:

I also lack credible, officially public (not just available to download) sources at this time on the workings of the AMRAAM. You have asserted that the AIM-120 should have HPRF/MPRF modes, what are your sources?

You won't find such sources. Post-Cold War technology in simulators like DCS is more or less guestimated and it will always remain far less realistic compared to Cold War technology. For many reasons, not only classification, but also complexity and 1990s computer revolution.

[ACS_Dev]

Just now, bies said:

You won't find such sources. Post-Cold War technology in simulators like DCS is more or less guestimated and it will always remain far less realistic compared to Cold War technology. For many reasons, not only classification, but also complexity and 1990s computer revolution.

So what leads you to believe that the AIM-120 should have MPRF and HPRF?

[bies]

2 minutes ago, ACS_Dev said:

So what leads you to believe that the AIM-120 should have MPRF and HPRF?

E.g. "Tornado F.3 Weapons System Manual" -> "AMRAAM moding". But we can't post any post 1980s documents here, so let's stay in line with forum rules.

[ACS_Dev]

2 minutes ago, bies said:

E.g. "Tornado F.3 Weapons System Manual" -> "AMRAAM moding". But we can't post any post 1980s documents here, so let's stay in line with forum rules.

This is the exact problem. I don't think you should be requesting things when you know your only source is controlled.

[Hobel]

vor 24 Minuten schrieb ACS_Dev:

So what leads you to believe that the AIM-120 should have MPRF and HPRF?

There are enough public sources to confirm this.
If you really want to know, try Google, the answer will come to you quickly.

 

 

[ACS_Dev]

8 minutes ago, Hobel said:

There are enough public sources to confirm this.
If you really want to know, try Google, the answer will come to you quickly.

 

 

 

I did find one source confirming this: ATP 1-02.1 (Distribution A). It includes two relevant brevity terms:
"CHEAPSHOT: Active missile data link terminated between high and medium pulse repetition frequency (MPRF) active."
"PITBULL:  Active radar guided missile (e.g., air intercept missile [AIM]-120) is at MPRF active range."

So yes, the AIM-120 should have both.

If you have any other uncontrolled and credible sources, I would greatly appreciate a link.

 

[bies]

1 hour ago, ACS_Dev said:

This is the exact problem. I don't think you should be requesting things when you know your only source is controlled.

That's why i think DCS shouldn't try to model aircrafts, systems, assets, sensors, weapons developed after the Cold War - they are inherently flawed as there are rarely any sources, big room for guestimation, omitting many systems completely, and close to zero real life tests in real symmetrical conflicts.

If DCS would stop in 1991

• it would be far more realistic as systems and weapons being far less classified, tested in real conflicts, less complex,
• far more coherent with far more proper variant aircrafts from the unified timeframe,
• modeling the same aircrafts like F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, A-10, AH-64, MiG-29, Su-17, Su-25, Su-27, Mi-24, Mirage 2000, Gazelle, Viggen etc. but with earlier variants modeled in more complete and realistic way,
• far more attractive and engaging with way more within visual range A/A and A/G weapons, 
• modeling more appealing symmetrical all out conflicts instead of one sided "War on Terror" anti-terror/anti-partisan operations of 2000s,
• far more symmetrical with both sides NATO and WarPac aircrafts modeled, not just one.

Like our 1980s DCS F-14, F-5, F-4, A-6, A-7, Huey, C-101, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29, Mi-24, L-39, Kfir, Mirage F.1, F-104, Tornado IDS, MB-339, Bo-105, etc.

Edited July 18, 2024 by bies

[ACS_Dev]

20 minutes ago, bies said:

That's why i think DCS shouldn't try to model aircrafts, systems, assets, sensors, weapons developed after the Cold War - they are inherently flawed as there are rarely any sources, big room for guestimation, omitting many systems completely, and close to zero real life tests in real symmetrical conflicts.

If DCS would stop in 1991

• it would be far more realistic as systems and weapons being far less classified, tested in real conflicts, less complex,
• far more coherent with far more proper variant aircrafts from the unified timeframe,
• modeling the same aircrafts like F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, A-10, AH-64, MiG-29, Su-17, Su-25, Su-27, Mi-24, Mirage 2000, Gazelle, Viggen etc. but with earlier variants modeled in more complete and realistic way,
• far more attractive and engaging with way more within visual range A/A and A/G weapons, 
• modeling more appealing symmetrical all out conflicts instead of one sided "War on Terror" anti-terror/anti-partisan operations of 2000s,
• far more symmetrical with both sides NATO and WarPac aircrafts modeled, not just one.

Like our 1980s DCS F-14, F-5, F-4, A-6, A-7, Huey, C-101, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29, Mi-24, L-39, Kfir, Mirage F.1, F-104, Tornado IDS, MB-339, Bo-105, etc.

 

Well they are modeling them nonetheless, as such these things should still be at least attempted. This is not the place for such a debate.

[Hobel]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb ACS_Dev:

 

I did find one source confirming this: ATP 1-02.1 (Distribution A). It includes two relevant brevity terms:
"CHEAPSHOT: Active missile data link terminated between high and medium pulse repetition frequency (MPRF) active."
"PITBULL:  Active radar guided missile (e.g., air intercept missile [AIM]-120) is at MPRF active range."

So yes, the AIM-120 should have both.

If you have any other uncontrolled and credible sources, I would greatly appreciate a link.

 

Well you see, that's enough for now if you keep looking you'll find more. 

 

vor 2 Stunden schrieb ACS_Dev:

This is the exact problem. I don't think you should be requesting things when you know your only source is controlled

To be on the safe side.

There are enough public documents to model modern sensors well and plausibly. See F15/m2000.

 

 

 

 

If it were up to me I wish we had razbam's radar modulation for all weapons and aircraft.

Edited July 18, 2024 by Hobel

[F-2]

Development of a Air-to-Air Missile Simulation Program for the Lethality Evaluation.pdf

 

paper on aim-120b Journal of the Korean Aerospace Society

 

 

The ship has sailed on more modern stuff, it’s part of DCS and not going any place. Given what I know of another F-16 Block 50 sim I don’t buy that it’s too secret.

[Hobel]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb F-2:

Development of a Air-to-Air Missile Simulation Program for the Lethality Evaluation.pdf 496.38 kB · 11 Downloads

 

paper on aim-120b Journal of the Korean Aerospace Society

 

 

The ship has sailed on more modern stuff, it’s part of DCS and not going any place. Given what I know of another F-16 Block 50 sim I don’t buy that it’s too secret.

Help me out with an aspect, there is also talk of the PK and a Miss Distance(m), up to 24 meters.

among others:
 9m 1PK
14m 0.5PK

and so on

so 100% lethal at 9m and 50% lethal at 14m.

so the Proxy Fuze should be much bigger or more dynamic.

Are they probably referring to this as well?
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA379702
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA509688

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2024 by Hobel

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

Alright so it looks like the C5 and the B do indeed have the same length. The larger rocket motor on the C5 still fits in the original AMRAAM frame. The question remains though, why is the the thrust on a supposed "upgraded and lengthened rocket motor" so mediocre? To be more specific, our current 120C has a burn time of 6.5 seconds and an ISP of 234s. A lot of detailed research has been done in the past and suggests we should have an ISP in the neighborhood of 260s and a burn time around 8s.

Edited July 20, 2024 by DCS FIGHTER PILOT

[F-2]

2 hours ago, DCS FIGHTER PILOT said:

Alright so it looks like the C5 and the B do indeed have the same length. The larger rocket motor on the C5 still fits in the original AMRAAM frame. The question remains though, why is the the thrust on a supposed "upgraded and lengthened rocket motor" so mediocre? To be more specific, our current 120C has a burn time of 6.5 seconds and an ISP of 234s. A lot of detailed research has been done in the past and suggests we should have an ISP in the neighborhood of 260s and a burn time around 8. Perhaps this is a discussion for another topic. 

What’s interesting is we have good data on the C5 engine and propulsion and CFD on the Rocket. One would think it would actually be easier.

 

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA355385.pdf

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

Just now, F-2 said:

What’s interesting is we have good data on the C5 engine and propulsion and CFD on the Rocket. One would think it would actually be easier.

 

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA355385.pdf

Yep, that's the report I reference. Reference 4 in there is good as well. 

[Viper33]

13 hours ago, DCS FIGHTER PILOT said:

Alright so it looks like the C5 and the B do indeed have the same length. The larger rocket motor on the C5 still fits in the original AMRAAM frame. The question remains though, why is the the thrust on a supposed "upgraded and lengthened rocket motor" so mediocre? To be more specific, our current 120C has a burn time of 6.5 seconds and an ISP of 234s. A lot of detailed research has been done in the past and suggests we should have an ISP in the neighborhood of 260s and a burn time around 8s.

 

Burn time depends on atmospheric conditions. DCS uses an average. The game simplifies a lot of things and has some shortcomings. You wont find any valid and exact ISP and motor references.

[Hobel]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Viper33:

Burn time depends on atmospheric conditions. DCS uses an average. The game simplifies a lot of things and has some shortcomings. You wont find any valid and exact ISP and motor references.

From the doc above

 

[ACS_Dev]

8 hours ago, Viper33 said:

Burn time depends on atmospheric conditions. DCS uses an average. The game simplifies a lot of things and has some shortcomings. You wont find any valid and exact ISP and motor references.

We aren't that deep in the weeds yet. As it stands the AIM-120C in DCS does not have a boost phase at all. The weapons file I referenced states that the AIM-120 has a boost phase for initial propulsion and then a sustain phase for maintaining energy. The AIM-120B in DCS has this but the C gets rid of it completely. We have an official Distribution A government document stating that this is wrong. As it stands, who in their right mind would approve an "upgrade" that makes the main missile for their air force both weaker and heavier? It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[F-2]

Between the Tornado manual and above papers we should have the capacity to have a really accurate AIM-120B. C5/6/ and maybe 7 should be a bit less but still very good based on documentation we have.