AIM-120B in Flaming cliffs 2.0

[pauldy]

If i read correctly, Flaming cliffs 2.0 will include the AIM-120B variant..

 

What's the difference between AIM-120B the AIM-120C variant?

 

So in effect, US fighter aircraft will have 4 types of missiles at their disposal?

 

AIM-9M, AIM-7M, AIM-120B and the AIM-120C

 

 

On side note, i found a paint/skin for an AIM-9X in the cdds files of Lock on, shame it was not used lol..

 

lack of performance and seeker data on the missile perhaps?

Edited February 8, 2010 by pauldy

[A.S]

AIM-120B AMRAAM

 

General Info:

Origin = U.S.A.

Type = BVR Missile

Manufacture = Hughes

IOC = 1991

Guidance = Inertial with mid-course updates;

active radar terminal phase

Sensor Type = Active radar

Sensor Range = 8nm

Intercept = Lead pursuit

Platforms = F-14D, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, EF-2000, and Tornado ADV.

Performance:

Range = 40nm (max. 75nm)

Speed = Mach 4

Fuel = 117.3lbs

Lethal Radius = 40ft

Dimensions:

Length = 12ft

Diameter = 7in

Fin Span = 25in

Weight = 345lbs

Radar:

Range = 9nm

Sweep rate = 11 deg/sec

Beam width = 4 deg

Max scan angle = 54 deg

Sensor Range = 8nm

Warhead:

45lbs High explosive

Fuse = Variable

 

Description:

The AIM-120 AMRAAM was developed in the 1980s to replace the AIM-7 Sparrow. One of the chief

disadvantages of the Sparrow missile was that the launching fighter had to maintain a radar lock on the

target for the entire flight of the missile. Besides giving the target plenty of opportunity to defeat the

missile by breaking the radar lock, it also left the shooter vulnerable to counterattack since his maneuvers

were constrained while he maintained a lock on a single bandit. In addition, a SARH missile needs a fairly

strong radar return to guide on, which is guaranteed to give away an attack on any Radar Warning

Receiver- (RWR) equipped target. Part of the solution to this problem was to put an entire radar set into

the missile itself, but since the range of any radar is limited by the size of its antenna, simply using the

missile's own radar would diminish the potential range considerably. These problems were solved in the

AMRAAM by both putting a miniature active radar into the missile nose for use in the missile's terminal

phase, and also using a datalink from the launching fighter's Fire Control Radar (FCR) to provide midflight

course corrections. Furthermore, the shooter doesn't need to continually paint the target with his

radar to fire the AMRAAM, but can be in a more stealthy Track While Scanning (TWS) mode.

 

AIM-120C-4 AMRAAM

 

General Info:

Origin = U.S.A.

Type = BVR Missile

Manufacture = Hughes

IOC = 1991

Guidance = Inertial with mid-course updates;

active radar terminal phase

Sensor Type = Active radar

Sensor Range = 8nm

Intercept = Lead pursuit

Platforms = F-14D, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, EF-2000, and Tornado ADV.

Performance:

Range = 37nm (max. 68nm)

Speed = Mach 4

Fuel = 117.3lbs

Lethal Radius = 40ft

Dimensions:

Length = 12ft

Diameter = 7in

Fin Span = 25in

Weight = 345lbs

Radar:

Range = 9nm

Sweep rate = 11 deg/sec

Beam width = 4 deg

Max scan angle = 54 deg

Pulse radar; Doppler radar

Sensor Range = 8nm

Warhead:

45lbs High explosive

Fuse = Variable

 

Description:

The differences between the Aim-120B and Aim-120C-4 are as follows:

The wings are now clipped with allows for carriage of the Aim-120C in weapons bays for aircraft such as

the F/A-22 Raptor and the JSF.

The Guidance was upgraded to the WGU-44/B standard and the warhead was improved to the WDU-

41/B warhead.

The engine was switched from a sustain/boost to a pure boost design. While it does cause the missile to

loose some of it's range, it allows the missile to get out onto it's target quicker as the missile accelerates

quicker than the previous versions that used the boost/sustain engine.

 

AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM

 

General Info:

Origin = U.S.A.

Type = BVR Missile

Manufacture = Hughes

IOC = 2000

Guidance = Inertial with mid-course updates;

active radar terminal phase

Sensor Type = Active radar

Sensor Range = 8nm

Intercept = Lead pursuit

Platforms = F-14D, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, EF-2000, and Tornado ADV.

Performance:

Range = 43nm (max. 82nm)

Speed = Mach 4

Fuel = 127.3lbs

Lethal Radius = 40ft

Dimensions:

Length = 12ft

Diameter = 7in

Fin Span = 25in

Weight = 345lbs

Radar:

Range = 9nm

Sweep rate = 11 deg/sec

Beam width = 4 deg

Max scan angle = 54 deg

Pulse radar; Doppler radar

Sensor Range = 8nm

Warhead:

45lbs High explosive

Fuse = Variable

 

Description:

The Aim-120C-5 offers the following improvments over the Aim-120C-4

Has a slightly larger motor (pure boost) in the new WPU-16/B propulsion secion

A new shorter WCU-28/B control section with compressed electronics and ECCM upgrades.

Deliveries began in July of 2000.

 

Personal Add here:

 

Important to now for 1.12 or 2.0 ...

Right know the 120 seaker in 1.12 scans 90deg off boresight (wow) and that in its "own way" ...the real deal has a 25deg off boresight scan (+/- 25 deg = 50deg) in a scaningcone of 5 deg

 

.....that should be fixed.

 

A maddoged should not see more then your boresight circle in your hud, which it doesnt right now.

Not to forget about slave and bore modes...but that s another topic.

Another thing is the energy conservation lead intercept alghoryhtm (not) used right now ...the real deal will not go straigt to the shortest lead impact point as we see it right now, it would morelikely "loop" and calculate its best energy Pk to lead impact point or terminal stage.

The internal seaker (real) depending on situation goes active (pitbull) at eat 2,5 to 12nm.

etc etc.....GG your turn...lol ( i save going deeper, dunno what you guys have done though)

Edited February 8, 2010 by A.S

[Grimes]

 

 

On side note, i found a paint/skin for an AIM-9X in the cdds files of Lock on, shame it was not used lol..

 

 

Speaking of the Aim-9. Black Shark has both the Aim-9M and Aim-9P although according to its encyclopedia the P variant seems not as good.

[Moa]

Actually, proportional pursuit is more efficient/easier for the missile to compute than lead pursuit, if I remember the discussion in Robert L Shaw's Fighter Combat correctly (I read it a long time ago and I'm rusty on it). That book is such a great reference for the mechanics of fighter combat. If you haven't read it and you are serious about simming then buy it now.

 

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/fighter_combat.htm

 

We do know some things about the AIM-9X, for example it has an imaging seeker (thermal 'video camera') that is far better at discriminating between the target and flares. I think the R-73 may also have such a seeker, but I'm fuzzy again on that. We have some idea of field-of-vision, seeker slew rate, gimbal limits. Even inaccurate values for these would be better than not modelling at all.

[foxwxl]

Yep,the AIM120 in FC1 is really an intersting missile. It has a much more reduce range and a much more powerful seeker..........

 

Another thing should be mentioned is ,the ANIT-JAMMING MODEL. To the SARHs the model is quite well, the Radar working status will greatlly affect the SARHs , looking down or looking up from the radar will bring a complete different thing to the SARHs. But the ARHs seemed not using this model, Seeker looking up and looking down seem not effect the PK. And some missile seemed never go for chaffs, like the AIM120 and AIM54 unless you are exactly making a 90 deg. turn heading into the Doppler Gap. Will this be fixed as well in FC2?

[A.S]

Just speaking about what is wrong in 1.12...or what would be right...in both cases i could fill pages.

The problem with developing or coding such simulated environment is that in order to make it right, you cant just go by ideal theoretical values or approximate evaluations ,

you have to understand the dynamics, the principles -and if possible- facts through records of the combat itself in first place !

THEN you can approach simulating it.

With 2.0 FAQ they have proven, that they have understood the lack in current state ( see 2.0 FAQ), but how much they will be able to fix things in right direction without rewriting everything again....we will see. At least we can hope for more logic and reasonable combat scenarios or gameplay...whatever.

Edited February 8, 2010 by A.S

[Case]

And some missile seemed never go for chaffs, like the AIM120 and AIM54 unless you are exactly making a 90 deg. turn heading into the Doppler Gap. Will this be fixed as well in FC2?

All radar missiles go for chaff like crazy. Supposedly this chaff effectiveness will be reduced in FC2.0: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=47144

 

I even have heard people say that chaff will not work if you have positive line-of-sight velocity (heading towards the missile), but I can't recall if this was an ED fact or just hearsay.

[A.S]

All radar missiles go for chaff like crazy. Supposedly this chaff effectiveness will be reduced in FC2.0: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=47144

 

I even have heard people say that chaff will not work if you have positive line-of-sight velocity (heading towards the missile), but I can't recall if this was an ED fact or just hearsay.

 

 

Read Robert Shaw Fighter Combat page 31-61 (coming back to post 7 above, what are chaffs actually doing in real, when, when not, why......etc)

 

 

additional: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/chaff.htm

Edited February 8, 2010 by A.S

[wed]

75nm(82nm) max range it looks like really huge distance.

its typical max range for LRM but not for MRM.

what are the source of this text?

[GGTharos]

This sounds like AIM-120D range. It is correct for very high altitude and high speed launches; we're talking well above 10km probably.

[pauldy]

I see, i wonder how will the sustained and pure boosts be modeled in FC 2.0

 

Also the guidance systems, so does that mean the AIM-120B will have more range than the C variant but is more susceptible to counter measures?

[GGTharos]

Um, no. The C has a more powerful rocket motor and thus more range.

 

Also the guidance systems, so does that mean the AIM-120B will have more range than the C variant but is more susceptible to counter measures?

[GaryIKILLYOU]

Um, no. The C has a more powerful rocket motor and thus more range.

Dam, you beat me to it...:doh: But yes the C version has a shorter burn time, but longer range because it has more energy. If everything goes right like ED says in the FAQ, then the 120 is going to be a dangerous enemy! Especially in TWS mode... I'm getting too excited for FC 2.0. I... need... to... stop... getting... excited... :pilotfly::joystick:

[pauldy]

If that's so, what will be the advantage of using the AIM-120B?

 

Maybe it's cheaper or something?

 

Back in my F/A-18 days i remembered that there were more AIM-7s than AIM-120s in the campaign inventory.

 

Maybe FC 2.0 now includes weapons inventory in campaign missions and that there would be more AIM-120Bs available?

[GGTharos]

There's no advantage to using the B. Older = no advantage. It's simply in the game and no, no inventory managment.

[pauldy]

Shame that there's no weapons inventory management or something though ;)

 

If there was a feature like that, combined with a multiplayer campaign mode, it could force players to make the shots using their best weapons count as much as possible..

 

Less incentive to spam weapons maybe.. :joystick:

Edited February 9, 2010 by pauldy

[Case]

Shame that there's no weapons inventory management or something though ;)

 

If there was a feature like that, combined with a multiplayer campaign mode, it could force players to make the shots using their best weapons count as much as possible..

 

Less incentive to spam weapons maybe.. :joystick:

With LRM it is possible to restrict weapons usage. On the 51st Dedicated server on Hyperlobby we use it to restrict the weapons in one of the 5 missions in rotation to R-27R, R-27T, R-73, R-60, AIM-7 and AIM-9 only (so no R-27ER, R-27ET, R-27EM, R-77 or AIM-120). There is a hardcore group in the FC multiplayer community that really likes this mission.

[A.S]

@admins: delete (post moved by myself - offtopic)

Edited February 10, 2010 by A.S

[golfsierra2]

Just speaking about what is wrong in 1.12...or what would be right...in both cases i could fill pages.

The problem with developing or coding such simulated environment is that in order to make it right, you cant just go by ideal theoretical values or approximate evaluations ,

you have to understand the dynamics, the principles -and if possible- facts through records of the combat itself in first place !

THEN you can approach simulating it.

With 2.0 FAQ they have proven, that they have understood the lack in current state ( see 2.0 FAQ), but how much they will be able to fix things in right direction without rewriting everything again....we will see. At least we can hope for more logic and reasonable combat scenarios or gameplay...whatever.

 

But there is another factor beside the fact that all weapons / radar systems are simulated with certain trade-offs in 'realism'. That is the factor of 'balancing' the game.

 

So even if in the real world one side (doesn't matter if the US or the Russian side) has a superior weapon, in Lock-On FC, there will be always a 'balancing' of radar / weapon capabilities and parameters, so that both sides are somewhat equal.

We have seen pages and pages in this forum listed with data as how the weaponry should work in LOFC, as close as possible to real data - however, IMHO we will never see such grade of realism for the benefit of balancing.

[A.S]

.

Edited February 10, 2010 by A.S

[Pilotasso]

Interesting thread. Will be weapons stores lock feature be avaiable?

[golfsierra2]

@ A.S

So you are comparing one sim with another - which I did not.

 

I referred to your message stating that for a good sim, the real data / behaviour / capabilities should be copied. I explained that despite all available data, you won't see full realism in LOFC.

Edited February 10, 2010 by golfsierra2

[GGTharos]

Actually this is an artifact of the simplicity of the simulation - at least right now.

 

But there is another factor beside the fact that all weapons / radar systems are simulated with certain trade-offs in 'realism'. That is the factor of 'balancing' the game.

 

So even if in the real world one side (doesn't matter if the US or the Russian side) has a superior weapon, in Lock-On FC, there will be always a 'balancing' of radar / weapon capabilities and parameters, so that both sides are somewhat equal.

We have seen pages and pages in this forum listed with data as how the weaponry should work in LOFC, as close as possible to real data - however, IMHO we will never see such grade of realism for the benefit of balancing.

[golfsierra2]

No, I don't think so.

I think that the weapon / radar capabilities were tuned that way on purpose. Otherwise we probaby would end up with one side being superior over the other. Imagine a HL server, were for example the F-15C constantly would win eight out of ten engagements vs Su-27/Mig-29S.

 

Then the majority of pilots would concentrate on the F-15C (to have a better chance of winning a fight) which contradicts a balanced mix of aircraft to be flown.

F-15C with a gods eye view data link picture for example. The reason we won't see this in LOFC is that then this aircraft would be way too powerful.

Edited February 11, 2010 by golfsierra2

[GGTharos]

It's the simplicity of the model. It makes creating differences in avionics a pain. There's nothing else to it.