AMRAAM arming/detonation distance

[Kula66]

Anyone like to hazard a guess at the distance at which an AMRAAM goes bang? Or the blast radius ... just took these screen shots and the missile came VERY close! Less than the length of a 33 ... but didn't go off! Any of the Devs like to reveal at what distance it should go off? Are there any other factors which would cause it not to go off?

[D-Scythe]

In V1.02, the devs stated that the AIM-120's det distance was 15 m. From the looks of your first screenie, that AIM-120 should've went off - it's length is less than 4 m and that distance looks like less than four missile lengths in that first screenie - but I doubt it would've killed the Su-33 in any case.

 

But yeah, I miss the old Janes days when missiles would narrowly miss your airplane but detonate anyway, showering your bird with shrapnel. But I miss AAA even more :)

[GGTharos]

This looks ok to me; it's low fuze probability situation due to the missile passing pretty much under the tail-end of the flanker ... in general beaming the missile results in a 'low fuze probability', and although I don't think this is deliberately programmed in LOMAC, it seems that it is adequately simulated by the existing fuze implementation.

 

The miss distance apprears to be over 10m. I have never seen a study that considers the 'hit' distance to be more than 5m for the 120.

 

 

Devs, any comments?

[192nd_Erdem]

I can provide you screenshots with this happening with other missiles aswell.Not a special thing for AMRAAM.

[coldcrew]

it's not that close. I've seen missiles half that distance in your shot miss and not detonate but this is mostly with heatseekers.

[Pilotasso]

Yes some books depict PK of proximity fuse graphs as a blob around the target plane. Its realy thin on the sides. Frontal detonations are mostly direct impacts. You should try the same experiment from behind your targets.

[Starlight]

I'm not a fighter pilot but I think that missile should've detonated. Early versions of Amraam suffered from poor kill capability - even a direct hit often could not inflict a critical damage on larger fighter aircraft.

But anyway at that distance missiles should detonate to try to achieve a proximity hit. Even a little shrapnel damage could cause a fuel/oil leak and therefore achieve a tactical result against the enemy. just IMHO.

[GGTharos]

I'm not a fighter pilot but I think that missile should've detonated. Early versions of Amraam suffered from poor kill capability - even a direct hit often could not inflict a critical damage on larger fighter aircraft.

But anyway at that distance missiles should detonate to try to achieve a proximity hit. Even a little shrapnel damage could cause a fuel/oil leak and therefore achieve a tactical result against the enemy. just IMHO.

 

 

Uh, what? No, the first AMRAAM tests just resultes in misses. Period. The next test had'em hitting 4 targets simultaneously and killing them all.

 

And maybe the missile 'should' detonate, but sadly from that position the fuze may not even see the aircraft, regardless of which, given the fuze cone, it's linely that any detonation would result with the warhead sending its payload clear of the aircraft anyway.

[Kula66]

And maybe the missile 'should' detonate, but sadly from that position the fuze may not even see the aircraft, regardless of which, given the fuze cone, it's linely that any detonation would result with the warhead sending its payload clear of the aircraft anyway.

 

I guess the question is, is this level of fuze moddelling modelled- if so great ... or is it a bug?

[GGTharos]

I dont' know how it's modelled exactly, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't a bug.

[Starlight]

Uh, what? No, the first AMRAAM tests just resultes in misses. Period. The next test had'em hitting 4 targets simultaneously and killing them all.

 

No I was talking about the warhead. A study at the US DoD stated that newer Amraam versions needed more warhead to inflict heavier damage on newer (and larger) aircraft. It was an info leaked in the early '90s, when the Slammers were first employed in the Gulf, over the no-fly zones.

Some Israeli missiles for example use much larger warhead than standard NATO/US missiles, to cause complete destruction of the aircraft in the case of a direct hit.

BTW "direct" does not necessarily mean collision between A/C and AAM, just a very closely fuzed detonation. Kinetic killers are not so common.

 

And maybe the missile 'should' detonate, but sadly from that position the fuze may not even see the aircraft, regardless of which, given the fuze cone, it's linely that any detonation would result with the warhead sending its payload clear of the aircraft anyway.

Watching the image I see that the missile seems to go past the target. But to reach that positition I think it should had been in a legitimate position to detonate. But I'm not sure since I should see the whole footage to express a better judgement.

[GGTharos]

No I was talking about the warhead. A study at the US DoD stated that newer Amraam versions needed more warhead to inflict heavier damage on newer (and larger) aircraft. It was an info leaked in the early '90s, when the Slammers were first employed in the Gulf, over the no-fly zones.

Some Israeli missiles for example use much larger warhead than standard NATO/US missiles, to cause complete destruction of the aircraft in the case of a direct hit.

BTW "direct" does not necessarily mean collision between A/C and AAM, just a very closely fuzed detonation. Kinetic killers are not so common.

 

BTW, direct means EXACTLY a collision. Anything else is a proximity hit.

Also, the warhead wasn't made heavier, rather the fuze was upgraded to make it more effective. You don't need to obliterate the aircraft to take it out, you know - otherwise AA missiles would be lugging .25kt nukes for warheads (DODGE THIS!)

 

The warhead's quite fine, it might need some reworking for a more optimal pattern, but the only complaint I ever heard was about the fuze, which was pretty effective to begin with BTW.

 

Watching the image I see that the missile seems to go past the target. But to reach that positition I think it should had been in a legitimate position to detonate. But I'm not sure since I should see the whole footage to express a better judgement.

 

 

It's a BEAM crossing the fuze zone. Probability of failure to fuze is HIGH, even if yuo were to trace back the position - this is a fairly significant deviation at this point. You can literally fly out of the fuze pattern when beaming if you're good enough, and if you're not, it likely won't fire anyway.

[Cobra360]

The middle section of the AIM-120, behind the electronics unit, houses the radar proximity fuse and warhead. The warhead consists of 198 projectiles that are shaped like matchboxes. The proximity fuse can detect on which side of the missile the target is located and direct the projectiles towards the target instead of exploding in an even circular pattern as an AIM-7 would for example.

 

The warhead of the AMRAAM is 48lbs of high explosive, directed fragmentation. And it's fusing is by active radar proximity or contact. AIM-120B model. The one in Lockon is ment to be AIM-120C even though it has the larger rear control fins of the B model in Lockon which should be corrected for smaller ones. The 120C is ment to have better ECCM and an improved warhead, and greater speed and agility than the B model. The leathal range of the warhead is classified.

 

The first ever fully guided AIM-120 to be fired, was fired from an F-16 and scored an almost central hit on the QF-102 target drone, which burst into flames and crashed. The missile did not even carry a warhead. So it must be very accurate, or the drone was flying straight and level using no ECM.

 

For comparason the French MICA uses only 26lbs of explosives. The AIM-54 uses a 132lbs high explosive warhead. The AIM-7 has a 88lb warhead. The AIM-9 has a 22lb warhead almost the same as the MICA! The Python 3/4 use a 24 lb warhead. The R-27 is equiped with a 88lb warhead, same as the AIM-7. While the R-77 has a 60lb warhead, a bit more powerful than the AIM-120 counterpart.

[GGTharos]

The first AMRAAM multiple-fire test was against 4 drones which were at different altitudes, maneuvering, and using ECM.

 

0 hits. By the way, I seriously doubt the first shot was from an F-16, this was an F-15C missile to start with, through and through - WITH the requirement that it can be mounted on Sidewinder rails so that it could indeed be fired by other aircraft.

 

Anyway, this disastrous result was due to lack of integration of the required systems.

 

Test #2 saw incredible improvements, same scenario, but 4 hits ... 3 direct, 1 proximity.

 

 

BTW I would reiterate that lethal range from the AMRAAM's warhead is considered to be 10m, however it is also the case that all sudies modelling the AMRAAM that I've seen consider anything over 5m of miss distance a miss.

 

Needless to say, the simulated hit ratio is pretty good; real life of course changes things.

 

BTW, where did you find that the AMRAAM had an adamptive fuze/warhead? I wanna see! :)

[D-Scythe]

BTW, where did you find that the AMRAAM had an adamptive fuze/warhead? I wanna see!

 

There are many sources, both on the internet and published, that state that the AIM-120's warhead is directive, exactly as Cobra said. Jane's, airpower journals, reviews, etc.

 

The 120C is ment to have better ECCM and an improved warhead, and greater speed and agility than the B model. The leathal range of the warhead is classified.

 

The AIM-120C can do many things, the vast majority of which are not modelled in LOMAC. And IIRC, the AIM-9M has a 25 lb warhead.

 

Early versions of Amraam suffered from poor kill capability - even a direct hit often could not inflict a critical damage on larger fighter aircraft.

...No I was talking about the warhead. A study at the US DoD stated that newer Amraam versions needed more warhead to inflict heavier damage on newer (and larger) aircraft. It was an info leaked in the early '90s, when the Slammers were first employed in the Gulf, over the no-fly zones.

 

I absolutely disagree. The AIM-120 has actually had pretty good success killing things without its warhead in tests. Target drones that jam, spoof and evade like mad are not cheap, so missiles often have their warhead replaced with ballast or something. On many instances, the AIM-120 directly impacted the target, destroying it with its kinetic energy alone (hitting a 335lb object with 2000 kmph closure is pretty destructive).

 

Kinetic killers are not so common.

 

Kinetic kills happen more often than you think ;)

[Cobra360]

All I can find on the net is this.

 

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:9vfEcYo6p7YJ:f6dsh.free.fr/Missiles_in_NATO_service.doc+Improved+warhead+and+directional+doppler+fuse&hl=en&start=8&client=firefox-a

 

BTW. I'm not basing my claim on the link above, it's the only example I can find.

I origonally read this in a publication of 21st century air-to-air weapons with a name I can't remember off hand.

 

 

It does not give too much away as I guess this technology is classified on how it works exactly.

 

Some reports suggest from back in 1999 that this ability has beed added to the AIM-120C or was very close to being introduced on the then brand new C-4/5 upgrade being planned at the time.

 

And about the F-16 test report, I miss typed my sentence. It should have said the first AIM-120 fired by an F-16. As the F-15C was the primary launch platform for the AMRAAM at the time.

[GGTharos]

D-Scythe:

 

For tests, it's probably replaced with telemetry equipment :) What better way to figure out what the missile's doing? :)

[DayGlow]

I know the devs have stated that proxi fusing is modelled, but certain perameters have to be met for it to go off. This is for all missiles, so I have no idea what conditions have to be met for the proxi fusing to detonate.