Some things that *should* be in V1.11+

[SwingKid]

No way. IIRC, something like 71 AIM-7Ms were fired in Desert Storm, with only 25 kills. I'm not 100% sure on that though, but FOR SURE it is *not* 70%.

 

I stand corrected. Checking a more reliable source, it seems to be 23-25 kills for 71 "firing attempts".

 

something like 80% of all AMRAAM kills were made with only a single AIM-120.

 

:confused:

 

Considering that only a handful of AIM-120s were fired in combat, this drastically reduced its hit percentage.

 

F-15s were returning from missions in 1999 with AMRAAMs expended in greater numbers than the kills achieved, and unlike AIM-7M accomplishments in ODS, NATO never claimed to have achieved air superiority with AIM-120 over Yugoslavia. Perhaps for the first time that I'm aware of in air combat, published Serb pilot testimonials tended to match pretty well with NATO pilot testimonials (contrary to their respective official government testimonials), and included several AMRAAM misses.

 

I actually can't believe there is actually debate on which is the better missile. I thought we were ALL on the same boat when it came to the AIM-120 and AIM-7.

 

Without a missile physics model that is able to distinguish between a draggy PN HOJ shot and a inertially-guided lofted shot, I think that nitpicking over the differences between AIM-120 and AIM-7M is unproductive. Both missiles are IMHO too simplified to model true BVR tactics in a modern, ECM-equipped environmant. The real-world performance of one is probably much closer to that of the other, than either is to its Lock On counterpart. So, I'm waiting for the new weapon physics to be integrated before I get really interested in this. Lots else to look at in the meantime.

 

That's just my opinion. Regardless, some parts of the discussion can be interesting... :)

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

F-15s were returning from missions in 1999 with AMRAAMs expended in greater numbers than the kills achieved, and unlike AIM-7M accomplishments in ODS, NATO never claimed to have achieved air superiority with AIM-120 over Yugoslavia. Perhaps for the first time that I'm aware of in air combat, published Serb pilot testimonials tended to match pretty well with NATO pilot testimonials (contrary to their respective government releases), and included several AMRAAM misses.

 

Firstly, let's get one thing straight. NATO never claimed to achieve air supremacy over Yugoslavia with HARMs, not AMRAAMs. The definition of air supremacy extends to surface to air missiles too - you can't control the air if you have bad guys shooting at you accurately from below.

 

Here is the official NATO kill list during Allied Force:

1. Dutch F-16A MLU scores a MiG-29 kill with an AIM-120B. Reportedly from 11 miles (18 km), but I can't seem to find that source.

2. F-15C from the 493rd FS kills a MiG-29 with a single AIM-120. Col Rodriguez, the pilot, records his third kill of his career (he got two in DS)

3. F-15C, pilot Mike Showers, kills a MiG-29, with 3 AIM-120s. No details have been provided, except that the engagement started at 30 miles (48 km), and finished at close range, according to the 2000 USAF Yearbook magazine.

4&5. Two F-15Cs from the 493rd, Claw and Boomer, engage two MiG-29s over Bosnia. Boomer shoots first, Claw following up with two AIM-120s of his own a few seconds later. For whatever reason, Claw's Slammers kill both their targets. Range of engagement is reportedly around 16 nm.

6. USAF F-16CJ scores a MIG-29 kill with two AIM-120Bs, fired simultaneously.

 

Thus, the hit percentage of the AIM-120 in Allied Force was 60% (6 for 10).

 

In previous engagements:

- An F-16D kills a MiG-25 with a single AIM-120 over Iraq in 1992

- Another F-16 kills a MiG-23 with a single AIM-120 over Iraq a few months later

- An F-16C kills a single Yugoslav striker (Galeb/Super Galeb or Orao) with an AIM-120

- An F-15C accidentally kills a UH-60 Blackhawk over Iraq

- Two F-15Cs engage MiG-25s during Desert Fox. The Iraqis flee, thus defeating 3 AIM-120s (and one AIM-7)

 

Overall hit percentage/rate in combat for the AIM-120 is 10 for 17. Without the Desert Fox encounter, hit rate is 10 for 14.

 

Kills that took only a single AIM-120 = 6 to 8, depending if you count Claw's double kill and the friendly fire UH-60 kill.

 

Without a missile physics model that is able to distinguish between a draggy HOJ shot and a long-range lofted shot, I think that nitpicking over the differences between AIM-120 and AIM-7M is unproductive. Both missiles are IMHO just plain wrong. The real-world performance of one is probably much closer to that of the other, than either is to its Lock On counterpart.

 

That's just my opinion. Regardless, some parts of the discussion can be interesting... :)

 

Yeah, but my point is that the AIM-120 should be *clearly* superior.

 

I re-did my test from before, but setting missile effectiveness slider to 50% and using an Excellent AI Su-27 instead. The results are just plain wrong, IMO:

 

AIM-120C

1. Miss

2. Miss

3. Miss

4. Miss

5. Hit

6. Miss

7. Hit

8. Miss

9. Hit

10. Hit

 

Forty percent from 11 miles. That's Sparrow material, not AIM-120.

 

AIM-7M

1. Hit

2. Hit

3. Hit

4. Hit

5. Hit

6. Hit

7. Hit

8. Hit

9. Hit

10. Miss

 

Wow, the Sparrow on the other hand notches up a 90% hit/miss ratio. Go figure.

 

I also did some R-27ER tests, but let's not go there. Seriously.

[S77th-GOYA]

D-Scythe, I'd be interested to see you run that test again at 50% missle effectiveness. Let's see what ED considers to be "the most realistic". (edit: damn, you read my mind)

 

My earlier point was that we don't know what kind of firing solutions were achieved in the real world. I assume you had very good solutions in all your testing. So comparing percentages doesn't show us what's realistic or not.

 

The 120 seeker is modeled exactly the same as the lesser 77. ED has stated that.

[tflash]

F-15s were returning from missions in 1999 with AMRAAMs expended in greater numbers than the kills achieved, and unlike AIM-7M accomplishments in ODS, NATO never claimed to have achieved air superiority with AIM-120 over Yugoslavia. Perhaps for the first time that I'm aware of in air combat, published Serb pilot testimonials tended to match pretty well with NATO pilot testimonials (contrary to their respective official government testimonials), and included several AMRAAM misses.

 

Swingkid, no one doubts the Serbs put up a hell of a fight and where a very respectable foe. But what you are claiming here is not correct.

 

Nobody is claiming that the Amraam is some wondermissile. But any sensible person should agree the Amraam is far superior to the AIM-7M. It has better EECM, is more manoevrable, has definitely a larger engagement envelope and is more lethal. The slightly longer range of AIM-7 just means you have to hold fire because of ROE. Nato, USAF, USN, even the Marines all agree on this and swapped their - plenty - stocks of AIM-7M for Amraams. Only you seem to have another view. :=)

 

You are right not underestimating the AIM-7M, I think it is a very capable missile, but Amraam is just newer and better.

[SwingKid]

Firstly, let's get one thing straight. NATO never claimed to achieve air supremacy over Yugoslavia with HARMs, not AMRAAMs. The definition of air supremacy extends to surface to air missiles too - you can't control the air if you have bad guys shooting at you accurately from below.

 

I remember reading, "the Yugoslav air force was able to continue operations throughout the duration of the bombing," but since I don't have a cite, that could be mistaken memory. It sounded a lot more serious than a few SAM vehicles hiding in a garage, and we know that a lot of MiG-21s were at least flyable by the end. And of course there were corroborating reports from refugees who insisted they could tell the difference between NATO and Yugoslav a/c, and that it was the latter that was still attacking them as the campaign dragged on.

 

Otherwise, your data is excellent, no argument against 60%.

 

What did you mean by "80% of kills were made by a single AIM-120"?

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

That is no measure of pK. Pilots would be firing more than one.

 

Is it possible to guide more than one AIM-7M at a time?

 

-SK

[Guest IguanaKing]

That's a negative, SK. I don't think he meant multiple launches on different targets though. ;)

[Alfa]

What did you mean by "80% of kills were made by a single AIM-120"?

 

-SK

 

He meant that in 80% of the air-to-air kills made by AMRAAMs, it took only a single one of them to make the kill :)

[SwingKid]

Only you seem to have another view.

 

All things being equal, I don't think there's any time I would rather have a SARH missile than a TARH missile. That's a huge advantage (a) that has nothing to do with:

 

(b) Pk

© range

(d) maneuverability

(e) ECCM

 

On points (b), ©, (d) and (e), I haven't seen any believeable argument yet why one or the other missile should have a significant advantage. Why? If (b) through (e) are equal, the "USAF (and everybody else) likes AMRAAM better" can be easily explained by (a) alone. So, this is not a solid proof of advantage on any of points (b) through (e).

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

That's a negative, SK. I don't think he meant multiple launches on different targets though. ;)

 

I meant at the same target. Two simultaneous shots against the same target would require multi-channel capability on the part of the missile, to distinguish its own inertial updates from those intended for other AIM-7M missiles in flight. We know the AIM-120 has this.

 

I think "firing attempts" includes cases where the missile didn't leave the rail.

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

I remember reading, "the Yugoslav air force was able to continue operations throughout the duration of the bombing," but since I don't have a cite, that could be mistaken memory. It sounded a lot more serious than a few SAM vehicles hiding in a garage, and we know that a lot of MiG-21s were at least flyable by the end. And of course there were corroborating reports from refugees who insisted they could tell the difference between NATO and Yugoslav a/c, and that it was the latter that was still attacking them as the campaign dragged on.

 

IIRC, some Yugoslav aircraft made short 2-10 minute flights to disperse to other, more remote airfields, but I don't recall any incidence where a Yugolav fighter mounted any kind of interference against U.S. strikers without getting killed.

 

As for the air supremacy issue, here's a few snippets from a Viper article in "The USAF Yearbook, 2000":

 

"Clear through to the end of the war, the Serbs had enough radar-guided SAMs around to shoot at us in any part of the country" recounted one Senior Aviano-based F-16 pilot...

...As Allied air strikes started to intensify during May, SAM launches became less frequent and NATO air commanders started to talk about holding air superiority. "Air supremacy is when you can fly any place you want, at any time, without the threat of being shot at," said (Lt. Col Mike) Boera. "Air superiority is when you still have to defensively engage a threat now and then...The bad guys were smart in exploiting their radar systems. As we got better at employing our weapon systems, they also got better at using theirs."

...The Yugoslave SAM operators became expert at breifly illuminating their targets with a guidance radar and then shutting down before a HARM had time to lock-on to its target."

 

I still think it was SAMs that caused the air supremacy issues, not AIM-120s. From what I gathered, the HARM had a difficult time against Yugoslav radar operators. Even according to official USAF figures (which can be misleading), up to 90% of Serbia's SA-6 batteries survived the war intact.

 

Otherwise, your data is excellent, no argument against 60%.

 

What did you mean by "80% of kills were made by a single AIM-120"?

 

Out of the 10 AIM-120 kills, depending on whose figures you use, between 6 and 8 of these 10 kills were completed with only one AIM-120. You can argue that this is technically not important because F-15/16 pilots were taking NEZ shots, but the same could've been said about the AIM-7 in ODS, but the Sparrow didn't produce the same results (neither did the R-27 or the AIM-9M, for that matter).

[S77th-GOYA]

SK, common sense tells me that the 120 must have at least an equal pk to the sparrow or it wouldn't be the "chosen" missle. These tests show that it is a lesser missle in terms of pk. Not so much that the 120 is wrong or porked, but that the 7 is kinda uber.

[Guest IguanaKing]

I meant at the same target. Two simultaneous shots against the same target would require multi-channel capability on the part of the missile, to distinguish its own inertial updates from those intended for other AIM-7M missiles in flight. We know the AIM-120 has this.

 

I think "firing attempts" includes cases where the missile didn't leave the rail.

 

-SK

 

Not sure if it exists on the AIM-7M (even if I knew, I wouldn't say ;) ), but, a multiplexed data-link is not all that difficult to accomplish...it doesn't require much in the way of technology. :icon_jook

[D-Scythe]

All things being equal, I don't think there's any time I would rather have a SARH missile than a TARH missile. That's a huge advantage (a) that has nothing to do with:

 

(b) Pk

© range

(d) maneuverability

(e) ECCM

 

On points (b), ©, (d) and (e), I haven't seen any believeable argument yet why one or the other missile should have a significant advantage. Why? If (b) through (e) are equal, the "USAF (and everybody else) likes AMRAAM better" can be easily explained by (a) alone. So, this is not a solid proof of advantage on any of points (b) through (e).

 

-SK

 

I disagree. For (b) The AIM-120C enjoys one, much better computers, if not seeker, and two (if we assume that the avionics hardware for both AIM-120 and AIM-7 are the same), much more software improvements than the AIM-7M. Points one or two can easily explain why EVERY single source credits the AIM-120 with more lethality than the AIM-7M, and would easily explain why, at least in terms of point (a), and also to some extent, point (e), the AIM-120 is better.

 

As for the physics stuff, your points © and (d), that's your department, not mine, Mr. SuperPhysicsMaster ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Don't forget one MAJOR reason for the AIM-120 being the preferred missile...Command Inertial is a mode which is only used for a brief portion of the AIM-120s flight. This allows the launch platform to either turn and run once it goes Inertial, or to engage another target. In either case, it increases the combat effectiveness of the launch platform and, as a consequence, increases its survivability.

[SwingKid]

I disagree. For (b) The AIM-120C enjoys one, much better computers, if not seeker,

 

Define "much". How much expendable on-board processing power does a missile need, to follow a dot? What's it doing, running a flight simulator?

;)

 

and two (if we assume that the avionics hardware for both AIM-120 and AIM-7 are the same), much more software improvements than the AIM-7M.

 

As above. What software? The dot goes left. How much AI is required to decide that the missile should also go left? Is the AIM-7M guided by ED's AI?

;)

 

Personally, I think the ability to carry it on an AIM-9 pylon, or the ability to maintain it using parts that are now still being produced, are far more relevant than any vaguely-defined "software improvements." Which had a better dynamic campaign, Lock On or Falcon 3.0? Newer is not inherently better.

 

That all said, the Pk results do indicate a superior missile. I just don't agree this is proof of any AIM-7M processor or software disadvantage.

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

Don't forget one MAJOR reason for the AIM-120 being the preferred missile...Command Inertial

 

It's not forgotten. This is included in definition of "TARH".

 

-SK

[britgliderpilot]

It's not forgotten. This is included in definition of "TARH".

 

-SK

 

OK . . . . . what does TARH mean?

 

Totally Awesome Radar Homing?

 

Actually, whatever the real version is, I think I prefer mine . . . . :p

[Guest IguanaKing]

OK . . . . . what does TARH mean?

 

Totally Awesome Radar Homing?

 

Actually, whatever the real version is, I think I prefer mine . . . . :p

 

I think the term was originally coined in the early 80's by a high school girl in the San Fernando valley in California. :D

[S77th-GOYA]

It boils down to this:

 

Is the 120 less likely to kill it's target than the 7?

 

If the answer was yes, would the USAF have shifted to the 120?

[D-Scythe]

Define "much". How much expendable on-board processing power does a missile need, to follow a dot? What's it doing, running a flight simulator?

 

As above. What software? The dot goes left. How much AI is required to decide that the missile should also go left? Is the AIM-7M guided by ED's AI?

 

That all said, the Pk results do indicate a superior missile. I just don't agree this is proof of any AIM-7M processor or software disadvantage.

 

-SK

 

Okay...Obviously I don't have any specifics, but I'll try. Firstly, the AIM-7M is a late 1980s missile, so its computers obviously cannot be 1990 tech. The AIM-120C was introduced in 1999 abouts (although we'll assume it uses the same computers as the -120B, dating back to 94). That's a huge difference - you can't run Falcon 3.0 or ATF on a 1980s PC.

 

Greater on-board computing power would allow the AIM-120C to be smarter than the AIM-7M. Obviously, I don't have any classified information, but look at it this way: if you take two groups of kids, both of equal physical capability, but one group has 80 IQ and the other group all has 150 IQ, which do you think is going to win a game of tag, capture the flag or survival (which is a *great* game, btw) in a forest? The objectives of the games are still the same: tag, get the flag, whatever, but there are many different ways to play the game to your advantage.

 

To take advantage of extra computing power would be the software improvements. The AIM-120B/C are both reprogrammable, whereas the AIM-7M is not, as I'm aware of. Stuff you can do with simple software improvements, as the AIM-120 product improvement program shows, include:

 

- Improved missile guidance and Electronic Counter Counter Measures (ECCM) capability.

- Ability to detect, track, and guide to future targets through additional signal path’s, control functions, and processing capability.

- Will provide near term improved capability and long term flexibility for threat expansion.

- Will address further guidance control functions to counter current and future threats.

 

Software is upgraded through OFPs, or Operational Flight Programs, which "will improve the ability of the missile to detect, track and guide on the target," according to globalsecurity.

 

Software can do lots of things, like make the AIM-120 more resilient to chaff and ECM. It's the brains of the missile, and is critical to the pK of the missile. Seeker, warhead, and propulsion is useless without a good guidance package. and a good guidance package is useless without the software to make use of it, and software is useless without good algorithms to guide it.

 

Better computers = better software = increased ability to defeat ECCM, chaff and manuevering. Since we know without a doubt that the AIM-120C is far better than the AIM-7 in this respect, the latter shouldn't even come close. Nothing but the newest missiles do.

[D-Scythe]

One more thing SK. By your logic, there shouldn't be much of a difference between the AIM-7F and the AIM-7M...but there is, and it's huge. Physically, both missiles are the same, and use much the same tech - the AIM-7M just has some newer electronics.

 

What most people miss is that the newer electronics allowed its engineers to put in a better seeker. It's NOT the other way around. There's more to the guidance section of a missile than the seeker.

[Pilotasso]

Personally, I think the ability to carry it on an AIM-9 pylon, or the ability to maintain it using parts that are now still being produced, are far more relevant than any vaguely-defined "software improvements." Which had a better dynamic campaign, Lock On or Falcon 3.0? Newer is not inherently better.

 

That all said, the Pk results do indicate a superior missile. I just don't agree this is proof of any AIM-7M processor or software disadvantage.

 

-SK

 

WOW, respectfully...this is one misplaced and misguided (how apropriate!)comment. What an analogy too...

 

First the external parts as those you mentioned have litle to do with PK.

Second, Software logic and processor power WILL make the difference between a missed shot and the maintenace of track thanks to its cleverness (or lack there off) to estimate the targets position and anticipate its manuevers. You can have double racks on AIM-9 pylons and still make absolutely no difference in combat, if you dont have a capable missile.

 

I also fail to see why would anyone replace a missile with another if the newer one hadnt better PK. Whats the logic there? It would never meet the requirements and never see the light of day!

 

Thirdly: LOMAC was to have a dynamic campaign, the fact it didnt and the game still got launched has nothing to do with falcon 3 ever was.

[GGTharos]

Oh no - externals parts have a LOT to do with Pk. If you can't carry a missile, it has no Pk.

If you can't maintain a missile, you probably get E-E war style performance. Everything is critical to Pk - and that's why it's all so classified. One little detail could show you how to defeat the entire system.

 

On the other hand, given a new missile with equal Pk but BETTER MAINTAINABILITY you would -definitely- want to replace the old stock. It actually saves you money in the long run!

[D-Scythe]

Oh no - externals parts have a LOT to do with Pk. If you can't carry a missile, it has no Pk.

If you can't maintain a missile, you probably get E-E war style performance. Everything is critical to Pk - and that's why it's all so classified. One little detail could show you how to defeat the entire system.

 

On the other hand, given a new missile with equal Pk but BETTER MAINTAINABILITY you would -definitely- want to replace the old stock. It actually saves you money in the long run!

 

Point is, the guidance package and its associated software matters a lot - probably even more than external parts. And all things being equal, this gives the AIM-120C a huge advantage over the AIM-7M, who software and hardware is essentially late 80s era tech.