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

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yup...a robot is a robot is a robot...that is...until it gets a better "brain". :D

[SwingKid]

Let me see if I can explain my position a little better.

 

(1) Proportional navigation has not fundamentally changed since it was first used on the Sidewinder in the 1950s, and even will all the hardware and software advances in the last half-century, it is still in use today. There was nothing wrong with the algorithms, computing power or software in these early missiles that was preventing them from hitting their targets. Rather, if a missile didn't hit, very often it was because some part of the system failed. A failure is different from a miss. We don't have weapon failures in Lock On, so unreliable missiles will seem to be performing better than their real-world coutnerparts.

 

This is where I think the AIM-120's greater Pk comes from in the real world - a drastically improved reliability over the AIM-7M and R-27R. But the reliability of all missiles in Lock On is 100%. We are only studying the hit/miss Pk of the missiles that work - that launch correctly, guide on the target, etc. When the failures are removed, even real-world results of working missiles from the 1950s were giving 90% or higher Pk. So, what difference will new software contribute? It is like, nobody disputes that the F-22 is a much more powerful fighter than the F-15, but - who cares? That extra power can't possibly contribute any improvement to the combat ratio, because the F-15 ratio was already without loss. Similarly, new hardware and software cannot contribute anything to the already perfected PN homing trajectory.

 

(2) "Improved" ECCM. There is a quantum leap in improvement in ECCM when you go from a conical scanning antenna (like AIM-7F) to a monopulse antenna (like AIM-120, AIM-7M, R-27R and even R-23R). A monopulse antenna gives you bearing to the target regardless of signal amplitude changes, allowing your missile to fly a PN course in HOJ mode almost no matter what kind of ECM is being used. No amount of hardware or software improvement can compare this one powerful ECCM improvement, that it is already present on all missiles being discussed. Similarly, no improvement in hardware or software can now "burn through" the jamming to get any additional information, like range. Any further "improvement" in ECCM, beyond having a monopulse antenna, must be practically trivial, like pilot testimonials about the F-15 "Sniff" mode, and only worth mentioning in an elusive, non-quantitative way, just to sell missiles. There was nothing wrong with AIM-7M ECCM. When were they being duped by ECM? In ODS?? Nonsense. So on what grounds should AIM-7M now be "more dupable" in our sim? Monopulse is monopulse, there is no half-way. You either have HOJ capability or you don't, and ALL of AIM-7M, AIM-120, R-27R and R-77, together with all modern fighter radars since MiG-23, have this monopulse ability.

 

(3) The AIM-7M lacks an active radar, but the active radar on a TARH missile is no match for the active radar on the launching fighter, no matter how much hardware and software you give it. This is what's causing the Pk discrepancy in Lock On. In the real world, AIM-7Ms fail. In Lock On, you're never fighting the AIM-7M. You're fighting the AIM-120 radar lock, or... the F-15 radar lock. And the F-15 is harder to beat.

 

So, if we discount failures, and we start using ECM and hard maneuvering in the real world the way we do in our sim, then I don't see any way for AIM-120 software improvements to give it a significantly better Pk than AIM-7M. The question is whether we want to be adding failures to the sim, so that many of our SARH missiles simply don't work.

 

That all said, I admit that I'm not sure, in D-Scythe's testing, why the AIM-120 was missing. I'm assuming that the targetted fighter was successfully breaking the AIM-120 radar lock, but for whatever reason was unable to break the launching fighter's lock in the case of the AIM-7M. But maybe D-Scythe can answer better, what was going on, and under what circumstances the AIM-120 was missing. Were AIM-7Ms hitting, even without a guiding radar lock? Bugs like this have happened before, in which case all the above argument is academic.

 

Just MHO, thanks for interest,

 

-SK

[Pilotasso]

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.

 

Exactly...who cares if the R-77 rear fins are "potatoe mashers" or simple triangular fins like the AMRAAM has?

 

Point is, I wont contest the importance of controll surfaces. However it can come in a million different ways if supermanueverability like the python 4 is not a requirement. A BVR missile usualy doesnt require it, and as such it is of secondary importance.

 

All you gotta do is to send metail foil over the press. Now, designing a CPU and logic for it can take decades. I dont see how a sparrow from the 70's could possibly do a better do job than a missile with 20 more years of electronic advancement on its belt.

 

I would rather carry 4 AMRAAM's on heavy pylons than have 8 Sparrows on double wingtip rails!:biggrin:

[SwingKid]

OK . . . . . what does TARH mean?

 

Terminal Active Radar Homing.

 

i.e. before the "terminal" phase, it's understood to be using inertial guidance.

 

-SK

[Guest IguanaKing]

...while also accepting data-linked steering commands from the launch platform. ;)

[GGTharos]

Well, actually, SK, I already did the tests where the missiles are concerned. There a re a few simple tricks that can prevent a broken STT lock, and thus the 7 will hit, where the 120's internal radar will be defeated through beaming most commonly.

[D-Scythe]

(3) The AIM-7M lacks an active radar, but the active radar on a TARH missile is no match for the active radar on the launching fighter, no matter how much hardware and software you give it. This is what's causing the Pk discrepancy in Lock On. In the real world, AIM-7Ms fail. In Lock On, you're never fighting the AIM-7M. You're fighting the AIM-120 radar lock, or... the F-15 radar lock. And the F-15 is harder to beat.

 

I like to dispute this point :) The whole "it's the F-15C lock" is nonsense to me - the AIM-7M simply homes in on the reflected energy of the AGP-70, so technically it takes *two* locks for the AIM-7 to work - the AIM-7 lock and the F-15 lock. The seeker in the AIM-7M in no way collaborates with the the APG-70 radar, except feeding off the RF energy its bouncing from the target.

 

By your logic, the only time an AIM-7 will fall for chaff is if the APG-70 also falls for chaff. This just doesn't make sense, and I've never read about SARH missiles like this anywhere.

 

Therefore, the whole SARH system should be even more faulty and prone to failure than using the AIM-120, because there are two ways for the AIM-7 to fail, as opposed to the AMRAAM's one.

 

So, if we discount failures, and we start using ECM and hard maneuvering in the real world the way we do in our sim, then I don't see any way for AIM-120 software improvements to give it a significantly better Pk than AIM-7M.

 

Why wouldn't it give a better pK? With the upgraded hardware and software, the entire guidance system will be able to use the active radar seeker in a way so that it can filter out chaff more quickly and efficiently.

 

To me, this is basically analagous to Photoshop and Paint. Take a photo with some camera (analogous to missile seeker) and transfer it into a Pentium II PC that can use MS paint. You can "try" to get a good picture of the target. Then you take the same photo and get a Pentium IV computer with Photoshop CS and you can use various filters and overlays to get remove useless garbage and get an overall sharper and finer image of the target. Shouldn't the software/hardware work in the same way for a missile? The seeker is basically feeding the computers information, and it's up to these computers to process them.

 

Wouldn't better hardware and software help the seeker to reject clutter and chaff better? It seems that way to me. I know PN and stuff like that are basically "fixed," but chaff, clutter and evasive manuevers are quite dynamic during the end-game, no?

 

That all said, I admit that I'm not sure, in D-Scythe's testing, why the AIM-120 was missing. I'm assuming that the targetted fighter was successfully breaking the AIM-120 radar lock, but for whatever reason was unable to break the launching fighter's lock in the case of the AIM-7M. But maybe D-Scythe can answer better, what was going on, and under what circumstances the AIM-120 was missing. Were AIM-7Ms hitting, even without a guiding radar lock? Bugs like this have happened before, in which case all the above argument is academic.

 

Just MHO, thanks for interest,

 

-SK

 

I always kept lock for the AIM-7M (by diving to a lower altitude, so the radar looks up and keeps lock). It would go dumb otherwise. The Su-27 at 50% was also not jamming, so it couldn't have been any HOJ issue either. Bottomline, SARH missiles kill ARH missiles in this game.

[GGTharos]

PN and 'stuff like that' are NOT fixed. At least, not according to all the research papers I came across which are studying PN. There are different methods, different algos, different filters for guidance that can be applied to defeat specific target maneuvers. (The only time i ran across this really was some testimony which mentioned thata modified kalman loop filter allowed the patriot to deal with barrel rolling TBMs much better)

 

This in turn may possibly mean that such maneuvers must be recognized - that implies some form of AI, and there is already a research project looking into such a thing.

 

 

I don't think anything is fixed at all.

 

Furthermore, SARH guidance methods can potentnially limit the missile's attack trajectories as well as launch ranges, as evidenced from the MiG manual, IIRC, where the R-27's are limited to a max range of 66km due to guidance constraints for the missile's seeker. Or did I translate that wrong?

[D-Scythe]

So what GG is trying to say, I think, is that software and hardware counts ;)

 

And my bad on the "fixed" thing...I didn't actually mean "fixed", but was just too tired to type out what SK said, that the algorithms and stuff for the most part exist so software cannot possibly expand on it.

 

I still think software, hardware, and anything to do with the brains of the missile is important. Stuff like the seeker, motor and fins are just limbs, eyes and ears to me - it's who's smarter that counts in my book.

[GGTharos]

Yep. Basically, I think everything counts ;)

 

I don't think they'd be upgrading processor power on a missile if they didn't really need it - and if they didn't, I'm sure they'd use the added processing power for features.

[Pilotasso]

Let me see if I can explain my position a little better.

 

(1) Proportional navigation has not fundamentally changed since it was first used on the Sidewinder in the 1950s, and even will all the hardware and software advances in the last half-century, it is still in use today. There was nothing wrong with the algorithms, computing power or software in these early missiles that was preventing them from hitting their targets. Rather, if a missile didn't hit, very often it was because some part of the system failed. A failure is different from a miss. We don't have weapon failures in Lock On, so unreliable missiles will seem to be performing better than their real-world coutnerparts.

 

This is where I think the AIM-120's greater Pk comes from in the real world - a drastically improved reliability over the AIM-7M and R-27R. But the reliability of all missiles in Lock On is 100%. We are only studying the hit/miss Pk of the missiles that work - that launch correctly, guide on the target, etc. When the failures are removed, even real-world results of working missiles from the 1950s were giving 90% or higher Pk. So, what difference will new software contribute? It is like, nobody disputes that the F-22 is a much more powerful fighter than the F-15, but - who cares? That extra power can't possibly contribute any improvement to the combat ratio, because the F-15 ratio was already without loss. Similarly, new hardware and software cannot contribute anything to the already perfected PN homing trajectory.

 

(2) "Improved" ECCM. There is a quantum leap in improvement in ECCM when you go from a conical scanning antenna (like AIM-7F) to a monopulse antenna (like AIM-120, AIM-7M, R-27R and even R-23R). A monopulse antenna gives you bearing to the target regardless of signal amplitude changes, allowing your missile to fly a PN course in HOJ mode almost no matter what kind of ECM is being used. No amount of hardware or software improvement can compare this one powerful ECCM improvement, that it is already present on all missiles being discussed. Similarly, no improvement in hardware or software can now "burn through" the jamming to get any additional information, like range. Any further "improvement" in ECCM, beyond having a monopulse antenna, must be practically trivial, like pilot testimonials about the F-15 "Sniff" mode, and only worth mentioning in an elusive, non-quantitative way, just to sell missiles. There was nothing wrong with AIM-7M ECCM. When were they being duped by ECM? In ODS?? Nonsense. So on what grounds should AIM-7M now be "more dupable" in our sim? Monopulse is monopulse, there is no half-way. You either have HOJ capability or you don't, and ALL of AIM-7M, AIM-120, R-27R and R-77, together with all modern fighter radars since MiG-23, have this monopulse ability.

 

(3) The AIM-7M lacks an active radar, but the active radar on a TARH missile is no match for the active radar on the launching fighter, no matter how much hardware and software you give it. This is what's causing the Pk discrepancy in Lock On. In the real world, AIM-7Ms fail. In Lock On, you're never fighting the AIM-7M. You're fighting the AIM-120 radar lock, or... the F-15 radar lock. And the F-15 is harder to beat.

 

So, if we discount failures, and we start using ECM and hard maneuvering in the real world the way we do in our sim, then I don't see any way for AIM-120 software improvements to give it a significantly better Pk than AIM-7M. The question is whether we want to be adding failures to the sim, so that many of our SARH missiles simply don't work.

 

That all said, I admit that I'm not sure, in D-Scythe's testing, why the AIM-120 was missing. I'm assuming that the targetted fighter was successfully breaking the AIM-120 radar lock, but for whatever reason was unable to break the launching fighter's lock in the case of the AIM-7M. But maybe D-Scythe can answer better, what was going on, and under what circumstances the AIM-120 was missing. Were AIM-7Ms hitting, even without a guiding radar lock? Bugs like this have happened before, in which case all the above argument is academic.

 

Just MHO, thanks for interest,

 

-SK

 

 

 

OMG some of this stuff is a complete departure from everything I though to understand in the military avaition...

 

1) Early 1950's heat seekers flew straight for target in pure porsuit. In adition the first models actualy flew in spirals much like bullets leave the barrels.

Today we have advanced logic enabling missiles to anticipate the targets trajectory, and I dont mean simple lead porsuit.

Reliability? Then by your logic of reliabaility being the only thing donne, would result in copies of old missiles made their way into modern integrated circuits!

Have you ever heard of dual spectrum IIR missiles, and smart ECM and flare rejection?

If you perfect component reliability only youll get missiles reliability guiding to ECM and flares...

 

2) As said in the 2nd last paragraph above, all that hardware you mentioned would then be no more than paper weight. All those new fancy seekers are controlled by algoritms wich will interpret what they are getting and transmit action to the actuators. I have never seen a pair of eyeballs get a mind of their own and go after a thing without a brain behind them!:rolleyes:

 

3)Your talking about failiure to connect or malfuntion altogether. Its not mentioned anywhere that the sparrow once connected would guide better than the AMRAAM. Sometimes my AIM-7's go balistic , dunno if its a bug or simulation of non connect, but if it guides it does it better than the AMRAAM.

While I cannot offer any real world evidence that the AMRAAM should guide better, you cannot say the other way either in addition when all logic points to the contrary.

 

Im not willing to force better efecteviness on the AMRAAM since statistics seem to corroborate with reality, however if we go that way we are going to end up with over-efective missiles in general like in F4.

[GGTharos]

1. The VERY FIRST of missiles. It was abandoned VERY quickly in favor of PN. And no, we don't have anything that allows for anything more than 'simple lead pursuit' (or actually, PN) from any public data that I've seen. There ARE some discussions about certain weapons being able to use 'special trajectories' etc, but what why and where is not clear.

 

2. Pretty much right ... the stuff's in there for a reason.

 

3. Yep, well, it has more speed, and so long as lock is maintained, it's a HOUND. The AMRAAM by compasiron can be pretty easy to defeat - in game.

 

 

In general everyone's right - there are many parts to a missile system, including reliability and maintenance, and storage, and operational procedures, etc, which all affect Pk.

 

HOWEVER. According to what has been seen in the real world, LOMACs SARH missiles are much too effective - for whatever reason. I don't think even SK can disagree with me on this one ;)

[SwingKid]

By your logic, the only time an AIM-7 will fall for chaff is if the APG-70 also falls for chaff. This just doesn't make sense, and I've never read about SARH missiles like this anywhere.

 

Hmm.. You have a good point here with chaff, I was thinking more about beaming. Chaff should be little different from ground clutter. Does the AIM-7M have real look-down, shoot-down capability? I thought that's what the "inverse processing" was for - clutter rejection by doppler shift. But come to think of it, that does sound like it could be unreliable.

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

 

In general everyone's right - there are many parts to a missile system, including reliability and maintenance, and storage, and operational procedures, etc, which all affect Pk.

 

 

I know. Which is why computers and software is even more important than the physical parts of the missile, IMO. All missiles are reaching the point where they are agile enough to be able to kill any fighter manuevering at its hardest at any point of its employment envelope, save for the extremes where the missile can be defeated by out-running them.

 

An R-77 may be more manueverable than an AIM-120, but I gaurantee that both will be able to kill an Su-37 in their no-escape zones.

 

Thus, now, the most important factor is the only other place where any *major* improvement is possible: the brains of the missile, its computers and software.

 

As Pilotasso said, "I have never seen a pair of eyeballs get a mind of their own and go after a thing without a brain behind them!"

 

Does the AIM-7M have real look-down, shoot-down capability?

 

A real look-down, shoot-down capability? I really don't know. I've read some stuff that the AIM-7M can handle low-flying targets better (relative to what?), but none of these sources had anything concrete to back them up, and totally ambiguous.

[SwingKid]

I always kept lock for the AIM-7M (by diving to a lower altitude, so the radar looks up and keeps lock). It would go dumb otherwise.

 

Was the AIM-120 doing this also? Or, it was diving on a beaming target from above?

 

This is what I originally thought was the problem, your own fighter maneuvers were giving a more solid target than the AIM-120 radar could provide

 

-SK

[Pilotasso]

1. The VERY FIRST of missiles. It was abandoned VERY quickly in favor of PN. And no, we don't have anything that allows for anything more than 'simple lead pursuit' (or actually, PN) from any public data that I've seen. There ARE some discussions about certain weapons being able to use 'special trajectories' etc, but what why and where is not clear.

 

 

I was recollecting Pythons 4 Algos as an evolution. Previous ones like AIM-9L/M's pretty much do lead porsuit, yes. But then these are 20 year old missiles.

 

Dunno about the AIM-9X though, most probably is, so could be the ASRAAM and others.

[GGTharos]

All homing missiles use some form of PN, Pilotasso, it's one of the most accurate methods of homing.

 

There are weapons that use different techniques (older versions of the Sparrow were beam-riding for example) but for the most part, AAM's use PN.

[D-Scythe]

Was the AIM-120 doing this also? Or, it was diving on a beaming target from above?

 

This is what I originally thought was the problem, your own fighter maneuvers were giving a more solid target than the AIM-120 radar could provide

 

-SK

 

I'm afraid I really don't understand. Okay, lemme start over: there's me in an F-15, and a Su-27, ~11 miles dead ahead, both at the same altitude. We're both dead head-on. I launch an AIM-120, which doesn't really loft because the range is too short.

 

The Flanker begins evasive manuevers when the AIM-120 is at the 6 mile mark. Since the AI does the same thing everytime (break low, weave around), I suppose yes, the AIM-120 was diving at a sometimes beaming target (sometimes because it's sorta weaving).

 

Same with the AIM-7 though - it was also diving from above at a sometimes beaming target. I myself dove below the target to keep my radar lock on him.

 

EDIT: Should clarify: my radar is looking up at the target, not the AIM-7 seeker.

 

I don't really get what you mean by me giving the AIM-120 a more solid target than its on-board radar could provide. The test was just a simple head-on intercept, as I tried to keep everything constant except what I was testing.

[Pilotasso]

All homing missiles use some form of PN, Pilotasso, it's one of the most accurate methods of homing.

 

There are weapons that use different techniques (older versions of the Sparrow were beam-riding for example) but for the most part, AAM's use PN.

 

 

"PN" stands for "Prediction Navigation" right? Thats What were talking about all along, its just different forms of PN. I think the special weapons your talking about is the python 4. I read some text of rafael's public relations somewhere. Naturaly they dont give any details. They also claim this to be the reason behind why theis missile is more short ranged than other equivalents.

[SwingKid]

I suppose yes, the AIM-120 was diving at a sometimes beaming target (sometimes because it's sorta weaving).

 

Same with the AIM-7 though - it was also diving from above at a sometimes beaming target. I myself dove below the target to keep my radar lock on him.

 

EDIT: Should clarify: my radar is looking up at the target, not the AIM-7 seeker.

 

Maybe this is the path to a solution - it should be possible to beam the SARH missile if EITHER the illuminating fighter radar is in a look-down situation, OR the missile itself is in a look down situation.

 

And, a "look-up" situation where chaff is being employed by the target effectively counts as a "look-down" situation.

 

That should give the AIM-7M a lower Pk than AIM-120, all things being equal... you have two different ways to beat the SARH shot, whereas only one for the AIM-120. Ok, I could get behind that. What do you think?

 

Good, productive discussion.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

No, it stands for 'Proportional navigation' and predicts nothing.

 

There are weapons which will use trajectory prediction of some sort, but they revelt to terminal homing in the end anyway.

 

An example of a missile which did NOT use terminal homing would be the NIKE.

 

As for Python 4, I doubt there's anything particularely special in the guidance section. It's probably just optimized to use that missile's aerodynamics to the fullest, which are reportedly pretty impressive.

[GGTharos]

Maybe this is the path to a solution - it should be possible to beam the SARH missile if EITHER the illuminating fighter radar is in a look-down situation, OR the missile itself is in a look down situation.

 

And, a "look-up" situation where chaff is being employed by the target effectively counts as a "look-down" situation.

 

That should give the AIM-7M a lower Pk than AIM-120, all things being equal... you have two different ways to beat the SARH shot, whereas only one for the AIM-120. Ok, I could get behind that. What do you think?

 

Good, productive discussion.

 

-SK

Sounds ok, BUT - why would the missile need to discriminate in a look-down situation?

 

I'll explain why I'm somewhat doubtful:

Unlike an ARH missile, the SARH's target is illuminated by the launcher's radar. If the launcher is in a 'look up' situation, he's probably NOT illuminating any ground to cause clutter. A potential problem if the target is flying very low is ground-bounce, and that much I got out of a certain declassified study of naval missiles - they were discussing guidance methodology selection, and they essentially suggested abandoning beam-riders in favor of SARH missiles because there was much less interference with the missile's flight path against low-flying targets.

 

In addition, they discussed some special trajectories to deal with ground-bounce.

 

Anyway, I think one other potential problem facing the diving SARH missile where the carrier is in a look-up situation is signal loss -the target could say, roll in such a manner that not enough energy is reflected UP into the missile, and is instead reflected somewhat downwards - but I don't know if that's really feasible.

 

Edit: I just thought about it some more. While I think the general 'plane' of the aircraft would indeed reflect most of the energy 'down' you probably still have rounded parts like the forward fuselage scattering radar energy everywhere.

[D-Scythe]

Sounds ok, BUT - why would the missile need to discriminate in a look-down situation?

 

I'll explain why I'm somewhat doubtful:

Unlike an ARH missile, the SARH's target is illuminated by the launcher's radar. If the launcher is in a 'look up' situation, he's probably NOT illuminating any ground to cause clutter. A potential problem if the target is flying very low is ground-bounce, and that much I got out of a certain declassified study of naval missiles - they were discussing guidance methodology selection, and they essentially suggested abandoning beam-riders in favor of SARH missiles because there was much less interference with the missile's flight path against low-flying targets.

 

In addition, they discussed some special trajectories to deal with ground-bounce.

 

Anyway, I think one other potential problem facing the diving SARH missile where the carrier is in a look-up situation is signal loss -the target could say, roll in such a manner that not enough energy is reflected UP into the missile, and is instead reflected somewhat downwards - but I don't know if that's really feasible.

 

Edit: I just thought about it some more. While I think the general 'plane' of the aircraft would indeed reflect most of the energy 'down' you probably still have rounded parts like the forward fuselage scattering radar energy everywhere.

 

Yes, but then you factor in chaff, which will probably reflect the "same" amount of RF energy to the SARH missile, making decoys more effective in situations where the orientation of the target is such that most RF energy is deflected/scattered in many directions away from the missile. Is this true?

 

If it is, than conversely an active radar missile would not suffer from this problem because it paints the target by itself, therefore this difference in angle would not be as significant as in an SARH missile, right? Like, it probably would be recieving more RF returns from its target than a comparable SARH missile in these types of situations, because even though the radar of the launching aircraft puts more RF energy on target, it is possible that an active radar homer would recieve better radar information from its own seeker, when you factor in that the radar in the missile is both closer to the target and there is no "off" angle...?

[GGTharos]

That's what I think too - and it can also fly a special trajectory to avoid being beamed - a few degrees off here, a few off there ... you could theoretically do a quick TMA too to get approximate range, so when it got really close it would 'know' to stop using special trajectories (thus decreasing miss disntance). This is pure speculation of course.

 

Also, as you said, because it's illuminating the target with its own seeker, there's no 'off' angle. In addition, as the missile closes in, it probably gets a much stronger return than a SARH missile under less-than-ideal circumstances, like the one described above.

 

About the effectiveness of chaff, I don't know. I would imagine it would work best when it is posisble to escape the missile's FoV quickly.

[D-Scythe]

About the effectiveness of chaff, I don't know. I would imagine it would work best when it is posisble to escape the missile's FoV quickly.

 

But still, if you think about it, this makes an active radar missile inherently more resistent to chaff, all other things equal. Since all things are equal, both SARH missiles and ARH missiles would be vulnerable in cases where the target can escape the missile's FOV quickly (as you stated). However, ARH missiles do not suffer from off angle, or unfavorable target orientation where the target reflects most RF energy away from the missile. Like you said, as it gets closer to the target, it's likely to get a much stronger radar return from its own active seeker than an SARH missile can from an illuminating radar.

 

So even if the AIM-120 had comparable computers/software to the AIM-7 (which it doesn't, because it's newer), and they had equal physical performance (even though most sources claim it to be more agile), shouldn't the AIM-120 be able to better hold a lock against a chaff-ing target than does the AIM-7 (as was the case in my F-15 vs. Su-27 trial)? There should literally be no way that the AIM-7 more than doubled the hit rate of the AIM-120 then, even if everything else about the AIM-120 was *undermodelled*.