AIM 120
-
You can have a look at the 4.36 change log, fox-3 (especially AIM-120) success rate has been reworked…
If you want to have a descent PK on a maneuvering target, you must now lock the bogey in STT (TWS is not enough in many case)
-
@TOPOLO sorry, I have searched but there is no clear definition of how the state of bugged target impact the performance of the AIM-120 in the documentation or in change log.
Do you know for instance, if only STT is mandatory now to have a good PK ?
or SAM selection from RWS can also be good to score a hit ?And finally, is this mitigate the use of multi-amraam in air now ?
Thanks for your insights.
-
@ericfa2a it certainly mitigate the capability to fire 2 fox-3 on 2 targets… but it is still possible against large non maneuvering targets…, or close ones
You can still fire an AMRAM on a target without going STT, but you have to be closer if you want to have a good PK
-
@TOPOLO That is absolute nonsense. As long as the RADAR has good track and doesn’t lose the target, the RADAR mode should not matter (RWS/TWS soft-lock vs. STT).
STT just makes the RADAR focus on that one target, but does not change the ability for the RADAR to track a target and provide mid-course updates to airborne missiles (TWS and firing on multiple targets at once).
If missile PK is directly linked to RADAR lock state then that is totally bogus.
If the targets are aggressively maneuvering, then maybe TWS can be wrong and mis-guide the missile, lowering PK as a result of the RADAR tracking mode, but in many situations this isn’t the case (remembering the relative motion of the target is small from the perspective of the RADAR viewpoint). Only if the target makes large vertical maneuvers or starts beaming will PK materially drop, but that would happen even in STT.
@fvelazdem What difficulty level were the AI? If ACE, they are all-knowing, perfect pilots and will evade most missile shots. Try Veteren if you find they are too good (I know I do).
I went 1 vs. 2 BVR with 2x Su-27 and they would evade everything I threw at them (usually just by turning cold and dragging the missile). I’ve seen the same with other AI aircraft at ACE level.
-
@TOPOLO That is absolute nonsense. As long as the RADAR has good track and doesn’t lose the target, the RADAR mode should not matter (RWS/TWS soft-lock vs. STT).
You are terribly wrong about that
The aim120 is guided with Datalink messages
This messages contains all the necessary information about the target tracked by the FCR
The target track has many uncertainties that come from plenty of errors in the system , INs , DL message errors but in particular the errors coming from the FCR itself
In TWS the position and speed error of the target can be huge , that’s is because the radar is scanning at a very low rate and got minimal info
On the contrary in STT all the energy of the radar is focused at high rate to the target and therefore its position and speed have much less errors build in
That’s how the real works
-
You are terribly wrong about that
In TWS the position and speed error of the target can be huge , that’s is because the radar is scanning at a very low rate and got minimal info
On the contrary in STT all the energy of the radar is focused at high rate to the target and therefore its position and speed have much less errors build in
That’s how the real works
I understand that (maneuvering vs. non-maneuvering target).
My own experience has been against non-maneuvering targets, so TWS track should be relatively accurate.
To be clear then: the PK is not magically linked to RADAR tracking mode, but is genuinely organic as described?
-
@Mav-jp And what about SAM mode then ? It is between STT and TWS in a way no ? It must stay good to track the primary bugged target at least ?
-
-
You are terribly wrong about that
The aim120 is guided with Datalink messages
Even if the AIM 120 is pitbull…?
-
-
@Bloodhound161
We have intensively tested the AIM 120 today. It was very sobering. Partially, the missile did not track the target despite pitbull (!), even worse: the weapon performed a 90° direction change (what a bullshit).
The “Husky” mode is obviously no longer implemented Despite all the correct BVR parameters (which you can get from professionals as an interested layman) -> high altitude, fast, small M-Pole, perfect loft… the missile goes into nirvana. The magic forces of a MiG 29A are not even taken into account, the AMRAAM is simply seen through the clouds and exactly at the right moment I turn out with exactly the right speed… you can do it that way. But it’s grout. I love the challenge, but that’s not really possible. And when I read that TWS is actually no longer useful and you have to clarify everything in the STT… well. Since if this goes on there are alternatives in BVR with better graphics.
Sorry, I really appreciate your work but I’m really worried… -
@Bloodhound161 said in AIM 120:
@Bloodhound161
We have intensively tested the AIM 120 today. It was very sobering. Partially, the missile did not track the target despite pitbull (!), even worse: the weapon performed a 90° direction change (what a bullshit).
The “Husky” mode is obviously no longer implemented Despite all the correct BVR parameters (which you can get from professionals as an interested layman) -> high altitude, fast, small M-Pole, perfect loft… the missile goes into nirvana. The magic forces of a MiG 29A are not even taken into account, the AMRAAM is simply seen through the clouds and exactly at the right moment I turn out with exactly the right speed… you can do it that way. But it’s grout. I love the challenge, but that’s not really possible. And when I read that TWS is actually no longer useful and you have to clarify everything in the STT… well. Since if this goes on there are alternatives in BVR with better graphics.
Sorry, I really appreciate your work but I’m really worried…Tested again during 3 hours with unleashed code in order to catch. Glitch
Absolutely no issue except the glitch I found when HPRF track is lost after a crank and missile is guiding back in Datalink with original error Build in.
HPRF is of course perfectly implemented
I have no idea of what you are doing but obviously something wrong
I would appreciate very much a solid repro case of what you are doing
By the way in order for you to better understand which phase the missile is’ flying , just watch the missile in external view and read the info bar.
-
@Bloodhound161 Do you have any acmi? Missiles are much more realistic now. Husky is absolutely fully implemented and working. The only thing that sparks my interest in your post, is your missile which went to ‘nirvana’ after being fully supported to pitbull. This is something that we tested and have seen before but I think during our test Mav caught something in relation to HPRF and datalink information which may cure this anomaly. Otherwise all other tests (I’m talking many tests for days in MP environment) the missile behaviour is working better than ever. No more magic missiles, no more cut and run! TWS mode is still a useful and effective mode…but not like before. Please get an acmi / video / data if you can. Otherwise nothing can be done to help or to see what may have been the issue, if there is one.
-
@unleashedcode said in AIM 120:
@Bloodhound161 Do you have any acmi? Missiles are much more realistic now. Husky is absolutely fully implemented and working. The only thing that sparks my interest in your post, is your missile which went to ‘nirvana’ after being fully supported to pitbull. This is something that we tested and have seen before but I think during our test Mav caught something in relation to HPRF and datalink information which may cure this anomaly. Otherwise all other tests (I’m talking many tests for days in MP environment) the missile behaviour is working better than ever. No more magic missiles, no more cut and run! TWS mode is still a useful and effective mode…but not like before. Please get an acmi / video / data if you can. Otherwise nothing can be done to help or to see what may have been the issue, if there is one.
Not trying to nitpick, just trying to understand my best tactics:
If my AMRAAM goes PITBULL, does my radar-locking mode STILL matter (RWS/TWS/STT)?
-
@SoBad No… once the missile is pitbull… it is guiding purely off it’s own missile radar only… hopefully you supported the missile during HPRF so the missile has it’s ‘best’ optimal chance of being near the target so the missile can go active and find what you fired at…
-
@unleashedcode
So if the missle goes off the rail and is pitpull immediatelly (at least according to FRC) then everything should be fine?
That’s what we thought too. -
@unleashedcode said in AIM 120:
@SoBad No… once the missile is pitbull… it is guiding purely off it’s own missile radar only… hopefully you supported the missile during HPRF so the missile has it’s ‘best’ optimal chance of being near the target so the missile can go active and find what you fired at…
be careful
Even if the missile is guiding in HPRF, if the contact is manoeuvering it can break the HPRF lock, and therefore the Missile will be back on the DataLink
If you didnt support until MPRF , it may therefore go AWOL if the bandit broke HPRF lock
-
I flew Instant Action a bit and found out that AMRAAMs fired in target rich environments in TWS (didn’t test RWS) have a much lower chance of locking the right target than in 4.35.
The problem is not that they don’t hit anything, it’s that they often lock the wrong target, often one that is closer than the real target. This happens at any range, it happens at 15 NM (I rarely launch from further away) and it also happens below 10 NM (instant pitbull), both with maneuvering and non-maneuvering targets.
4x AIM-120 launched at 4x MiG-29 resulted in multiple missiles picking the same MiG and only two MiGs actually being hit.
But also 2x AIM-120 launched at 2x MiG-23 (15 NM IIRC) both hit MiG-19s something like 5 NM in front of the 23s. How can a missile be this far from the actual target?
-
Is it me or 120 losing too much energy from small movement? slight zig-zag and it cant reach target anymore. Revisited BARCAP TE again, can’t even touch Mig 29 now.
-
@Mav-jp
First of all thanks to MavJP and especially to unleashedcode for the support. Actually I understood some things Understand me correctly: for years you fly tactics that work and suddenly (almost) nothing works. The 120 is the most important weapon in our squadron and the handling of it is essential, that might be the problem: we didn’t know that something elementary has changed. I always assume that the DEV team is trying to make BMS even more realistic. That should be the plan. Please communicate something like that, it’s important. Sorry for my somewhat harsh criticism, that was the result of a memorable evening of flying. Still, documentation of the changes in AMRAAM behavior and appropriate tactical guidance would be appreciated. -
@Bloodhound161 did you read the changelog?
It’s clearly mentioned