AIM 120
-
@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 didnât 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, itâs 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?
Itâs clearly mentioned
-
@MaxWaldorf said in AIM 120:
@Bloodhound161 did you read the changelog?
Itâs clearly mentioned
Is this what you call âclearly mentionedâ?
From the change log:
âAA Missiles logic and homing radar logic completely reworked for better realism (Fox3)â -
âAA Missiles logic and homing radar logic completely reworked for better realism (Fox3)â
That could also mean: now kill them all, everywhere and always!
Sorry, that only says that you have worked on the 120. Nothing more.
As I said, I appreciate your work very much, it is just missing the documentation here. And if you have not made it in time, it is also ok. I know it now. -
@Bloodhound161 said in AIM 120:
âAA Missiles logic and homing radar logic completely reworked for better realism (Fox3)â
That could also mean: now kill them all, everywhere and always!
Sorry, that only says that you have worked on the 120. Nothing more.
As I said, I appreciate your work very much, it is just missing the documentation here. And if you have not made it in time, it is also ok. I know it now.There wonât be any documentation about AHR implementation
There are still a few glitches to iron out for U1
-
We have done very intensive AIM-120C5 testing within our squadron too the moment 4.36 was released to review our usual BVR timeline & MAR numbers.
Interestingly, during our live firing tests, we have very similar encounters. I would say most of the time the missile works well. But there are a few surprising discoveries that we are still closely monitoring and need more data as proof as it behaves very differently vs 4.35-
Missile goes pitbull - target maneuver - regardless of launcher snips or not, at times the missile would lose track of target and acts like a cheapshot
-
Missile goes cheapshot due to launcher snips well before husky - target does not maneuver & without ECM - at times the missile would surprisingly keep effectively tracking the target
-
Target fox3 hot aspect at you while you fly a crank / flank aspect toward the target, regardless of entering MAR or not, the moment you get a âM spikeâ on RWR, just execute notch maneuver, survival chance is very high, i would say 80%+. This makes respecting MAR & Out maneuver no longer that important. In 4.35 if you entered MAR even if you notched, the chances of being killed was very high & respecting MAR & Out was very important.
These tests were done mostly in the range of 18-30nm and showed a much lower pK of AIM-120C5 vs. 4.35
From one perspective i kind of believe it may be more realistic because the pK of long range BVR missile shot may not be that high actually in real world (?) and thereâs no any public document / data proofing that real life long range BVR shot has high pK anyway. Whether the pK would increase significantly in the range of 5-18nm & maybe having a more reliable pitbull / husky tracking are something we would explore more with more tests.
From another perspective, the notch maneuver has surprisingly high survival rate make me feel a bit unrealistic. But again our test was done at the range of 18nm+ and i google a lot & could not really find any real life data supporting that AIM-120C should have a decent high pK at medium to long range. Maybe at the end of the day itâs really about âprobabilityâ. Nothing wrong about the Notch maneuver but just give you a lower survival chance vs Out maneuver. In real world itâs real life so would mostly go for a safer option vs. in game we could accept higher risk so we dare to notch & take the chance.
And in real life maybe thereâs always defect in production. Maybe some of the AIM-120C5 stock age is too old or maybe some defect resulting in even pitbull but still lose track on the target - who knows
Anyway itâs interesting to have these discoveries to compare vs. 4.35
-
-
We have done very intensive AIM-120C5 testing within our squadron too the moment 4.36 was released to review our usual BVR timeline & MAR numbers.
Interestingly, during our live firing tests, we have very similar encounters. I would say most of the time the missile works well. But there are a few surprising discoveries that we are still closely monitoring and need more data as proof as it behaves very differently vs 4.35-
Missile goes pitbull - target maneuver - regardless of launcher snips or not, at times the missile would lose track of target and acts like a cheapshot
-
Missile goes cheapshot due to launcher snips well before husky - target does not maneuver & without ECM - at times the missile would surprisingly keep effectively tracking the target
-
Target fox3 hot aspect at you while you fly a crank / flank aspect toward the target, regardless of entering MAR or not, the moment you get a âM spikeâ on RWR, just execute notch maneuver, survival chance is very high, i would say 80%+. This makes respecting MAR & Out maneuver no longer that important. In 4.35 if you entered MAR even if you notched, the chances of being killed was very high & respecting MAR & Out was very important.
These tests were done mostly in the range of 18-30nm and showed a much lower pK of AIM-120C5 vs. 4.35
From one perspective i kind of believe it may be more realistic because the pK of long range BVR missile shot may not be that high actually in real world (?) and thereâs no any public document / data proofing that real life long range BVR shot has high pK anyway. Whether the pK would increase significantly in the range of 5-18nm & maybe having a more reliable pitbull / husky tracking are something we would explore more with more tests.
From another perspective, the notch maneuver has surprisingly high survival rate make me feel a bit unrealistic. But again our test was done at the range of 18nm+ and i google a lot & could not really find any real life data supporting that AIM-120C should have a decent high pK at medium to long range. Maybe at the end of the day itâs really about âprobabilityâ. Nothing wrong about the Notch maneuver but just give you a lower survival chance vs Out maneuver. In real world itâs real life so would mostly go for a safer option vs. in game we could accept higher risk so we dare to notch & take the chance.
And in real life maybe thereâs always defect in production. Maybe some of the AIM-120C5 stock age is too old or maybe some defect resulting in even pitbull but still lose track on the target - who knows
Anyway itâs interesting to have these discoveries to compare vs. 4.35
The missile loosing MPRF track sometimes is a glitch
Missile going sometimes weirdo after loosing track in HPRF and reguiding on DL is another glitch
Both will be solved in U1
For the rest , you think people realize how arcade was the aim120 prior to 4.36 âŠ.
-
-
From another perspective, the notch maneuver has surprisingly high survival rate make me feel a bit unrealistic. But again our test was done at the range of 18nm+ and i google a lot & could not really find any real life data supporting that AIM-120C should have a decent high pK at medium to long range. Maybe at the end of the day itâs really about âprobabilityâ. Nothing wrong about the Notch maneuver but just give you a lower survival chance vs Out maneuver. In real world itâs real life so would mostly go for a safer option vs. in game we could accept higher risk so we dare to notch & take the chance.
This issue is coming from glitch #2
When HPRF lock is broken due to the notch , the missile starts guiding back on DL which sometimes was too far off to acquire in MPRF
You need to realize guys that before 4.36 the aim120 didnât really had any limitation in Seeker FOV so now if your target is out of the FOV of the seeker it wonât see it
And btw aim120 seeker is able to orientate its seeker but NOT scan. Therefore when trying to acquire the seeker is not necessarily orientated in front of it particularly when the missile is flying with a big LEAD on the DL target
-
@Bloodhound161 said in AIM 120:
Still, documentation of the changes in AMRAAM behavior and appropriate tactical guidance would be appreciated.
Hi Stefan,
IF it would be possible to document this it would be in the manuals. But for reasons itâs not. -
@Kolbe-49th copy that
-
@Mav-jp Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense. Looking very forward to having both of the glitches optimized & fixed. I would say the missile performance would be perfect & very realistic if MAR & OUT maneuver could be respected and that NOTCH maneuver within MAR would still mean having high chance of being killed.
-
Quick question: How can it be that two AMRAAMS launched in TWS at targets 10 NM away (2x MiG-23) both pick targets 4 NM away (2x MiG-19 that were already hit by the previous salvo)?
-
SoïŒ Does that mean i can jam AIM-120 with ECM or Chaff during its HRPF ? Before 4.36, ECM and Chaff have no effect against AIM-120 when its onboard radar is on.
-
@JOKER_duke Chaff have a 5% chance to succeed or even less (this is a value in database)
ECM isnât working at this range (youâre basically becoming a huge noisy target )
I think short shots need to be at the right angle⊠Think about SAMs, the closer you are the best because the missile has so much inertia, the maneuver is limited!
-
Thanks to Maxâs answer.
So our tactic is the same as it before 4.36 when evading aim-120 except for employment of Chaff.
In conclusion, when evading aim-120, shut off ECM due to HOJ and employ some chaff if you want . -
@JOKER_duke Best option will remain high speed maneuvers to bleed missile energy offâŠ
Chaffs will only improve slightly chances of survival.
-
Quick question: How can it be that two AMRAAMS launched in TWS at targets 10 NM away (2x MiG-23) both pick targets 4 NM away (2x MiG-19 that were already hit by the previous salvo)?
Because the aim120 are not guiding to the targets but to a position where the FCR believes that the target is.
The accuracy of this FCR estimation is very dépendant on FCR submode
On TWS which is the worst , the accuracy on position and speeds are very poor. When the aim120 then activated his seeker , he will look at the position where it believes the target is. But in reality this target can be miles out. If other targets are within the seeker it will pick up those ones.
The aim120 can not check if the target itâs seeker picks up is the same of the original
From FCRThis is why having q clear avenue of
Fire is crucialIf you want to maximize your chance to pick up the correct target , fire in STtâŠand even then it tWo contacts are very close there will be no garantee that the aim120 will pick the original one
-
Quick question: How can it be that two AMRAAMS launched in TWS at targets 10 NM away (2x MiG-23) both pick targets 4 NM away (2x MiG-19 that were already hit by the previous salvo)?
Because the aim120 are not guiding to the targets but to a position where the FCR believes that the target is.
The accuracy of this FCR estimation is very dépendant on FCR submode
On TWS which is the worst , the accuracy on position and speeds are very poor. When the aim120 then activated his seeker , he will look at the position where it believes the target is. But in reality this target can be miles out. If other targets are within the seeker it will pick up those ones.
Worse than that
If you fire on targets that are notching , the aim120 will first try to do a search in HPRF, if you have Hot contacts within FOV of the seeker like behind the original ones , the seeker Will track HPRF the targets behind
The aim120 can not check if the target itâs seeker picks up is the same of the original
From FCRThis is why having q clear avenue of
Fire is crucialIf you want to maximize your chance to pick up the correct target , fire in STtâŠand even then it tWo contacts are very close there will be no garantee that the aim120 will pick the original one
-
@JOKER_duke said in AIM 120:
SoïŒ Does that mean i can jam AIM-120 with ECM or Chaff during its HRPF ? Before 4.36, ECM and Chaff have no effect against AIM-120 when its onboard radar is on.
If you want to break a HPRF lock you just need to notch
HPRF is relying on positive relative velocity
If you break lock and opponent broke FCR the the missile will go Inertial on last parameters known (by the last DL message received , NOT hprf whonis unable to give a position )and will do a MPRF search around the « interpolated calculated position » which can be miles away âŠ.but again if another contact is within this area it will pick it as target , even a friendly of course
If your opponent kept lock it will guide back On DL
And now you understand : never launch a aim120 in a furball anymore
-
I never had the impression that the FCR is this imprecise, even in TWS. The TD box is always on the target (unless the radar lost it) and the distance shown on the MFD looks plausible (also, isnât ranging just a matter of measuring the time between emission and return?).
I understand that speed and direction may be inaccurate (though closure rate should be rather easy to measure too), but I never saw the TD box show me anything other than the actual position.
What I did notice (already in 4.35) is that TWS needs a while to update the target location. When using the TGP to look at a radar contact, the target would slowly drift out of the FOV until the next position update hits.
Are RWS/TTS (itâs such a pain in the ass to get the cursor off the bugget target in RWS) better or is only STT good?