U2 radar & AIM-120C5 impression
-
Good evening pilots
First of all big thanks to the BMS team very much for the U2 release. The AIM-120C5 seems much more reliable now. We would definitely do more live firing tests to check it out.
With great potential range increase for AIM-120C5, has anyone had feeling that the radar seems very easy to break lock especially in the 35nm+ range, that even under STT mode chances are very high that a Rpi shot would very often end up cheapshot quite easily
Seems like the radar is getting old; With such a powerful weapon available now, the radar capability seems a bit difficult to catch up.
-
@Osprey I think it will be easy to get out of lock after the radar locks on the target, and when will aim120c7 be made?
-
@Osprey Look carefully at the surface font of aim120c5, but it says aim120c7. I wonder if this is a hint of the future.
-
@Osprey - if you are shooting AIM-120s out of STT, you are doing it wrong…
-
@Stevie uh oh here we go again … https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/22356/aim-120
it’s a very long thread with a lot of disagreeing (opinions? facts?) about how well TWS works vs STT, in terms of providing command-steering guidance for an AIM-120
I have no real-world knowledge to share. But in BMS currently (haven’t tried U2) you may find you get better guidance from STT than from TWS/RWS.
-
@airtex2019 - if STT works like it does in RL, you shouldn’t be able to support anything but a single shot with it…which is NOT the purpose of an AIM-120.
STT is primarily a mode for support of AIM-7. That is what it was developed for.
-
@Stevie I normally shoot AIM-120 under DT-SAM mode (softlock). It is because it breaks lock very easily hence using STT (hardlock) to try further stabilize the radar track to avoid lock breaking as much as possible. But still radar lock breaks quite easily but this only happens in the range of 35nm+. When target is within 35nm, you can have a very stable lock under DT-SAM mode without any problem.
-
@Osprey - that’s actually more realistic. Using STT isn’t…unless you just want to get the radar funneled in on a single specific target and then transition to TWS for multiple shots within the volume.
You also need to manage your scan volume properly with TWS - tighter is better.
-
@Stevie
Didn’t we learn not to use TWS if we want a good pk? -
@Osprey @Stevie the other dimension to consider here is small, maneuvering fighters vs large, high-aspect bombers.
eg. if a bomber is coming directly toward you, is it reasonable acquire lock and fire at 35nm? maybe. fighter? maybe not. (idk)
and similar wrt TWS scenarios … is it reasonable to fire 2 (or more) at a group of large, high-aspect, non-maneuvering targets? maybe. but a group of fighters which will turn, drag and burn? maybe not.
Again I don’t know anything about RL doctrine or expected PK… just calling out that it’s a thing to aware of now, in BMS 4.36.x
-
@Stevie said in U2 radar & AIM-120C5 impression:
@Osprey - that’s actually more realistic. Using STT isn’t…unless you just want to get the radar funneled in on a single specific target and then transition to TWS for multiple shots within the volume.
You also need to manage your scan volume properly with TWS - tighter is better.
TWS is not a firing mode in real and there is a good reason for that
-
@airtex2019 Why firing at 35nm+ is because the AIM-120C5 now is much more capable and has a much longer range capability If you fly in PvP against professional pilot with ID hostile regardless of highly maneuverable fighter or big fat bomber, i’m quite confident you would feel surprise that you would be dead already way before your missile goes husky or even before you launch your Fox3 at your comfortable usual range. First-launch-opportunity is what i’m talking here but need support from a same-level / capable / stable radar too.
-
@Mav-jp are SAM and TTS modes as effective as STT, for firing … or are they somewhat in between STT and TWS?
(And I say “firing” but really I mean supporting the missile guidance up until pitbull.)
-
@Mav-jp - try telling that to a RL fighter guy and see how far you get…or maybe the Viper’s TWS isn’t up to snuff with what I know?
-
@airtex2019 - this is actually a case where BMS needs further research…
-
@Stevie From what i heard, not suggested to fire under TWS either due to bigger error on track files. The error / higher level of inaccuracy come from interpolation from TWS. From what i heard, it is suggested to fire in DT-SAM or STT, mostly DT-SAM is very enough but if want to commit attacking with highest chance of reliable support / guidance on missile, STT is recommended. The only disadvantage of STT is that you lose radar SA on other contacts & that you would trigger enemy’s RWR so need to be very cautious when using STT.
STT is considered a hostile act even in normal peacetime so should be avoided as much as possible. This is what i heard but maybe some operates differently or have different regulations. But generally speaking I agree with Mav that TWS isn’t a suggested firing mode due to its bigger error. TWS is okay for multiple non maneuvering targets, but for highly maneuvering targets the track file would accumulate too much error resulting in poor missile guidance. -
@Stevie I don’t think that’s the case…
I could argue that you can’t rely on your logic as well because you just don’t know and haven’t checked what you say by RL pilots…
As said in a previous post, forget what you think you know about it and start over.
-
@MaxWaldorf - I work with RL fighter pilots of a living. For the last 38 years. So I check with them every day…
-
@Stevie do they give no consideration of the tactical scenario?
eg. incoming flight of bombers (fleet-defense scenario)
vs. engaging an opposing 4-ship CAP flight (strike escort scenario)And, assuming Navy … are we talking Rhino generation radar modes, or legacy Hornet generation?
I think the crux of the problem is the extrapolation of movement, between consecutive TWS scans painting the target(s).
So (I have no idea, just imagining) there’s a huge difference between extrapolating the path of an incoming bomber, and extrapolating the path of a fighter turning away / defending.
I can also imagine maybe there’s a huge generational advantage to the newer AESA radars, for this kind of thing?
-
@Stevie said in U2 radar & AIM-120C5 impression:
@MaxWaldorf - I work with RL fighter pilots of a living. For the last 38 years. So I check with them every day…
Happy to get your sources confirmation but this is not what we’ve been told by our trusted sources…
TWS is fine for SA but not good for engagement (at least with the radar capacity BMS has modeled)