Yes especially that we have only 10% increase in operational range from AIM-120B to AIM-120C ( NEZ grow greatly from 25 to 27,5km :highly_amused:). More important then range in AMRAAM cases was ECM resistant and better AR seeker in newer models.
Paper is from 1996, but it’s about future of BVR, and up to now we haven’t got any revolution in BVR weapon (maybe except Meteor in the future).

Even assuming that the C5 only has a 10% range improvement (which I’m skeptical of), the C7 has at a very minimum a 10-20% improvement (30-33km), and the D has a 50% improvement over the C7 (45-49.5km). If the figures for the C5 and C7 are on the conservative side, then that would put the D’s NEZ range much closer to that of the Meteor.

The F-35 is not perfect and its had its fair share of problems, I say fair share and not more-than-fair share because it is after quite an accomplishment to fit three aicraft types into one common airframe – especially the B model. It’s also not the fastest bird in the sky or the tightest turning but is does offer fantastic SA (perhaps the best a fighter pilot has ever known) to the pilot thanks to superb avionics and its all coupled to an airframe that is far far less observable than the jets it replaces.

My adivce, listen to those who fly it and not the guys who will get to see it at an airshow in 5 years time.

And in regards to its speed/turning, its stats are based upon real world combat performance, rather than what a competitor can do, unhindered by extra weight/drag, in a clean configuration. In other words, its practical abilities match/exceed many theoretical capabilities.

Prove it.

Do some maths, give us the figures.

The people you are dismissing have done that. You’ve provided nothing but words.

You provide no substantial evidence to back up what you claim, yet you feel entitled to dismiss his worked example with a mealy mouthed response and a woeful attempt at strawmaning.
If you have no figures to back that which you claim you should either stfu or be respectful and present your opinion in a less dismissive fashion.
Alternatively you can be written off as an attention seeking troll.

Just saying.

Sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays. As for other posters having proven their point with numbers, that’s laughable. They’ve guesstimated burn times, and then extrapolated all sorts of “facts” about physics, Pks, range, all without any access to pertinent envelope information, and then stated it, as if it were gospel. Yet when others of us are skeptical, we’re the weirdos, for bringing it up. Your opinion has been duly noted.

I actually find it quite amusing how you appeal to “physics,” as if physics itself were somehow issuing an opinion on the matter…

You haven’t even been able to frame the problem correctly, and yet you think “physics” proves your bar napkin calculations correct. :applause:

Missiles -are- off slightly all the time. That is one reason why they need terminal seekers. That doesn’t change the basic facts of how they work. Take a look at this video and the courses the missiles take in flight:

http://youtu.be/4g4_jzqBJnA?t=28s

This is a sidewinder of course, but the basic principal applies. In the shot I started the video at the target is turning… but the missile does not need to make any radical course changes late in its flight because it was taking a short-cut the whole time. The only “hard” turn necessary was just after launch, and that was necessary only because of the close proximity of the target. (and was made while the AIM-9x’s thrust vectoring was in play)

The missile needed to tweak its course in the final moments of flight, but that is all. Even though the target was maneuvering hard the missile was flying a nearly straight course by the time it arrived.

As for the Meteor and Mica NG, the latter of which is only starting development… you need to add the AIM-120D into the equation. More efficient lofting does allow longer ranged shots with more lethality, that is the whole point. The US has spend a great deal of time and money on the AIM-120D, and according to you, once again, they just didn’t know what they were doing. :confused:

A highly lofted shot does suffer some penalties in terms of time of flight, but it adds to the amount of energy the missile will be carrying late in its flight. (with gravity working on its side) If you assume the enemy knows that it has been fired on the moment the AIM-120D is launched that would give them time to turn and run… but that is quite unlikely given that the missile won’t go active until the final seconds of its flight.

Again, physics is a tool, but it is one you have to know how to use. You need to add more than a little common sense into your “calculations.”

I understand this quite well and seem to be the only one of us that does.

Ah yes, try thinking about the “bvr zones” you have made up. :highly_amused:

He’s also failing to account for the difference in time it takes for a missile to cover the same distance, as the plane, when making his statements about physics. The missile need only make very slight course adjustments, to match the much slower jet. He’s also forgetting that while a missile that’s coasting no longer has thrust, it’s also much lighter, which when combined with its kinetic energy, results in good agility.

AIM-120s can be used to attack an opponent or to thwart the attack of an opponent. Those are two very, very different activities.

An F-22 missile shot at 20 miles to spoil the attack of a Typhoon does not give any clue about the missile’s range or the range at which an F-22 can detect a Typhoon.

Additionally, we have no idea how far away all of the engagements were, based upon that statement. All we know is that the Typhoons couldn’t get within 20 miles of the F-22s.

I think you should try to listen to your own advise, again.

In Serbia the Aim120 shot down 5-6 aircraft (the last one might have been a Serbian friendly fire). [This is your best argument]

Really?

In Desert Storm I gave you the stats for over 170 missile shots and some 40 kills. [This is one of several events I use in my arguments]

So who is using the largest amount of data here?

Of those 170 missiles fired, would you share with us how many were fired within their WEZ/NEZ, how many were fired to achieve mission kills, how many passed within their lethal range(or failed to, not due to being fired outside of their WEZ/NEZ), resulting in multiple missiles that would’ve achieved kills (but weren’t counted)?

My figures also happen to work well with the laws of physics, I don’t even need buzzwords to make my case and that usually means I am correct. (even though I’m always open to the contrary if a good case is made)

You’d be taken more seriously if in your range scenarios, you distinguished such things as the altitude/speed of the launch aircraft/target, what aspect the shot was (head on, oblique, tail). You may also want to note that if the target aircraft is manuevering wildly, it’s also losing energy due to bleeding airspeed. Lastly, you’re also taking for granted, that the target aircraft is aware of the inbound threat, which might not necessarily be the case, so you’re in effect giving the target all of the benefit of the doubt, while giving the launch aircraft every penalty possible. Modern AAMs are designed to engage 9g targets, if fired in their NEZ. The NEZ extends beyond the duration of the motor burn.

The historical Pk of missiles has been so thoroughly abused by a handful of amateurs with agendas it is almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion about it. Real air forces have fired thousands of missiles in testing and have a very good idea how they behave… and every single one of them worth noting places a huge emphasis on BVR combat…

He’s making the mistake of taking a limited amount of raw data, and then trying extrapolate. If you fire 2 missiles at a target, the best Pk you’re going to have is 50%, even if both pass within lethal range, simply due to the numbers game, rather than the actual effectiveness. The only way to really know the effectivness, is to exclude all shots outside of the WEZ/NEZ, and then look at how many missiles that were fired within the WEZ/NEZ passed within lethal range. You also need to factor in, that missiles are sometimes fired outside of their envelope, to achieve a mission kill, or to put a foe on the defensive, to set up the kill shot. You can’t hold these tactics against the statistical Pk of the missile itself.