:highly_amused:

Sure, and with that same logic an AIM-120A has the same range as an AIM-120D, right? Same flawless logic right?

I would suggest that you not quit your day job.

I think it’s time you actually make an attempt to understand what you are trying to answer.

I see one person use sources and make valid claims (backed up by the manufacturer of the missile) and the other just trolling and attacking his persona.

Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously?

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.

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]
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?

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)

It might surprise you to learn this, but the S-200 is a thoroughly obsolete system. You might as well be using 1960s era AIM-7s as stand-ins for modern AMRAAMs, and in a sense you are.

As a system of 1960s-1970s vintage the S-200 is essentially an analog system that employes only simplistic guidance algorithms. Modern missiles are more than smart enough not to go weaving all over the sky because a target starts an S-weave…. all it takes is a computer smart enough to differentiate the path a target is actually taking and its vector at any given moment. A target executing an S-weave will present a dumb missile with a multitude of different intercept points causing it to continually maneuver to adjust its own path, while a smart missile will see that despite its weaving the target’s path still offers one reasonable intercept area to target. The missile will arrive in that intercept area without having wasted a bunch of energy jittering all over the sky because of the S-weave, with more than enough retained to execute any necessary terminal maneuvers.

Has the laws of physics changed that much since the 60s?

Missiles will always have to over compensate the targets movements, energy management has likely improved but drag works the same way today.

An analogy, since one appears to be necessary, would be to imagine yourself running to intercept a person on a football field. You would presumably head for an intercept point rather than simply running directly at whatever your target’s current location is. What if your opponent started an S-weave? Are you going to find yourself twitching back and forth as you try to update where you think he is heading? … of course not. You will recognize that the various little turns and jukes he may be making are of little consequence in terms of his actual path. That is the difference between your ~50 year old missile and a modern one. If you attempted an S-weave against a modern missile all you would do is hurt your chances.

The target mover vertically as well by mixing zig-zags, yo-yos and so on. Energy management has improved, but we are talking about a few seconds in the end game. If the target can make the missiles entry vector just half a degree off it will become impossible to get a hit.

You can use any buzzword you like in an attempt to refute it but the facts are what they are. If the missiles angle is just slightly off or if the reaction is just a little bit late or if the entry vector isnt perfect the target has very good chances of out maneuvering it, especially after burnout. But after burnout it is also quite possible to succeed in out maneuvering it anyway, even if it’s trickier.

Speaking more generally now. You seem to think your back of envelope calculations can somehow disprove the collective knowledge, experience and test results of the world’s leading air forces. Try going to Red Flag sometime and explaining your theories of what the AMRAAM, MICA, etc’s real effective range is. Do you honestly think you just cracked open some mystery that the various defense contractors and design bureaus around the world have not yet grasped?

Please note that I am talking about high Pk envelope (backed up by actual historical performance) and a lower Pk envelope (also backed up by statistics).

I am in no way saying its impossible to get the kills, only that a target with good situational awareness and high performance kinematic performance will be a very hard target once over 50% of the missiles agility is gone. Add to that the missiles rapid loss of speed if the target plays his cards right and it’s very clear why thrust is so important.

It’s no coincidence why Meteor has a booster + ramjet or MICA NG is getting a second boost for the end game or why Nudelman in the 60s used thrust in turning to improve the missiles turn performance and range. I am not disproving anything from the air forces, I just show how they numbers are broken down.

Some may say that as long as the missile has a speed over mach 3 the turn performance is good enough to be challenging for the target. If that is the definition of a good BVR engagement range in exercises then so be it. Historically that is enough to get a desired Pk of 25%, and 25% is ok if you get the first shots off and can get away from the situation afterwards.

What was inaccuarate that WW said? To say that “The D uses a different flight profile, to extend its range. The flight profile plays a large role in the range, not just the burn time.” is perfectly true. I’m not sure why you consider it wrong.

Why don’t you plot that out on a graphical chart, add the air density in that chart (needed for drag) and look at what angles you end up with. The lofted profile is only good for the very long range and low Pk engagements.

You have propulsion for 11km.
It needs a vertical change in position of 3km minimum to have any form of useful range extension, preferably even more. But everything after the 11km is a glide flight where over 50% of the agility is lost already. And after something like 2-5 seconds of sharp turning it has lost nearly 50% of its velocity and even more of its turn performance (and thats the result of a target doing zig-zag or yo-yo).

There are very good reasons why engagement envelopes look like this:

The one exception today is the Meteor but it has very little information regarding actual performance. Its even possible that an AIM120D can hit slow targets at a greater distance due to lower drag. Another exception may be the MICA NG, currently in development… and Python 5 that has a very very long sustainer. But the Python 5 has the sustainer to maintain some agility, not to have enough speed to chase down a target.

I thought we all agree on this.. When a missile runs out of fuel and Thrust, its pretty much become SPEAR rather than an ARROW. It loose 75% of its agility and it drops quickly Down to being a STONE as it try to follow a target…
This is pure physics and Logic, Why is this so hard to understand!?

I guess physics only work when the target is not coming from Lockheed Martin.

Not true. According to RAF AIM-120C-5 has 10% better operational range than C-5 (2012 Air International , Typhoon A Year on the road). And yes -Raytheon gives 50% greater range to C-5, which is not the true value, according to RAF pilots the usefull range is much smaller. Choose what you believe.

The Aim120C7 has the same engine that the coming AIM120D will use. It is also the exact same missile used for SL-AMRAAM.

A SLAMRAAM fire unit will consist of four to six ready-to-fire AIM-120C7

The burn time is 9 seconds.

There are more F-15s with AESAs (and numerous other avionics upgrades) flying, than there are Su35BMs, first of all. Secondly, I don’t know where you’re pulling these numbers from, in terms of the Irbis being superior to an APG-63(v)3/APG-82, which is what the F-15C/Es are being upgraded with, along with new computers, SATCOM, new digital electronic warfare systems, etc….and the Cs are supposed to get an IRST as well.

Know? What source? That’s some highly optimistic speculation, at best.

At IOC, the F-35 will be using C7/D model AMRAAMs, which are good for considerably more than 40-50km.

Read the burn times, energy drop off over time, maximum G that can be pulled by the missiles after burnout, availability of decent sensors for the Eurocanards, especially for the latest versions.

Against modern adversaries with good pilots the AMRAAM is very short ranged. Your 40-50km are only viable against surplus Soviet aircrafts with rdars and rwrs that don’t work… and you also need a bad pilot in the target ac. If all of that is true then sure, you can get the 40-50km kills.

I used the lowest RCS number for the F35 and put it on the graph where the Irbis E would track that size of target. In real life the target size would be larger and there would be EW.

That graph is making the assumption, that the Typhoon is supersonic, while the F-35 is subsonic. With a combat load, their speeds are pretty comparable. It’s also not an accurate comparison, because the Meteor couldn’t be used against the F-35 at anywhere near its kinematic range, whereas the F-35 could engage further out.

Why would I strap 3 drop tanks on the EF to make the F35 look good? I assume both ac are somewhat optimised for the engagment.

Typhoons can fly M1.4. This isn’t the speed that they fly for the majority of their mission, anymore than the F-22 stays at M1.8 at all times. So……you’re speed advantage relies on the Typhoon already flying at M1.4.

If…..the F-35 were receeding. The detection range head on is much shorter than that. You’re also forgetting that the acceleration times, that you’re using are for a clean Typhoon. Once you start hanging EFTs, and other stores on it, the times increase quite a bit.

Already been acconted for and the assumption is that both at are somewhat optimised for AA engagements. Even vs stealth ac involved you tend to know when the enemy is near because you can track the AWACS and the radars ucurrently used.

All of your arguments have been accounted for several times over.

What you are missing is that there are more sensors, that afterburners also make the jets easy to track from low band radars on the ground (the SR71 was easily tracked by its trail… and the fuselage, at the max range of th radar (just over 400km with the PS-66)).

Stealth is just one attribute and it is just as important as all the others (where the limiting factor always is the most important). For the F35 the limiting factor is missile performance vs detection range where the missile range gets a drop because of kinematik disadvantage.

The fielded sensors of yesterday has a target acquisition range of 50km+, the AMRAAMs high Pk range is <15km. The F35 will have a really hard time coming up from behind any of the Eurocanards. (Based on one sided supercruise, enemy having datalinks and additional radar sources like AWACS etc supporting from behind)