hopsalotSo please explain me why F-15C shoot AMRAAM from 25 km (head on + high alt + high speed condition) in real war against poor equiped MiGs?
I give you a credible sources that AIM-120C-5 has 10% better range than AIM-120B ( RAF – use both of them).
I also give you sources that at least 2 long range shoot took by Shower was evade by MiGs.
This gives us a clue that AMRAAM (and any other BVRAAM) NEZ is rather smaller than 30km especially against modern fighters with good SA. This wasn’t an exercises – this was for real and against much worse equiped adversaries (much older equipement on 9.12 MiGs than on USAF F-15C, no AWACS support, and of course numerically disadvantageous).
But as always you know better,and without any sources you come up with strange conclusion.
Once again you can’t seem to grasp the fact that just because a shot was taken at a certain distance doesn’t mean that that was the maximum possible distance for the shot. Frankly this is something most children would grasp with little explanation. If I kick a ball to a friend that is 10 m away, does that mean that is the farthest I can kick it?
Your basic problem is that you are working from a handful of anecdotes and trying to apply them as if they were a statistically significant data-set. If you had 100 war-time AMRAAM shots, and reliable data on them, you would be able to start drawing some meaningful conclusions from them, but of course you don’t.
Not only that but you are quoting “stealthskater.com”s summary of a BAE paper from 1996? Seriously? It isn’t even completely clear they are talking about AMRAAM:
AAM technology defines the depth of the air battle. “Whoever has the longest reach controls the engagement,” comments fighter analyst Ben Lambeth of the Rand Corporation. Lambeth recalls flying out of Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. F-15s armed with the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range AAM (AMRAAM) took on four F-15s simulating MiG-29s armed with R-27 Alamo MRAAMs and R-73 Archer SRAAMs (Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile). “I never had a tally on any of the bad guys. I rarely saw our wingman. We never put more than 3g on the airplane and we never got inverted. There were missiles and people dying everywhere. “ This result reflects today’s level of technology, in which the within-visual-range (WVR) and beyond-visual-range (BVR) envelopes are separate. A BAE Systems paper from 1996–reflecting the UK thinking that led to the adoption of the BAE Systems Meteor AAM for the Typhoon–points out that a target beyond 40km range “can feel free to maneuver without fear of engagement”. This is echoed by Robert Shaw, former US Navy fighter pilot and author of Fighter Combat Tactics. “There is virtually no missile that you can’t outmaneuver at maximum range. “With today’s weapons–the BAE paper notes–most MRAMM engagements will take place between 15-40 km range. Older short-range AAMs “lack not only total energy but also missile speed” and are most lethal at ranges under 8 km, according to BAE. Between 8- and -15 km, therefore, there is a “commit zone” where the target can still avoid a merge into close combat if the odds are unfavorable. The key to the next generation of MRAAMs–such as the Meteor–is greater range and (more importantly) greater energy at range. The result is a much larger “no-escape zone”
Now you are taking BAE’s word for it? Do you sense any possible conflict of interest there? :confused:
Ok, so lets see here… first they say that fighters equipped with AMRAAMs were able to consistently trounce simulated Mig-29s with R-27s. (Which of course was later proven conclusively in 1999.)
Then it goes on to quote a BAE paper from 1996 speaking generically about MRAAMs. Now at other points I have heard the 3x improvement in no escape zone for the Meteor applied to the AMRAAM specifically, but this paper doesn’t even do that. Even if we accepted that we were talking about the AMRAAM and not one of the world’s other MRAAMs, or just MRAAM’s generically, they are almost certainly talking about an AIM-120A or AIM-120B, both because the AIM-120C was barely operational at that point and because comparing to the A or B would have made the Meteor look better. (and as people around here are Sooo quick to point out for Lockheed, Boeing, and Raytheon, manufacturer claims need to be taken with a grain of salt.)
Of course in the time since 1996 the AMRAAM has seen multiple revisions including most recently the AIM-120D which is generally credited with a 50% increase in range…
hopsaloteverytime my doctor tells me i have cancer and i need to start aggressive therapy or die, i always tell him “classic appeal to authority doc! you can’t fool me with your fancy degrees and decades of experience– I have the internet!”
Indeed… what he is doing is closer to “I have developed my own theory of how cancer works, all the doctors are wrong, look my math proves it!” (then he presents simplistic calculations that are riddled with fundamental errors in assumptions)
hopsalotBVR works. But it’s first with the Meteor and MICA NG that the “high Pk” part of the envelope has got any significant boost.
Try drawing the circles of turn performance and look what happens when the missile is just slightly off (natural situation if you have to lead the target).
Also consider what happens if it has to make turns for 3 seconds or if it flies at low altitude.You can come with as many bs claims as you wish but if you don’t take physics into account you will end up with nothing but words. Like you always do.
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.”
How cold you not understand what you are replying to?
I understand this quite well and seem to be the only one of us that does.
Try thinking about the BVR-zones again.
First part = pretty certain kill (as demonstratd in actual wars) (missile has thrust)
Second part = some likelyhood to hit a slow reacting target. (missile has enough kinetic energy)
Third part = pure luck. (missile can barely maneuver and has a slow relative closing speed, still effective against slow targets like cargo ac)
Ah yes, try thinking about the “bvr zones” you have made up. :highly_amused:
hopsalotAgain no sources;).
But I give you another one:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-05-09/india/27261671_1_astra-missile-air-to-air-missile-visual-range
Astra BVR missiles – similar to AIM-120 in the terms of range.
The strike range is 25-40 km ( probably -25km against fighter, and 40km against non maneuvering target ).
I know that Astra was tested from Su-30MKI fighter with good kinematics ability.
I wouldn’t expect any more range from current AIM-120C-5/C-7 missiles.
You are asserting that because AMRAAM has similar dimensions to Astra that AMRAAM must match the claims made by Astra’s manufacturer. I have already showed you that missiles with essentially identical dimensions can have substantial differences in their range, proving your basic premise wrong.
Even if we assumed that both missiles shared an identical booster, which is itself no a valid assumption, then that still wouldn’t necessarily result in identical range performance given that a great deal is dependent on exactly how the missile operates.
hopsalotIt just wouldn’t be a hopsalot post without an appeal to authority in there somewhere.
It is an appeal to common sense, not that that seems common around here.
When enthusiasts doodling on the back of napkins reach conclusions completely at odds with those reached by all of the world’s competent air forces -somebody- doesn’t know what they are doing.
hopsalotHere comes the production ramp:
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s top procurement official said the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is on track to significantly increase production rates in the fiscal 2015 budget.
Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said he expects to ramp up production of the fifth-generation fighter to 44 planes in 2015 and 66 in 2016, an increase in line with what the Pentagon has previously projected.
“Unless there is a major surprise, I think we will be able to increase production,” Kendall said, noting that there will be a major program review in the fall. “The key, of course, to getting the cost down in production is increasing the rate, so we want to do that as quickly as we can.”
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130613/DEFREG02/306130019/Kendall-F-35-Track-FY2015-Ramp-Rate
Cost per flight hour will drop:
Meanwhile is also good news on the sustainment costs, which are projected to come down “significantly”, Kendall says. The Pentagon is working hard to reduce those lifecycle costs–which could involve adding competition to sustaining the jet. “I think we will make a substantial dent in the current projections,” he says.
Kendall adds that the F-35’s cost per flying hour should decline significantly after a review he expects to conduct in the fall. The current cost figures are based on older estimates by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessments and Program Evaluation office, he says, but those need to be updated. “I can tell you that the number is coming down,” Kendall says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/06/pentagon-procurement-czar-caut.html
hopsalotI say let them butcher each other.
No fan of “humanitarian” interventions like the stuff up in Libya.
If we’re going to war, could it at least be for some sort of national interest like oil or territory?
Though we finally might get two quesitons answered:
1. Does Syria have S300?
2. And how good the system really is?
I agree on staying out of it. It sucks when people die but we just don’t have a dog in this fight.
As for the hardware involved, at least some sources are saying that Syria has Pantir S1, Buk M2E and at least some Mig-29M2s.
This would be in addition to their older inventory of SA-2, SA-3, etc and Mig-21, Mig-25, etc.
hopsalot******! The *******s, another war in the making, another few millions of lives destroyed like they’re not already… all this will turn on them on day though. No empire lasts forever.
Sure, because with 100,000 already dead there isn’t yet a war…
Lets blame the US. Clearly they decided to start a civil war in Syria and invite the Iranians, Hizballah and Russians to play.
hopsalotYou haven’t proved anything.
If I can throw a rock 10 meters using the force X, and by changing the angle will throw it 20 meters, I am not proving that the rock will hit harder in the end. All I prove is that a change in angle offers better range. The force will still be the same.
Similarly you are using the best case scenario for the manufacturer when it comes to range, but you leave out the interesting part. The force used. Without that or an actual flight envelope your bs claim is useless. The least you can do is to show how much more fuel the Aim120D has compared to the A-version, preferably along side with a flight envelope (like the one bligatory has posted).
Luckily we know what fuel the ASTRA has and what the fuel fraction in the missile is. Can you provide this for the Aim120D together with the flight envelope? That would really help to give your statement some level of validity.
I will try it in small words.
Some approaches are more efficient than others. Even with equal available energy a more efficient lofting method can provide both greater range and energy.
There are a lot of opportunities for efficiency or inefficiency in missiles, this goes well beyond lofting.
You can not simply assume all missiles of similar sizes have the same range, period.
hopsalotIf we want to go to real extremes we could assume that the Aim120 can be used to engage enemies as far out as 300km. The likelyhood of a hit will be pretty close to 0 but hey, it’s within the “engagement range”…
In real life the missiles have their highes Pk inside the burn time envelope, for the Aim120C5-latest Aim120D it is roughly 11km.
You are still messing up some basics. AMRAAM maintains the ability to over-match any manned aircraft well beyond the time its motor is burning. This is primarily dependent on the missile’s speed and is really not subject to debate or your internet doodling.
Additionally, you need to understand that even if you were correct that the AMRAAM covers approximately 11km while its motor is burning that would still correspond to a significantly greater “range” in the terms it is usually discussed. Typically when people talk about missile ranges they aren’t talking about the distance the missile actually covers in the air, but the distance between the launch aircraft and the target when the missile is launched. (This explains the huge difference in ranges quoted for the Astra depending on whether the target is approaching or receding from the shooter. The missile itself is capable of traveling the same ground distance in absolute terms.)
Thus, if you had a missile that covered 11km while its motor was burning and you desired for your missile to arrive at the target at the moment its motor stopped burning… you would have to fire the missile while the target was greater than 11km away in a head-on shot, and less in a tail chase shot. Additionally, even if the target detected the launch and reacted instantly (a best case scenario for the target) it is impossible to turn around instantly. The target might immediately begin to turn away from the missile but it will not begin its turn at its maximum achievable turn rate and even when it does reach its best turn rate it will still take it no less than several seconds to turn a head on shot into a beam shot and several more to put the missile on its tail. The bottom line is that even if the target responds the instant the missile is fired, it will still close some additional distance.
Further, due to the nature of proportional navigation if the target sustains any turn rate (suppose the target is holding 7 Gs while trying to achieve a 180 degree turn) the missile will not need to make any major adjustments late in its flight. The missile will adjust its aim point ahead of the target and while the target is drawing a curve in the sky the missile will take a short-cut across the curve. In this scenario even if the target is pulling a steady 7 Gs, the missile won’t need to make much in the way of late game maneuvers at all. Hypothetically a pilot with sufficient time and situational awareness might turn as far away from the missile as possible, and then in the final seconds of the missile’s flight radically change course to force the missile to adjust. The problem with this is that it just isn’t feasible in most cases. (You try watching a supersonic missile over your shoulder while pulling 7 Gs and see how successful you are at timing your final dodge.) Systems like MAWs and DAS might improve this scenario somewhat but it isn’t a betting hand.
After that there is a range where the speed is good enough to provide some turning capabilities. This range is depending on drag and turn rate, ie energy bleed. Inside this part of the envelope (typically airspeed above mach 3) a novice pilot with a late warning could be hit, but a trained pilot with early reactions doing the right maneuvers will have a very high survivability.
This is not true, but I guess it makes for an amusing mental image of air combat… If an AMRAAM is traveling M3+ when it arrives at its target it won’t matter a bit what type of maneuver the target performs or how “trained” he is. We are not talking about SA-2s. Again, try to actually think through your scenario, there is a lot more to this than just waiting until your RWR starts screaming at you and then jerking the stick one way or the other…
These are basically the three zones of BVR, where the first zone usually is WVR.
:confused:
Yeah yeah, we get it, you don’t think BVR really works. All the air forces of the world are confused and just don’t understand the problem as well as you do.
hopsalotYou are wrong. German Typhoons were unable to get within 20 miles of an F-22, because Raptor did AIM-120 shoot at that time and turn away. The BVR exercises will have no sense, when you Can’t use your weapons in simulation.
Why Eurofighters couldn’t get within 20 miles especially in simulation – sth forced him to do so, and the only BVR F-22 weapon is AMRAAM – so conclusion is clear. I give you much more examples in recent post but you just ignore it. AIM-120C-5 has only 10% better range than AIM-120B (according RAF). In real life F-15C shoot AMRAAM from 25 km against poor equiped MiG-29 from 35k ft + 1,4 Mach. So please stop telling me that C-7 will destroy 4.5gen plane from 60km away.
And please give any sources.
:highly_amused:
Let me point out a few small issues with your theory.
1. This was an exercise. In exercises the parties agree to certain ground rules regarding weapons performance. Those rules need not and indeed generally do not reflect actual maximum performance characteristics.
2. The quote says the Typhoons were unable to get within 20 miles of the F-22s. That means that the F-22s were engaging the Eurofighters at 20 miles or greater, not less. That is an argument that an AMRAAM’s effective range against a Eurofighter is no less than 20 miles, since that was as close as the Eurofighters managed to get, not that that is the maximum range of an AMRAAM. You have it completely backwards.
3. Pilots will vary their tactics as demanded by the situation. You can not assume that an F-22 will fight a Eurofighter the same way it would fight a Mig-29. Allied fighters over Serbia were not there trying to set some kind of record for engagement range. Just because they succeeded with shorter range shots does not mean longer shots wouldn’t have been taken under other circumstances.
4. You are wrong. :p
hopsalotI 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 posted a manufacturer’s claims regarding the range of one missile, and then tried to apply that same range to another missile based on nothing more than the fact that the two missiles have similar dimensions.
I proved that missiles with similar dimensions can have very different ranges.
This isn’t complicated as you seem to find it.
hopsalot[ATTACH=CONFIG]217523[/ATTACH]
F-35C doing a Strike Eagle impersonation… 6 x 2,000lb JDAMs and 19,000+ lbs (9,000kg) of fuel.
hopsalotYou are right about that, AMRAAM has larger warhead, less weight, and larger diameter,
which combined means less propellant & more drag meaning less range than ASTRA, let alone ASTRA mark 2,
so assume less range than ASTRA mark 1ASTRA
Weight 154 kg
Length 3570 mm
Diameter 178 mm
Warhead 15 kg (33 lb)AMRAAM
Weight 335 pounds (152 kg)
Length 12 feet (3.7 m)
Diameter 7 inches (180 mm)
Warhead AIM-120C-5: WDU-41/B, 40 pounds (18.1 kg)
: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.
hopsalotThe BAe Dynamics Rapier team used to refer to their product as a hittile. The original version had no proximity fuze, and relied on a contact fuze to detonate the warhead. And as I posted on this forum some time ago, during its trials, the Aster missile scored an impressive series of body-to-body strikes.
I am not certain, but I think he was referring to the last of my comments in the post he was responding to, that missiles are not 100% reliable and that you can’t expect a 1:1 exchange ratio. It is not necessary for a weapon to kill an enemy every time you pull the trigger for it to be combat effective.
Sign In
