havent tested the GR’s but they will suffer from the same issues, F.3 is the key one whose G pull is down from 15-45%
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lrYODXRjD4XF
Nah Terminator is purely A2G
Ok, so thats what, 2 F-4’s capable of firing AMRAAM’s? Maybe 3 with the EJ Kai? Looks like one of the 3 can wing mount them atleast. As for which one, and how the wing config is, who knows…
I’d assume with the size and weight of the AMRAAM they might be able to be mounted on the side rails on the wing pylons. They could definitely fit on the bottom of the rail, but in that case, im curious if they could still run AIM-9’s on the side rails…
Itd be cool to see an F-4F ICE with 6xAIM-120B’s and 4x AIM-9L(i)-1/IRIS-T
1 Like
The pic is F-15 btw and also this is the only vid of that specific AIM-120 launch I could find
1 Like
There’s barely any info about EJ Kai testing ARH to the point where its existence is put into doubt but even if it indeed was an ARH testbed it would not have been integrated with AIM-120 but rather Japanese AAM-4 instead
1 Like
well, that fixes the “allegedly” part
1 Like
February 2nd, 2004 AirForce budget was published with information suggesting the AIM-120C-5 did not yet incorporate software for off-boresight use. The AIM-120’s with off-boresight capability would be limited to AIM-120C-6+.
The budget report distribution is “A”, available for public distribution.
4 Likes
As I have said many many times, I am pretty retarded but “IMPROVED hobs” sounds more like “It had it but we made it better” (i.e. added an extra 10 degrees)
1 Like
So per fiscal year 98, we can see they were already discussing improving the capability of HOBS. Their language is extremely ambiguous however.
Page 8 btw.
Here’s an article with Raytheon as the source:
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/first-live-amraam-firing-from-eurofighter-apr-26/
C-5 did possess HOBS; it was limited compared to the C-7 in capability. To what extent I’ve not found.
2 Likes
All the stuff I’ve read on DTIC says they were improving the C-5 to possess better HOBS. That seemed to be dependent on smaller more affordable electronics systems in every document I could find. FY96 was the first mention I found of upgrading the electronics for an increase in off-boresight capabilities.
4 Likes
Some users of another forum have been doing some hard math to determine performance of various missiles based on evidence found from pictures and online. They came up with a thrust diagram for the AIM-120A that is almost identical to the actual performance shown in documentation that is available.
3 Likes
Hi, may i ask if there is more info about these shots and comparison - how it was done or calculated? Mainly about the sparrow and if there is something to prove these as unclassified documents?
Hasn’t it become standard practise for when launching AMRAAMs, to pitch nose up on launch, to reduce the amount of energy wasted by the missile lofting itself?
Haven’t played DCS for a while, but seems to remember it being taught in a tutorial, or a user tutorial on YouTube.
I remember it becoming standard practise when I was engaging targets at range.
Lock.
Launch cue.
Pitch up 5-10° & launch.
Turn away from target to max Radar gimbal angle to maintain lock until Pitbull.
Going to or being near max gimbal angle put you part way to notching, so if you had to go defensive, you’d already be part way there.
Not sure if it’s an IRL tactic though. Definitely done in DCS though.
I do it all the time in DCS and also with F-14 in WT and YAK-141. With everything else I don’t loft cuz I shoot at closer ranges.
1 Like
One step I did miss from the sequence.
Accelerate.
Along with the missile lofting itself, it also uses a lot of energy getting up to and past Mach 1.
Lock
Accelerate past M1.0
Wait for Launch cue
Pitch up
Launch
Manoeuvre to maximum radar gimbal and maintain lock until Pitbull.
Accelerating is not as important as climbing. You could launch from mach 1.2 on the deck (which takes time to accelerate), or begin climbing to a higher altitude and then launching from 0.9 mach. The launch from 0.9 mach at a higher altitude will almost always hit the target first.
Another example, you have two fighters at 0.9 mach (they accelerated to this speed from the runway, so are at sea level). Both decide to climb to 10km. One launches the missile sooner from 0.9 mach. The other takes the additional 30 to 60s accelerating before launching at ~1.5 mach.
The one who accelerated is now closer to the target, his missile reaches the target later, and he has to defend against an enemy missile that he is now potentially within the minimum abort range for.
Anyhow, climbing is more important than accelerating unless there is time to accelerate before coming within the minimum abort range of the enemy ordnance.
Only the ground launches video is relevant
