Unfortunately it is just discussion of how the AIM-120D variant extends range without an improvement in the motor type… they fail to understand that the motor can be improved and retain the same name. Such as how the AIM-9H and AIM-9X both initially used a “Mk36 rocket motor”.
1 Like
The 2nd page seemed to discuss guidance time, but sadly no battery life mentions, as far as I read
Some say in the thread it’s 25-30 seconds guidance. Some say it’s 165 seconds total flight time, maybe I mixed up the words I read, but that’s what I remember reading
They’re discussing Meteor or something it seems.
Here’s an image that’s more amraam specfic, this was pulled via a google search
The study linked in the image:
It’s just a guess as to how the AIM-120C-5 would perform using a bunch of public information as a basis for the video game “DCS”.
1 Like
Fair, DCS being the sim it is can’t be entirely accurate, but still noteworthy speculation in my opinion
1 Like
Well, their modeling of the AIM-120C-5 is pretty good as far as we are currently aware… but their modeling for the AIM-120B missed the mark entirely. The new sources I found since they made that and put it in their game has shown a rather large discrepancy in their performance of the missile to what is publicly known at this time. I’m gonna take it all with a pinch of salt for now.
1 Like
A salt pinch is all you really need to be looking at it with, I mean, no one really knows what isn’t public truely, we can do math and science studies to try, but until it’s revealed by x government we have no full idea really
2 Likes
Yes we all know that is med to high prf…
Wait your image? The image says little I can produced many images and sources stating the opposite about Hi PRF in reference to actual combat applications. It’s a general book on radio waves. I just want to read it some more and get back to you.
Everything is right except one thing. High average power for long range detection. . Because yes, range is no issue. it’s the return signal travelling the distance that is and processing it. Yes, you can detect something at a standstill. but targeting fast moving objects is another story. No from what I read.
Feel free to share “many images and sources stating the opposite about Hi PRF in reference to actual combat applications”. I’ve found none that delineate from what the book says.
@Ziggy1989 I’m replying to MaMorans comment about the advantages of HPRF and MPRF. The AIM-120 has two separate and specific guidance modes. It chooses whichever is most optimal for specific scenarios and does that on it’s own. You keep referencing my point of “head-on” mode as if it’s the solution to you “winning” whatever this argument has turned into.
You’ve spent the last few weeks learning about radars, and now you’ve read the book and understand that multiple different PRF’s within each zone can offer better performance than just one specific frequency. That’s good, but it doesn’t change the fact that HPRF is more useful to the AMRAAM for most “normal” intercepts as shown here by @MaMoran20 a little over a week ago now.
The HPRF mode for the AMRAAM would allow it the ability to detect and track targets traveling at a high rate of speed in head-on aspects easier than in MPRF… MPRF would be better suited for targets that are defensive. MPRF would be more appropriate for most small and fighter sized targets.
This was not your initial understanding, but I’m glad we’ve come to the same conclusion now.
And of course, despite all of this you still felt the need to make it out to be something personal. I don’t know why you felt the need to tag Spacenavy in this. Weird to me that you’d bring up someone elses’ dirty laundry in an attempt to spite me.
If you would be so kind as to not leave such immature and unrelated comments on my thread I’d appreciate it.
You referencing anything I may have said that was erroneous means nothing because you had not the faintest idea of what you were discussing at the time you initiated the argument a few weeks ago. This whole personal issue thing is harming the potentially beneficial discussion and purpose of the thread.
Are we able to clean up the thread? The discussion was pretty relevant but the personal issues need not be continued. I’d like to keep this thread a more respectful place open for discussion and learning.
Also in regards to Ziggy’s comment about me somehow cherry picking sections of the book… it quite clearly summarizes the strengths and limitations of each PRF in the chart. I did not mis-quote it, I did not pull this specifically because it fits what I am trying to say. It is simply what it is, and that is factual.
Highlighting specific sections on HPRF and playing around the semantics of the text and it’s meaning doesn’t help anyone understand the topic any better. It confuses them.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1153205959229980722/image.png
If you have personal disputes with someone, then take it to PM… the forum is not the place for it!
Indeed!..
This will remain civilized… if you have nothing nice nor constructive to say, then say nothing and move on…
7 Likes
This from the Sea Harrier FA.2 manuals suggests a 40nm max range for the 120B
6 Likes
Usually stated as 30+ but ultimately means nothing to us without the launch zone diagrams sadly
You got it P
Naturally but having a upper limit is somewhat helpful.
1 Like
We don’t know that it’s the upper limit, or at what altitude
Harrier is also subsonic tho