On the left side, you can see the line with numbers 20, 40, 60, and 80. That’s the distance in kilometers. The small arrow on the right side of the line shows the distance of the target. The rectangle on the rights side of the line shows the min and max range of the missile (notice how the max range shrinks).
In the upper left corner, you will see two numbers. The bottom one shows a speed of Su-35S (km/h), and the one above shows the speed of the target.
In the upper right corner, you can also see two numbers. The bottom one shows an altitude of Su-35S, and the one above shows the altitude of the target.
In the bottom right, you can see a missile type - “77-1”.
What’s going on:
First, he fires two missiles at the target that is on approx. 10k meters of altitude. Then, notice the sudden switch of targets altitude and speed just before he fires his third missile. This most likely means he engaged the second target.
Some of the information you have stated is not what you think it is, and this was discussed I believe in the R-77 thread already. What you think is multiple targets is actually one target and he is at low altitude iirc. This was a lengthy discussion with people (no offense) more knowledgeable than yourself and discussion / comparison to other documents showed it to be such.
Of course supersonic launches are tested. It’s how they determine operational limitations.
Yeah, going super-duper fast always maximizes range. No one contends with that. But it comes with its risk never mentioned because all we know is DCS and WT. Video game knowledge.
Notice how almost every launch done at supersonic is at high alt? Because it’s very detrimental to a missile to launch any lower in the dense atmosphere. That is more evident that missile launches are usually done subsonic. Especially in combat.
Secondly, the aim-120 is hyper dependent on the launching aircrafts radar and datalink. The farther you sling an aim-120 the less effective it becomes. More susceptible to jamming and natural disruption. Some aircraft capable of using the Aim-120 barely have detection ranges further than you can probably sling an aim120 going Mach at high alt… It’s pointless unless for aircraft like the F22 which is specially designed to drop them at a high rate of speed. Sitting on rails severely limits high speed launch performance.
You ask any pilot if they ever go supersonic to launch the aim120. Their reply would be like why? Why strain the missile and the signal and data from the radar to it? The Aim-120 is already capable 40 NM range subsonic. It’s a medium ranged missile.
Why take the risk just to squeeze some miles out of it and make it a coin toss? The risk of totally wasting an expensive missile is not worth the reward.
Simply wait for them to get into range. Do you believe GJ will implement a 40 nautical mile range launch at subsonic for a medium ranged active homing missile of Western decent? Absolutely not. So what is the point of determining max range when slinging it 42,000 ft flying supersonic?
I don’t think you should be answering for everyone. I certainly think they will give 40NM range for subsonic launched missiles at altitudes of 13,000+m as is possible with the AMRAAM. Fairly certain the AIM-7F can do it already if it just had the seeker range. Of course, no missile will have 40NM range on the deck except for a select few such as AIM-54 due to lofting and other factors for some time.
Ascertaining performance metrics for our own amusement and for comparison to other missiles which also only have public information in similar envelopes.
One of the major improvements of the AIM-120 was reliability, and especially with these kinds of considerations. I don’t think it’s a coin toss to launch at supersonic speeds. In fact, I don’t think it’s a factor in the reliability at all at speeds below 1.8 mach. Our most modern fighters have lower top speeds because speed isn’t everything anymore and that has a lot to do with other factors… not reliability. Still, the primary air superiority fighters such as F-15EX and F-22 are required to go at least mach 2. This isn’t for no reason.
Lol the F22 is not Mach 2 capable to sling aim-120 missiles.
Its Mach 2 capable and can supercruise for maximum combat range. It’s also low observable so it does not need to ever sling missiles in the first place, and it can simply fly into range where its radar is most effective and the Aim-120 as well.
The jet itself extends the range of the missile.
That is why the Americans did not see a need for a long-range missile when the Raptor can simply walk up and shoot the other guy in the head.
That’s a legitimate concern, and there are IRST that can detect at closer ranges. You’re ignoring a very VERY vast number of variables here. The F-22 is most certainly mach 2 capable and slings AMRAAMs as necessary. Intercepting targets sooner rather than later is a requirement / SOP.
AIM-120A itself was designed for massively increased reliability. Do you have anything indicating it’s not so reliable simply due to supersonic launch conditions? You’ve made so many assertions and shared zero relevant data to support them so going off past discussion… I’d really like a source to back those statements up.
IRST can detect a fighter from 40 nautical miles for a pilot does not even know is out there? Through natural atmospheric conditions such as precipitation? That is sensitive and very high tech.
Or do you think every day in the real world is completely clear like video games?
I am sorry, do you know how big the sky is? How big do you think any IRST FOV is? You think it sees its max FOV and has no scan rate either? Jesus Christ.
Hell yeah bro.
the Aim-120 is designed massively increased reliability over what??? The sparrow? Duh.
I am not your teacher. Why waste my time. Everything you read is completely twisted up in video game logic anyway. We already went over this a long time ago.
You’d prove yourself wrong I think, or at the very least you should do it so that you have a solid base from which to support your argument. Instead you sidestep answering any questions like this which is not productive for discussion and continuously builds towards a passive aggressive and unnecessary argument.
Yes… ? What? “Duh”? I don’t understand, it furthers my point.
Yes, it potentially could. You’re forgetting ground radars, L band that can direct enemy fighters to a smaller airspace where they know within a certain inexactness that there is a low observable fighter in the area. There are more than just one fighter patrolling an airspace as well as drones, AWACS, etc. Depending on conditions, it is possible to detect and then later find and track / observe an F-22 in an airspace. This is getting quite off topic, but that is just a drop in the bucket of related things you didn’t even begin to consider before going off on another tangential rant.
Back to the original question, can you provide a source showing most launches aren’t above mach? If not, can you provide any reference to which you decided missiles become wildly unreliable above the speed of sound?
Instead of building a proper base from which to further your point or argument you continue digging a hole from which to assert unfounded opinions.
The F-22 relies on all the same support to do it’s job, if it were to scan long range with it’s own radar it would very likely give up the position or allow the enemy to collect emissions data on the radar signature to improve their chances of detecting it in the first place. Oh, and the IRST is MANDATORY which is why they are being upgraded to incorporate one as we speak.
Is this kind of commentary necessary? Support your position, please. I’m really just interested in discussing the claims you’ve made and you do nothing to support them.
They are used for duplication of aircraft navigation systems and in case of ejection to navigate on surface and can be any GPS/Glonass navigator pilot decided to buy.
Garmin GPS is not all that encrypted. So essentially because they are already anticipating of getting shot down (lol) they possibly rather give their very location away and where exactly they are operating.
Having hand GPS navigator better than not, lol, what’s the issue. Already anticipating of getting shot? Lol, it’s freaking military conflict, why shouldn’t pilot expect possibility to being ejected and also not only in case of being shot but also just some aviation incident. And that’s already hard off topic.
That’s enough, I’m still waiting for a half a dozen sources for him to justify previous arguments that were at least related to the topic. Don’t feed him any further.
I am not forming an argument, only stating a small number of things you overlooked before making your own. Still waiting on all those sources and justifications.
I wouldn’t say so, to be quite honest. Even so, source?
I agree.
Yes, I am. The F-22 has no idea where to look for an enemy on his own without massive support. Flying blind would be incredibly dumb in a stealth fighter that they really can’t afford to get shot down.
Please find and share some sources to justify any of the points you made in the last week.