Oh yes, this. Thanks for sharing.
However, Aim-120C still has less range than PL-15.
This means F-22 has to get dangerously close, even J-10 can trade billion dollar F-22 given AWACS/Ground support.
I’ve heard about this variant, however I doubt it will make it into service, since, every year, USAF is claiming Aim-260 is going into production in that year. This shows how bad USAF wants Aim-260, which means they probably rejected AMRAAM-AXE which was already in testing.
Same for me, I think this probably means there are a lot of juice in Aim-120’s number and/or PL-15 is much more horrifying to USAF than we had imagined.
Also, just a fun fact, in China, we don’t measure missile’s range with launch range, we measure them with distance covered with origin set to the position at the moment of launch. In Chinese, this is written as 杀伤远界, English: Max Range。
When we say 200km max range, it means missile can fly 200km from the position where it had launched while retaining sufficient energy to pull sufficient Gees to maneuver, assuming target maneuvered at last moment. It is a very precisely defined term, given the definition, the launch range of Chinese missile has this equation:
launch range = max range * target speed * time to intercept
This is opposite to the max range specified on western missiles, where max range are often larger than the launch range. In China, launch range is strictly greater than max range.
So, I’m not sure how much confusion are due to difference in the definition of terms.
But if we take 200km as max range in Chinese definition, then PL-15 has launch range of well over 300km when fired against F-22 flying head on at Mach 1.
In China, it is rumoured that J-20 can detect F-22 at 100km range. For the sake of argument, let’s say F-22 can do it against J-20 at 200km range, then F-22 is still within the range of PL-15. That’s how scary the PL-15 is, if max range of 200km is using Chinese definition of max range.
Also, an interesting graph from Chinese analysis on Aim-120C’s kinematic performance.
Assuming Aim-120 can fly for 110 seconds to cover 45km distance, and fires against a target flying headon at 900m/s, then the launch range against such target is: 45km + 110 * 0.9 = ~144km
This shows Aim-120C has much less range than Aim-54.
Sure, but the same can probably be said about getting those support systems into SM-6 range.
or illuminating anything with a radar that might have the AGM-88E, -F or -G (or even eventually the SiAW(Stand in Attack Weapon) ) onboard, depending on the target set those platforms probably aren’t outrunning those even at excessive range.
Its still a capability that can be exercised if things start to get warmer. Or for Client nations that won’t be given advanced missiles.
A potential issue is that since Supersonic flight lights aircraft up on an IRST like a Christmas Tree, stealth is best maintained by staying subsonic, which of course limits the range of missiles. So Its likely that accelerating to Supersonic speeds would telegraph the intent to launch well before launch conditions are met, also making the release aircraft far more visible to a defender.
Take for example the following excerpt and note the detection range difference between a Sub- & Supersonic target, and this is for a IRSTS, that didn’t even work that well and isn’t digital so doesn’t take advantage of significant advances that have occurred with signal processing since the early 70’s
It’s a good job that the F-22 is being armed with the AIM-120D then (which has recently achieved a kill at over 200 km launch range).
Also you are working on the assumption that the F-22 would be detected that easily.
I’m not sure I get your argument here. If the F-22 can detect the J-20 at 200 km, but the J-20 can only detect the F-22 at 100 km, then the F-22 will be able to fire an AMRAAM and disengage before the J-20 can even see the F-22 and be able to fire a PL-15 at it.
Yes, however they aren’t air to air missiles and won’t pull sufficient Gees to keep up with defensive maneuvers. Only SM-6 is a real threat, however it is too expensive to trade blows with PL-15/17, which probably cost less than a million. Also, since missile is guided by AWACS or Ground radar, fighters can go defensive immediately and hide behind Earth’s horizon.
Not surprisingly, at the range of PL-15/17, horizon can actually help fighters defeat missiles.
Even if SM-6 has 370km max range in Chinese definition, fighters can still drop below horizon and hide behind a tiny mountain to break lock.
To solve this problem, now you need the ability to re-target and find another unfornate fighter that just happens to be in the area that SM-6 is going to land.
Very true, I would rather not see that, since it means everything is going into **** real soon.
I understand, the problem is IRST cannot provide a firing solution, or data link update (to be precise, it is difficult, not impossible, but not practical), and its lock cannot maintain for significant amount of time (if a fighter flies supersonic for 2+ minutes and never manuevers in a known hostile airspace, then it is target’s fault for being hit by a missile guided by IRST without warning). At the range of PL-15/17, Aim-54, IRST can only help radars to search and provide guidance.
PLAAF and USAF aren’t stupid, they know other side will use IRST to detect supersonic targets. So they will constantly perform evasive maneuver around even if there is no warning, and goes supersonic only when firing. Also, having missile with significantly long range, it means the fighter can fly slower, thus reduces IR signature, thus IRST has less chance to detect it.
It is not an assumption, it is a fact.
F-22’s stealth isn’t optimized to meter wave, China had developed meter-wave radar that offers resolution measured in meters. Sufficient to provide fire control solution and provide high precision midcourse update to air to air missiles. It had received state award on technology advancement.
Also I mentioned the incident in 2022 where F-35 was sneaked up by J-20 while flying pretty far away from coast. Given the range of Aim-120, it is safe to assume that Chinese AWACS has capbility to detect F-35 from 100km away, at minimum, since we know AWACS is involved. Otherwise AWACS will have to fly within the range of Aim-120 (if not AWACS, then it means J-20 has at least 100km detection range against F-35).
What data?
Since we are not playing 1 on 1, J-20 and F-22 both has their AWACS and ground radars to support them.
So F-22’s radar detection range won’t matter. I gave that number so that F-22 can fire Aim-120 at maximum possible launch range, even without AWACS or Ground Radar.
My argument was, even if F-22 was able to fire at maximum possible launch range, if PL-15 has 200km max range in Chinese defintion, F-22 is still within the no escape zone of PL-15, while J-20 is outside of no escape zone of Aim-120.
i.e. Aim-120 is horribly out ranged by PL-15.
There was a post from a forum in a language I don’t know.
Apparently they found detailed engineering diagram on Aim54’s rocket motor, and thrust curve at different altitude.
IIRC, the thrust at sea level for Phoenix was significantly reduced. But he intentionaly or unintentionally left out the part where, at higher altitude, where Phoenix are usually fired at, its thrust was significantly higher than the value in game; and he expects Phoenix to get a nerf.
You continue to push this narrative, the thrust values in-game are already for higher altitude. Adjusting them higher would simply be double dipping.
With a single sensor, It could technically kinematically (e.g. via Kalman Filter or other advanced methods) estimate the range of a contact; but that’s not true ranging, nor absolutely accurate. But should be sufficient for weapons employment assuming it has active guidance of some kind and can support itself in the terminal phase of flight.
With a Flight / Section (Two to Five aircraft), simple triangulation and angular rate of change measurements makes it possible to resolve all needed data passively (Some later Russian IRSTS’s include a Laser range finder and so can actively interrogate contacts)
Depends heavily on the specific system in question. They would also be useful with providing a backup tracking channel since conventional EW can’t interrupt their track so would be very useful to an interceptor expecting to encounter Jamming, though at least for now that doesn’t help the datalink for mid course updates to the missile.
The higher altitude you’ve mentioned is 5000m, according to you. However, the thrust curve found in that deleted post went well above 5000m, and shows thrust significantly increased when missile is flying at much higher altitude than 5000m. You telling half of the truth, once again.
I agree with this, IRST is a good back up in case radar fails or losing in terms of EWS. But if radar is available, it is always more steady than IRST. Since target can turn off afterburner and goes subsonic.
Have you got a link to that forum post?
Yeah the RAE doc covers it pretty conclusively. I’d expect a nice jump from 120C-5 when that arrives.
I’ve looked up my browser history, I haven’t found it, I will let you know when I found it.
I’ve found this PDF in the mean time: https://www.mycity-military.com/uploads2/164443_1584276969_pk%20AIM-54%20k%3D1%2C2.pdf
But sadly this is more of an analysis using the rocket motor schematics. I’m not sure this counts as primary source.
With a burn time of 23.5 seconds, at 5km, the average thrust is 17203N, at 0km it is 15135N, a 12% reduction.
But at 10km, it is 18409N, which is 7% gain. 10% gain when at 15km 19038N.
What are you talking about? The maximum range scenario it is tailored for is much higher than 5k.
What?
Most long range AAM data is quoted for high altitudes well above 5,000m.
Only “medium range” missiles actually intended for use at sea level are quoted for sea level rocket performance.
Yet, you are asking expecting to nerf the thrust because the thrust is lower at sea level, while the game doesn’t adjust thrust based on altitude. It doesn’t take too much to understand that the game’s simulation is at its limit, Phoenix is overperforming and underperforming at same time.
Why you are so focused on the overperfroming aspect and ignoring the underperforming aspect? Except for R-27 which you’ve brought up?
I didn’t ask to nerf anything, I stated the FACT that it is overperforming at sea level. It exceeds the expected performance for the sea phoenix launch test by a considerable margin and exceeds all other test scenarios from public data that are at lower altitudes than the maximum range scenario… which it matches almost perfectly in regards to time to target and maximum distance traveled.
You didn’t understood what I posted and that is fine but please be more careful reading next time. I used the R-27 as an example because it has the most available public information validifying the in-game model of all other MRAAM’s.
