Right so you’re referring more to NEZ. Because 120B can quite easily exceed 100km on a non manoeuvring target.
I am not refairing to no escape zone no… I am refairing to a high Pk shot… and also wtf is a km? XD
A kilometre (or kilometer if you’re American), the standard unit used for measuring distance in most of the world.
lmao, I think that one flew past y… Military aviation use the imperial and as such every specification you will find is in fact in nautical miles, knots and feet. You can either follow that or try to convert everything in metric and have a brain aneurism in the process…
Except if you are in Russia… They use Metric for whatever reason…
It is true that pilots use nautical miles and ft. But it is by no means uncommon to find metric used in aircraft / missile engineering (unless of course you’re American).
Anyway going back on topic to you claims about AMRAAM, here’s a firing envelope for AIM-120A, the head on launch range is >80 km.
2 Likes
Can you spot the error here or do I have to do it for you?
The mixing of nautical miles and km is a little strange (and possibly a mistake - i.e. both units should be km), but the maximum range still aligns with what other sources say, and it comes from declassified MOD report, so is likely trustworthy.
If you are so confident that AMRAAM cannot hit targets at 40 nautical miles care to provide evidence?
Going past the metic and imperial thing, as it was not what I was talking about. Again to clarify, I am talking about EFFECTIVE range, not max range or the no escape range.
To give a very simplified example. In football, a good footballer can score from the center of the field. However this is not a shot that they would ever take in a match for obvious reasons…
So going back to the AMRAAM A/B. Yes you might be able to hit that 40+ nm shot against a target that is not maneuvering and for whatever reason has chosen to cruise at mach 1.4 at 30k feet without a care in the world of whats going on around it.
Or, you do the logical thing, and move much closer and try a shot that would give any pilot with some sort of SA a tough time…
Anyways, do you have any data on the battery life of the A/B ? Because the very limited info I could find suggests under 90 seconds. With the large fins the A/B bleeds a lot of energy thus increasing the TTI (compared to the C). Hence why I was saying that it will run out of battery.
P.S. In your own graph, it says 3G turn at 15nm range. I suppose the target starts a 3G orbit when the missile is at that range ? If so, it kinda proves the point I am trying to make…
The AIM-54 will suffer similar range penalties, so your point is mute.
As it stand the goal is to improve the energy retention so that extreme range shots are possible with the Phoenix.
this is a literal example of effective range? target reacts to the missile with a 3G break and the missile chases.
Cool, but how do you define effective range?
That firing envelope shows the effective range of the AMRAAM against a russian bomber which evades at 3 g shortly before the missile impacts. And it is a realistic scenario (IIRC there was one report noting that the weakest RWRs used by Russia at the time would only detect an AMRAAM’s radar at something like 4 km range).
Obviously the effective range of the missile against a fighter which evades at a higher g, or longer range, or lower altitude would be different.
You can make the effective range of a missile be whatever you want depending on how you define effective range.
Battery life is 80 seconds.
1 Like
it does?
reaches an altitude of just over 15km(the target altitude), i.e doesnt loft to the target at all. Doesnt even get close to the target either. It does however loft for other situations, so to mythicpi’s credit, the loft profile for aim-54 definitely seems cheesed.
@DirectSupport did the missile not reach correct altitudes and ranges for the long range test or am I remembering incorrectly?
It does, people stating it does not reach the correct altitudes are mistaken. They can reference this post:
The excerpt in particular:
Long story short, the missile reached 100,000 feet in his test. I also spent half an hour testing it and it reached the correct altitude as well in the scenario.
well this shows it doesnt at all, maybe thats different in game but it shouldnt be?
okay there is a chance the software doesnt run for the AIM-54 because it uses the old loft style, if this is tested in game then i’ll accept that as valid.
I don’t have any sources on the 54C motor except that it should be low smoke @Gunjob said he nudged the report recently.
The motor was in production since 1983 so presumably uses similar impulse low smoke HTPB as the AIM-9M which would put it at equal performance to the AIM-54A (in terms of efficiency). On the flip side, the Fuji marines yellow book claims the 54C uses a heavier motor section so additional propellant may have been added making it more similar in impulse to the I-HAWK motor (but boost-only)…
We won’t know until sources are declassified or FOIA’d.
1 Like