Uh? All sources I ever found put the Aim-120A/B/C-3/4 range at around 50km. Only the Aim-120D is estimated (of course still classified) to approach the Phoenix’ territory at about 160km, while later C variants somewhere in between (105km).
What’s certain is that there is zero way that the Aim-120A had anywhere near the range of the Aim-54.
I mean the name literally says, Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile . It was never designed to replace the long range capability of the Phoenix.
Further it would have defeated the point of developing the AIM-152 (A3M) as well.
It’s been confirmed the AIM-120A’s range figures are usually subsonic vs subsonic targets. It is ~80km for 0.9 mach launch on 0.9 mach target iirc.
The performance against a much faster target when launched from higher speeds can double this range in theory.
It was designed with pre-planned improvements to be made. The term “medium range” has little to do with comparisons to other missiles. The Phoenix was not specifically designed for long range, rather a particular mission.
The US for example states that any missile with more than ~20 miles range is a “medium range missile” in regards to air to air ordnance. The AIM-120 has more than double or even close to triple that number.
The AIM-120C-5’s claimed ~105km range is likely in the same parameters as the earlier models ~80km range figures. The extended battery time increases the maximum range even further.
You failed to note the name “Advanced air to air missile”… They did not put “long range air to air” in there anywhere. It was simply meant to be a lighter missile that matches or beats the performance of the Phoenix in the 80s. The GD / Westinghouse design was too complex and dropped due to them wanting multiple pulse rocket motor (no ramjet) with multiple seeker types for terminal homing. The missile was lighter than the Hughes / Raytheon model.
In fact, it was the introduction of AMRAAM variants such as the AIM-120C-5 that made the transition away from the Phoenix more comfortable for the Navy. It’s no wonder that if they could produce a similarly capable and smaller missile than the Phoenix in the 80s that by the 2000’s an AMRAAM sized missile caught up.
For comparison:
AIM-152 = ~172 kg
AIM-120 = ~162 kg
If the former was built in the 80s prior to the AMRAAM (and likely using a heavier warhead, seeker, guidance unit), and the latter was built in the 2000’s with replacing the Phoenix in its’ role in mind for the Navy… How does it not make sense that it could perform well enough, if not better?
Correct on all counts.
And this as well, the US has not had a AIM-54 equivalent range wise to this day, bar the few tests of a air launched SM-2ER and the AIM-152 which were, at the end of the day just tests.
Regardless, though the AIM-54 is grossly underperforming as it is now and the performance of the AIM-120A in game is incredibly indicative of that.
That’s not true, AMRAAM took over and exceeded the AIM-54’s performance almost a decade ago.
Again, this was built in the 80s and was only 10kg heavier than AMRAAM. To assume the 2000’s AIM-120C-5 couldn’t exceed the performance with more booster and lighter electronics / warhead is absurd.
Perhaps, but comparisons to the AIM-120C-5 with nothing but guesswork to compare the two aren’t going to get it fixed.
To my knowledge and speaking only range wise, I think the only amraam that exceedes the performance of the phoenix is the D model. C-5 has a launch range of about 40nm on a hot aspect target that doesnt maneuver proactively(30-35k ft Mach 1+ launch against similar altitude and speed target). At least in simulations :p. To my knowledge, in terms of range the C7 should be the same since its the same motor and fin configuration unless I missed something.
If I recall correctly, @Flame2512 and @Gunjob have a source that indicates more than 40nm for AIM-120A let alone the C-5. The scenarios may differ slightly.
I don’t believe the models after C5 maintained the same motor. Perhaps the same size and grain pattern… but it is very likely new propellants were introduced that increased performance in the last 20 years.
When will AIM-54 range and speed be fixed?
It’s not an absurd assumption, there are some unofficial accounts for those who are still in the military claims Aim-120D restores some capability of Aim-54 that USN lost when Phoenix was retired. Since, by your definition, Aim-120 had better lighter electronics over Aim-54, and we know Aim-120 turn better and has better trajectory shaping, then the only thing those people are referring to is range.
Also, many retired USN pilot calls retiring Aim-54 is a mistaken since it is the only thing that can counter Chinese PL-15.
We will likely never know the details since these missiles are still in active service until we are all old.
How exactly does it restore the hole the AIM-54 filled if the time to target of the AIM-54 is still double for certain ranges that of the AIM-120C-5? The usefulness certainly wasn’t there for the Phoenix unless the later models had upgraded motors or performance.
There is absolutely no way an aim 120A/B can hit a target at 40nm in any realistic scenario… The battery is dead long before that.
As for the TTI, while the C-5 is faster in certain scenarios, when we are talking for high altitude, realistic engagements, (like the example I provided) the 54 first of all outranges the C5 by quite a bit, and even on a 50nm shot which is a long shot for the 120, the difference on time to impact is a few seconds at best… If I remember correctly between 40-50 seconds
Again, all this is from simulations and simulations is all we have to get data from. Pilots that are willing to talk and have talked about such things, speak of engagements in much shorter ranges because first of all, ROE, second of all, High Pk shots… Yea the phoenix has a max range of 114nm… Will it ever hit anything at that range? Other than a dummy aircraft, unlikely…
Never because they refuse to fix the extreme amount of drag the missile has…
Theres primary sources of those kinds of shots iirc.
That being said, 40nmi is nowhere near adequate for the range of striking long range bombers, and is significantly below the range demonstrated by the AIM-54, with the AIM-54A and its subpar guidance system and inferior trajectory shaping being able to hit a target at a launch range of AT LEAST 110nmi in a shoot up scenario.
You might not like it but during OAF, Cesar Rodriguez fired his amraam
beyond 38 Nautical Miles
at the MiG 29
Categorically not true and easily disproven
… They do though.
Also you’d be surprised to find out that the AIM-54 is fairly heavily overperforming in maximum range at 20,000 feet according to some new data.
It’s also overperforming according to the sea Phoenix test I conducted by a similar amount.
I suspect a change is imminent and it may not be a positive one.
Wish it is possible to even get remotely close to that range in game, but nope its beaten at range by the R-27ER.
At this point I’ve pretty much just accepted that the only games that will get the 54 correct are BMS and DCS now.
Well, you missed one thing, according to the post that was deleted, in addition to its overperformance at sea level, it is also underperforming at high alt due to increase in thrust (from less atmosphere).
At sea level its motor generate less thrust hence less total impulse due to atmosphere, but at high alt, it gains more total impulse due to less atmosphere.
And the maximum range is obviously launched at very high altitude, missile climbed to even higher altitude due to trajectory shaping. So this means Phoenix is underperforming while overperforming at the same time, depending on specific situations.
Leaving out the increase in total impulse at high altitude while focusing on the loss of total impulse at sea level is selective bias.
This indicate you don’t know anything about the effort of modern air force on eliminating the need of
fighters to guide ARH missiles during midcourse.
For example, China developed high precision meter-wave anti-stealth radar to counter F-22, and how does it counter F-22? It guides missile (say PL-15) launched by J-10, via data link, to F-22’s location.
Yes, J-10 get spotted first, but J-10 don’t need to spot F-22, ground radar and AWACS spotted it for J-10, all J-10 has to do is press spacebar (just kidding) then immediately evade or run. Where as F-22 has to guide its Aim-120 until it is close to pitbull, while F-22 is already deep within no escape zone and has to risk its life to defeat it with evasive maneuvers + EWS.
The closest equivalent in game will be, imagine PL-12’s seeker has range of 70km (J-8F’s TWS in game cannot see target farther than ~70km) and has a burn time of 30 seconds, J-8F can launch then immediately starts evading and never need to worry about it misses target and not acquiring a lock. This is a massive advantage.
In this scenario, Time to Impact (TTI) don’t matter! Since the whole point of improving TTI is to make missile cross its A-pole distance, so that the launch aircraft can evade earlier than opponent. But what if you can evade immediately after launch? Using AWACS or ground radar to guide missile during midcourse made TTI almost meaningless.
The doctrine of PLAAF is: I know you are good at notching timing or just turn and run and have better BVR tactics than me, but I will simply make my missile have more energy than you, much more than the range of your missile, and not needing fighters to guide it, plus multi mode guidance so that you never able to notch; so that even if your Aim-120 has less TTI at same distance and pilot is more experienced, you never out run or break lock from the missile. On the other hand, PLAAF’s fighter can evade immdiately due to help of ground radar or AWACS to guide the missile, all while F-22 continue to provide mid course update to Aim-120 and flies into its demise.
The only way to counter this is either, use EWS and hope it works, or build their own system to guide Aim-120 using AWACS to achieve similar effect. Sadly, Aim-120 has less range than PL-15.
Aim-54 with such long range is a perfect weapon platform to modify and counter PL-15/17.
Yes, the TTI will be twice as long as PL-15/Aim-120, but when trading blow against PL-15, Aim-120’s probability of hit is 0%, no matter how fast Aim-120 can fly, it can’t hit anything if its target is out of range or don’t have energy to keep up.
Where as Aim-54’s probability of hit is at least non-zero. This is exactly why US is rushing Aim-260 and wants it to have longer range than Aim-120, and want it NOW (as early as 2022, and hoping in 2023, now 2024). Since all of sudden they have no way to fight back, they are holding a 1m sword, but China is holding a 7m long lance (PL-17, jokingly referred to as “7m power pole” in China, 某七米电线杆).
Now, with PLAAF’s doctrine in mind, does US’s “wild of idea” of putting laser on 6th gen fighters to shoot down missile makes sense now? Fighters are becoming missile carriers, they will fire and forget, guidance is done by ally AWACS that is far behind the arena. (Then comes PL-17 which is designed to conter this tactic and kill AWACS, so that you can’t guide missiles with AWACS anymore).
Back in 2022, Kenneth S. Wilsbach mentioned the encounter against J-20 and was impressed by the command and control that J-20 received. Which approached F-35 without F-35 knowing it. This implies it is tracked by AWACS or Ground Radar with high accuracy to allow an intercept, and he mentioned the ability for KJ-500 to guide long range air to air missile in place of fighters.
The KJ-500 plays a significant role in some of their capability for long range fires. Some of their very long range air-to-air missiles are aided by that KJ-500. Being able to interrupt that kill chain is something that interests me greatly.
If Aim-54 is still around, USAF can order modernized improved Aim-54 and mount it on F-15 or F-16.
It may even have longer range than PL-15 due to its enourmous size that you can fill with propellants 偶or even make it fly like a ballistic missile (then use dual pulse for course correction).
That isn’t true, it is overperforming at mid and low alts because of the fact that it was modeled to match a certain high altitude and high speed metric. This is the reason all other missiles in the game are modeled around ~5km alt performance when possible. The R-27ER for example underperforms in max speed and alt launch scenarios due to this.
Right, and since it is modeled for a high alt scenario it is overperforming at low alt considerably. Nearly 20-30%.
It reaches somewhat correct maximum altitudes and distances when doing the maximum launch range scenario it was modeled to match.
Still, it doesn’t quite reach the correct top speed and thus also doesn’t slow down as fast as it should either or it would match a wider range of performance data.