AIM-120C Inaccurate?

Their job is to present a specific tactical situation and avoid the missile if possible. 'Their job is to be shot down' is just a biased statement. Live missile tests are very expensive and also reviewed the GAO among other things.

 

You don't just get to go 'easy mode' or 'good enough mode' and not get called on it. Doing the tests incorrectly results in more (and expensive) tests.

 

This is very true. How people think that these missiles are tested on drones flying straight and level is pretty funny. The tests done at Combat Archer and Combat Hammer are how the 3-1 Shot Kill is published. The data gained from maneuvering aircraft with normal countermeasures and electronic countermeasures has brought the original AIM-120A to the modern AIM-120C7 we have today, with major differences just between even the 120C1 to 120C7. Even with politics involved, the USAF and USN has a large interest in having the best missile they can get.

with major differences just between even the 120C1 to 120C7.

 

As far as I can tell the C-1 and C-2 are the 120A and 120B with the C8 being the 120D. ED use the 120B and 120C-5 which known differences in the real World are clipped wings, new guidance unit, larger motor and warhead plus an eccm upgrade.

How this converts to ED standard is moar speed, greater proximity detonation and near immunity to chaff to a factor of fudge.

please correct me if I am wrong but do ureally think that a drone, no matter how advance, can match a multi million dollar jet piloted by a human being. I think otherwise. but I respect your opinion

 

I don’t normally resurrect a thread but this comment is a perfect example of forming an opinion with little to zero firsthand knowledge.

 

“do ureally think that a drone, no matter how advance, can match a multi million dollar jet piloted by a human being.”

 

First...it IS a multimillion dollar jet piloted by a human being.

Second...the human piloting the jet not only has access to cockpit data to make decisions but also outside data in the test environment to make decisions with.

Finally...The human pilot operating the multimillion dollar aircraft is not constrained by things like “G”, Heat, a helmet...He's sitting in an air conditioned trailer using the same controls he used in the aircraft and can employ that aircraft to its maximum ability.

 

In reality your comment is just the opposite of what you imply. In a test the Drone has the advantage.

Who's job it is to get shot down:)

 

I'm only joking, carry on...

 

Their job is to verify the missiles performs as expected depending on the parameters are being tested. What may "look" like a "straight and level noob drone pilot" being killed may have been an 9 G pull off bore sight shot for the shooting aircraft...

 

What may "look" like a "straight and level noob drone pilot" being killed may have been a test of passive or active counter measures employment at various stages of the attack.

 

There's more to testing than just seeing if thing go "Boom".

There's more to testing than just seeing if thing go "Boom".

 

Thank you for your insights comrade, but in case you missed it the first time:

 

Who's job it is to get shot down:)

 

I'm only joking, carry on...

 

:thumbup:

check out the video.

 

First he fires a radar guided. Then he uses the fireball to test a sidewinder.

 

 

That is a good at 0:38 position

to see how AIM-9 turns 90 degree in front of you, so you can imagine how it feels hen a R-73 does same 90 degree turn front of you first time.

As far as I can tell the C-1 and C-2 are the 120A and 120B with the C8 being the 120D. ED use the 120B and 120C-5 which known differences in the real World are clipped wings, new guidance unit, larger motor and warhead plus an eccm upgrade.

How this converts to ED standard is moar speed, greater proximity detonation and near immunity to chaff to a factor of fudge.

 

About the near immunity to chaff for the AIM-120C/B simulated in DCS, I agree with you. Although GGTharos said that it's PK is around 0.3, I agree with you that it's much higher than that in DCS right now. Just after the F-18 came out, I took some tests to see the susceptibility of both the IR and radar missiles to flares and chaff respectively.

 

I used the F-15 with AIM-120s against 4 AI Su-27's coming head on. My plane and the 4 Su-27s were at 8000m at a closure speed of around 1000kias. At around 20nm I fired one aim-120 at each target using TWS. The Su-27s also launched R-27ER at me. Each AIM-120 hit it's target although the targets were doing descending turns while popping chaff and using ECM. 4 aim-120 missiles fired, 4 targets hit. I only used the ECM while performing a split-S and thus all the R-27ERs went wild due to my jammer and I didn't need to pop a single chaff=)). I've done this test over and over several times. Same results. That proves a PK of 1 for the amraam in this condition, not below.

 

I tried the same scenario but now I was in a Su-27 against 2 F-15 AIs. Same altitude for me and the 2 F-15s, 8000m, same closure speed. I fired all my R-27ER at one F-15 (The Su-27/33 radars can't engage more than one target and the missiles are just SARH) from 20 nm away while each F-15 fired one amraam. All my R-27ER went to lala land in no time due to following a descending and jamming target that pops chaff. All I could do next was to run away.

 

If I used R-77 against the F-15s in the same conditions, then only about half of them would hit their jamming, descending and chaffing target. Is the R-77 that bad at ECCM in reality compared to an AIM-120? I know, the discussion is about the 120, but I wonder.

 

Only when I was in the F-15 again at 8000m while the 4 Su-27 AIs were at about 1000m and fired one amraam at each from the same 20nm range I could see that some of the amraams would snake towards chaff. Only in this condition of following a target well below the horizon (becoming affected by ground clutter) and after dropping a lot of chaff would the aim-120 go for it. Even in this condition which seems to be the only one to make an aim-120 go for chaff, from 10 shots, about 4 would hit. So it would be around 0.4 but only due to ground clutter. I haven't tested the same over water though, idk if the same results would occur so maybe I should come up with a track next time.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Maverick Su-35S

4 aim-120 missiles fired, 4 targets hit.

 

Yesterday 8 AIM-120s were launched at an F-5E, and none hit. They were all in good parameters.

 

I only used the ECM while performing a split-S and thus all the R-27ERs went wild due to my jammer and I didn't need to pop a single chaff=)).

 

That's not how jammers work in-game. The missiles went wild because you monetarily flew through the notch in your split-S. I submit if your opponents did the same, you wouldn't see anything resembling 1pk for your shots.

 

I've done this test over and over several times. Same results. That proves a PK of 1 for the amraam in this condition, not below.

 

And here's the crux of the matter: Pk is collected over all shots, not just your scenario.

 

I tried the same scenario but now I was in a Su-27 against 2 F-15 AIs. Same altitude for me and the 2 F-15s, 8000m, same closure speed. I fired all my R-27ER at one F-15 (The Su-27/33 radars can't engage more than one target and the missiles are just SARH) from 20 nm away while each F-15 fired one amraam. All my R-27ER went to lala land in no time due to following a descending and jamming target that pops chaff. All I could do next was to run away.

 

You mean ... those AMRAAMs had 0 Pk? Jamming had no effect on your missiles here. They ate chaff.

 

If I used R-77 against the F-15s in the same conditions, then only about half of them would hit their jamming, descending and chaffing target. Is the R-77 that bad at ECCM in reality compared to an AIM-120? I know, the discussion is about the 120, but I wonder.

 

The R-77 is considered to be equivalent to 120A.

Edited December 7, 2018 by GGTharos

As far as I can tell the C-1 and C-2 are the 120A and 120B with the C8 being the 120D

 

Aren't C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8 all C models? Isn't that what I means to be "model C, variant #"? I know C-8 is the D but that is because it was called C-8 first before the next letter was used. Total is 10 variants of AIM-120, A B C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 D I think. I don't know if A or B model has any sub variants.

IIRC the B model was replaced before it had a chance to get sub-variants.

 

You could consider C1 a B with clipped wings (and other changes of course), and it distances itself as the series goes on.

 

The A, AFAIK, had no sub-variants and was very quickly replaced by the much more capable B.

How do you explain to someone how to perform valid experiments to someone who has little to no knowledge of the scientific method and no experience in the lab? That is what this thread should be renamed to ;)

No need to get personal. Most people don't realize that pk is a collection of all shots. You can select after, but choosing a specific scenario is a different matter.

 

In this case he's correct that 120Cs are set up to have an extremely low probability of eating chaff over all, almost no chance in look-up situations.

 

Look-down models are simple too, but they do increase sensitivity to countermeasures.

 

On the other hand, 20nm shots against low-flying targets are already low pk shots, and it's not as if the AI cooperates to reproduce specific scenarios.

Yesterday 8 AIM-120s were launched at an F-5E, and none hit. They were all in good parameters.

 

Lol man..., what a heck! And I also tried again shooting 4 missiles at 4 Su-27's or Su-33s and all hit.

 

Ok, let's make tracks together and see what is going on. I believe you, but it's strange.

 

That's not how jammers work in-game. The missiles went wild because you monetarily flew through the notch in your split-S. I submit if your opponents did the same, you wouldn't see anything resembling 1pk for your shots.

 

Copy.

 

And here's the crux of the matter: Pk is collected over all shots, not just your scenario.

 

Well, yes, I made the mistake by generalizing, yet again, I'll make a track for that scenario where it is 1 though.

 

You mean ... those AMRAAMs had 0 Pk? Jamming had no effect on your missiles here. They ate chaff.

 

What 0? More like 1 you mean. The jamming against the AIM-120 didn't seem to do anything, while against any other radar missile the jammer does make the missile turn wild now and then!

 

The R-77 is considered to be equivalent to 120A.

Got it now!

 

Thanks for the efforts to explain.

What 0? More like 1 you mean.

You said:

"I tried the same scenario but now I was in a Su-27 against 2 F-15 AIs. Same altitude for me and the 2 F-15s, 8000m, same closure speed. I fired all my R-27ER at one F-15 (The Su-27/33 radars can't engage more than one target and the missiles are just SARH) from 20 nm away while each F-15 fired one amraam. All my R-27ER went to lala land in no time due to following a descending and jamming target that pops chaff. All I could do next was to run away."

 

Since you run away from those 2 AMRAAMs that means they had 0 Pk in that sortie.

Lol man..., what a heck! And I also tried again shooting 4 missiles at 4 Su-27's or Su-33s and all hit.

 

In your one scenario. I don't use AI as a particular indicator of anything, personally.

 

Ok, let's make tracks together and see what is going on. I believe you, but it's strange.

 

I don't care to, this issue is very old and most things are said and done. You're not discovering anything new :)

 

Well, yes, I made the mistake by generalizing, yet again, I'll make a track for that scenario where it is 1 though.

 

Sure? What do you get out of it? We know that AIM-120 CM rejection is very high :)

 

What 0? More like 1 you mean. The jamming against the AIM-120 didn't seem to do anything, while against any other radar missile the jammer does make the missile turn wild now and then!

 

0. They didn't hit you. And as we've determined before, the jammer has no effect on anything in terms of missile guidance after burn-through is achieved. In fact, the one effect it may have is to prevent you from being able to notch.

 

PS: My experience is in MP. As I said, I don't consider the current AI an indicator of anything. In MP, the 120 Pk isn't much higher than a lot of other missiles (or didn't use to be), but people sure liked complaining about it. It would be nice to do another study for this, but that would involve one of the big servers collecting data on the matter.

Edited December 11, 2018 by GGTharos

In your one scenario. I don't use AI as a particular indicator of anything, personally.

 

Ok.

 

...You're not discovering anything new :)

 

Maybe you don't, but me and others still do...!

 

Sure? What do you get out of it? We know that AIM-120 CM rejection is very high :)

 

As high as to get a pk of 0.3 as you've said?

 

... the jammer has no effect on anything in terms of missile guidance after burn-through is achieved.

 

Of course, but before the burn through range, what happens?

 

In fact, the one effect it may have is to prevent you from being able to notch.

You want to say: to help you notch, not prevent. In other words, to help you achieve a notch on the enemy's radar easier by using the jammer. What did I understand wrong?

 

PS: My experience is in MP. As I said, I don't consider the current AI an indicator of anything. In MP, the 120 Pk isn't much higher than a lot of other missiles (or didn't use to be), but people sure liked complaining about it. It would be nice to do another study for this, but that would involve one of the big servers collecting data on the matter.

 

Ok, I wouldn't complain about the AIM-120's pk even it would be perfectly 1 in all possible conditions in real life! I don't care as long as this would be real. Real life is real life and no one can argue with it. My wonder is just this: are all other radar missiles so easily deceived by jammer and chaff while only the AIM-120B/C seem to be so resistant?

 

Ok now, besides the fact that you say you don't want to come with a track to prove how easily the AIM-120 goes for chaff against an F-5, I've made my track about what I was saying. As you will follow the track, only once or twice did the 120 go for a chaff on the descending and turning Su-27. The PK of aim-120 is much higher even than 0.5 anyway. I've also tested the same scenario against F-5s too. Who knows, maybe the F-5 has some magic in evading 120s, but the same results came out.

 

AIM-120's pk from high altitude.trk

As high as to get a pk of 0.3 as you've said?

 

When you look at all the shots, AIM-120 Pk is half of what it is in RL.

 

Of course, but before the burn through range, what happens?

 

The missile should be tracking in pure instead of PN. This may have changed with the latest guidance tweaks, but I doubt it.

 

You want to say: to help you notch, not prevent. In other words, to help you achieve a notch on the enemy's radar easier by using the jammer. What did I understand wrong?

 

Yes, you understand wrong. I know exactly what I want to say and it is exactly what I said. In this game, leaving your jammer on prevents you from being able to notch.

 

Ok, I wouldn't complain about the AIM-120's pk even it would be perfectly 1 in all possible conditions in real life! I don't care as long as this would be real. Real life is real life and no one can argue with it. My wonder is just this: are all other radar missiles so easily deceived by jammer and chaff while only the AIM-120B/C seem to be so resistant?

 

Nothing is deceived by jammers in-game, except your radar display. The 120B/C represent the most modern AAM, and they are in fact very resistant. Unfortunately, there are no subtler ways to demonstrate their capability in game other than this.

 

Ok now, besides the fact that you say you don't want to come with a track to prove how easily the AIM-120 goes for chaff against an F-5, I've made my track about what I was saying. As you will follow the track, only once or twice did the 120 go for a chaff on the descending and turning Su-27. The PK of aim-120 is much higher even than 0.5 anyway. I've also tested the same scenario against F-5s too. Who knows, maybe the F-5 has some magic in evading 120s, but the same results came out.

 

Did I say anything about 120s going for chaff against an F-5, or are you assuming things again? As I've said before, I don't care about your scenario. AIM-120 resistance to chaff is known and intended. And its Pk is still low overall. :)

I'm surprised there is still debate on whether or not the AIM-120's still under perform as it should be obvious that they really do. Both kinematically and guidance wise. For example IASTAG's missile mod the work he did shows that the AIM-120B/C are both under performing kinetically and guidance wise IIRC they should have optimal control theory as its main guidance law yet this is not in DCS...

 

 

 

Quite simply though lets see if we can replicate this AIM120 kill . Yes this kill was with a AIM120A but the differences between it and the B model are largely electronics upgrades with no changes to the motor or the body shape so it will do for our replication:

 

This is the kill we will attempt to replicate:

 

 

The basics of the engagement are

 

MIG-25 - ~690kts TAS

- ~30k ft

F-16 -

- just under 20k ft

 

For the shot range the first solid range call we get is

. From this we can extrapolate that the range scale on the FCR must be 40NM as the target is just past the half way mark. The scale then auto jumps down to the next setting of 20nm . The next useful range call is this time where we get a range of 8 miles at this time the scale is still in 20nm search but will soon jump down to the next setting of 10nm. The shot occurs ... we know that the scale is 10NM and the target is half way between the bottom of the screen and the half way marker meaning the shot happens when the target is definitely less than 5nm and likely just over 2nm away from the aircraft. So lets try to replicate this as best as we can in DCS...

 

 

hmm not looking so good... and this is for a shot at 3nm depending on when the missile flys off the rail it could be as low as 2nm yet the missile irl still hit... Overall the takeaway is that even though DCS is improving the sparrow right now the rest of the missile still need lots of work.

Edited January 4, 2019 by nighthawk2174

I think you forgot a 0 there on your F-16...

That tacview gif represents a missile shot out of parameters, though it's not like there's enough detail to see there ...

That tacview gif represents a missile shot out of parameters, though it's not like there's enough detail to see there ...

 

For DCS yes but irl not so much lets remember this missile hit and killed a mig25...

 

better gif:

 

don't know why its lagging like it is but it has the detail

Maybe I'm observing incorrectly but the video has the steering circle inside of the ASE at the time of the shot. As a consequence, your shot if out of parameters for DCS and for IRL.

Maybe I'm observing incorrectly but the video has the steering circle inside of the ASE at the time of the shot. As a consequence, your shot if out of parameters for DCS and for IRL.

 

This is irrelavant as the missile code in DCS is already suspect and by extension so is the ASE... look at the shot parameters F16 (or whatever we can use that can fire amraams as the discussion here is about the missile not the plane) at just around 20k firing on a target at 30k with a closer rate of 1180kts. The shot was taken around 2.5-3.5 nm and it still hit irl... the point being that in game the missile didn't hit meaning that it probably is lacking lift that it should have and guidance that it should have.

I checked not long ago on our stats but I don't recall the exact sample pool size, it was either 300 or 600 120B's that I fired that had a 0.5 pK overall on our server.

 

But this number is still meaningless, if the opposition is good I might end up shooting 6 at him and he'll still be alive, regardless of the scenario. On the other hand against an average pilot you can easily do a 1 shot 1 kill sniper style.

 

Currently the most annoying feature is the lack of ARH seeker memory. All you have to do is fly through the notch for a split second and most of the time this defeats the missile. I even tested it with AI which performed a 2G U turn which notched my shot 10/10 times.. I honestly triple facepalmed at this.

This is the kill we will attempt to replicate:

 

The shot occurs

... we know that the scale is 10NM and the target is half way between the bottom of the screen and the half way marker meaning the shot happens when the target is definitely less than 5nm and likely just over 2nm away from the aircraft.

 

You can clearly see at 2:39 the range scale is set at 20nmi, which would put the shot at between 4 to 5nmi.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Frostie