Advantages over AIM-7 and -120

Id like some information about this subject. In what scenario would AIM-7s be preferred over the -120s?

AIM-7 is good if there is a digfight going on between an enemy and a friendly and you are about to enter it. If you take the 120 there, there's a chance that it will lock onto the friendly instead of your desired target.

The Aim 7 sparrow was in service since 1958, however has been upgraded several times from then. The AIM-120 AMRAAM has been in service since 1991 and has more modern technology within.

AIM 7 Pros

1. Heavier explosive charge 40KG.

2. Causes massive damage.

Cons

1. Less manoeuvrable.

2. Require you to maintain radar lock until impact.

AIM-120 Pros

1. More agile.

2. Tighter turning circle.

3. Has ‘Maddog’ feature. I.E has its own seeker and after lunch can operate without a lock allowing you to gun and run! Give you the opportunity to escape or manoeuvre for another attack.

4. Faster.

5. More effective at low altitudes.

Cons

1. Lighter explosive charge. 18.1kg.

2. Causes less damage, although will down mostly anything!

The AIM-120 took over from the 7 series. It’s generally better in all situations. The AIM 7 can still be devastating in close range encounters.

For BVR I would use the 120 due to being able to turn / climb out of the way of any incoming enemy weapons. It also allows you to lock up a second bandit and either down him or cause him to take evasive action!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So basically its kind of pointless to carry the -7. So why isnt it retired?

Price.

AIM-7 is about 1/3 of an 120. (Wikipedia prices :P )

Lol like most military, money is key!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So basically its kind of pointless to carry the -7. So why isnt it retired?

Because they produced so many of them that these are still leftovers sitting around in inventory.

Also as someone else pointed out they are cheaper to shoot than 120s.

Generally speaking I would expect aim7s to be used for live fire training exercises or deployment to low threat theatres.

If were talking a full scale war against a neer per foe operating the latest and greatest versions of Flankers or fulcrums then I doubt any commander would want to throw thier pilots equipped with aim7s over aim120s.

The Pk ratio should be more than enough to offset the cost per unit comparison when you compare it with weight and drag savings too. Ok, so really no reason for me to load up on -7s in mission unless the mission calls for a specific stock to be depleted.

In DCS i sometimes like to use the Aim-7 because of the big warhead. Yes the big con is that it's a semi-active missile but i only need one missile hit to destroy a fighter or a big TU-95 bomber. If i shoot the Aim-120 at a bomber i need two and often two against a fighter.

Given the state of Hornet IFF , the 7's friendly-fire advantage should not be overlooked .

Given the state of Hornet IFF , the 7's friendly-fire advantage should not be overlooked .

As somebody who hasn't used the Sparrow since the first few days of early access can you explain a bit more what you mean?

In-game, the 7 gives you the advantage of being able to drop the target with the missile in-flight if you realize you don't want to hit that target (ie. a friendly). This is more of a game thing.

Additionally, a 7 will not switch to a different target if its target dissapears - again, this is a game thing and if the RF simulation is made better, there can be cases where the 7 will target the wrong 'thing'. (In any case, you should not be shooting missiles with friendlies within a certain number of degrees from the target as a rule of thumb).

Other than that, the 120 holds all the advantages IRL - accuracy, range, speed, maneuverability, ECCM, networking etc.

Id like some information about this subject. In what scenario would AIM-7s be preferred over the -120s?

Ah good point, thanks.

...the 120 holds all the advantages IRL - accuracy, range, speed, maneuverability, ECCM, networking etc.

Other than the aforementioned warhead size. ; )

If you’re going on a tanker or awacs hunt bring the 7. In game it takes multiple 120’s to bring down the big birds.

My ideal CAP loadout for the Hornet is Fuel x3, AIM-9 x2, AIM-120 x4 and AIM-7 x1 on the right fuselage station. The left fuselage station will eventually have the ATFLIR. This gives me a good amount of versatility for any situation I may encounter on a CAP.

...The left fuselage station will eventually have the ATFLIR. This gives me a good amount of versatility for any situation I may encounter on a CAP.

Why have the ATFLIR on CAP?

Moreover, the real reason the AIM-7 is in DCS is era compatibility.

There where times when it was the best, or AIM-120s where scarce.

Going "best of the best"-setting? Go 120's, as many have stated.

(and yes, AIM-7's might be good against big targets, on a game-meta level - unfortunately)

Moreover, the real reason the AIM-7 is in DCS is era compatibility.

There where times when it was the best, or AIM-120s where scarce.

 

Going "best of the best"-setting? Go 120's, as many have stated.

(and yes, AIM-7's might be good against big targets, on a game-meta level - unfortunately)

IRST ? (Quoted wrong post )

Why have the ATFLIR on CAP?

To help with target identification. If being realistic and using ROE that states visual ID of target before firing, the ATFLIR can be used to zoom in on a target during a BVR engagement to properly identify it.

The AIM-120 warhead has much more energetic explosives - that's why the weight is reduced. Not sure how or if this is simulated in DCS - mass of explosives is decreased, at the same time explosive energy is increased and the warhead is directional, so you're putting more shrapnel mass on target - ie you can reduce the weight of the fragments by reducing the number of fragments.

Other than the aforementioned warhead size. ; )

If you’re going on a tanker or awacs hunt bring the 7. In game it takes multiple 120’s to bring down the big birds.

The AIM-120 warhead has much more energetic explosives - that's why the weight is reduced. Not sure how or if this is simulated in DCS - mass of explosives is decreased, at the same time explosive energy is increased and the warhead is directional, so you're putting more shrapnel mass on target - ie you can reduce the weight of the fragments by reducing the number of fragments.

Oh I don’t doubt that you’re real world correct.

In my causal DCS testing though I’ve found the 7 to have a noticeably better ‘bite’ than the 120. It’ll only take one 7 to at least damage/disable tankers/awacs, whereas I’ve had to fire up to three 120’s before for the same effect. Against fighters the 7 will typically cause disintegration whereas they’ll sometimes continue flying with damage after a 120 hit.

Again, my casual in-game experience. I load 7’s if I’m going after anything big and seem to have more success that way.

To help with target identification. If being realistic and using ROE that states visual ID of target before firing, the ATFLIR can be used to zoom in on a target during a BVR engagement to properly identify it.

Huh. ok. Didn't know the ATFLIR could be slaved to the radar. Neat!

AIM-7 is more fun. That's the real selling point for me.

Let us not forget that the 120’s active radar sometimes do run the risk of pitbulling onto a friendly aircraft. I can count the number of times I get into a merge and suddenly get a rwr missile alert because someone decide to fire a 120 while I’m engaged.

And as FishbedL says, the AIM-7 is a much more interesting missile to used because there is more emphasis on the human factor than the 120. Plus the added benefit of a self imposed challenge when facing up against other planes with superior versions of the sparrow like the 27ER or even the 77.

For me, I prefer the AIM-7 and other kinds of semi-active homing missile because it puts a greater emphasis on the plane’s performance over the weapons that it carries. Though I will admit that active homing and off boresight missiles are a nice and fun addition and I do use them at times.