[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

What would be the velocity at end of burn, and at outer limit of range? Approx how long is the burn time?

Regards
Sutripta

I'm no expert and many of these statistics would be classified but this is what I found on the internet:

"All estimates of the AIM-120A suggest it's boost stage duration is 6s, whilst it's sustain stage lasts 5s. Since the C-5 has more fuel
than the A, and as it is a boost only motor, this puts the estimated burn time between 7 and 9s."

Source: AIM-120C-5 Performance Assessment for Digital Combat Simulation Enhancement
Revision 2 September 2014
By Thomas Tyrell, United Kingdom Christian Funk, United States of America
Nagy Marton, Hungary

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto...sment-rev2.pdf

The AIM-120 has a max velocity of Mach 4 (during the boost phase) after thats it glides to its target. Some numbers I found on the net:

The time it takes for a missile to lose 25% of its velocity after burn out at supersonic speeds.

Never @ > 100,000 m (~300,000 ft) ; in space
~150 seconds @ 24,000 m (~80,000 ft)
~70 seconds @ 18,000 m (~ 60,000 ft)
~25 seconds @ 12,000 m (~ 40,000 ft)
~10 seconds @ 6,000 ft (~20,000 ft)
~5 seconds @ Sea Level

The velocity when it reaches the target will depend on the height it was launched and how the target is manoeuvring. If the target keeps manoeuvring aggressively (like the Su-30s did vs the AMRAAMs launched by the F-16s) it will bleed energy by constantly changing course while decelerating and eventually fall from the sky.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

The velocity when it reaches the target will depend on the height it was launched and how the target is manoeuvring. If the target keeps manoeuvring aggressively (like the Su-30s did vs the AMRAAMs launched by the F-16s) it will bleed energy by constantly changing course while decelerating and eventually fall from the sky.

This is something I wanted to ask infact. While probably not as agile in close combat as the Archer/Sidewinder etc, isn't the Amraam an active seeker till the end? Is that enabled purely with gliding? The rocket motor does not work during final target seeking phase for course correction?

In that case, the kill chance with such a missile will be very low unless those are transports/airliners or planes that haven't noticed that they are pinged and marked by a missile seeker. A glider that has traveled 50 odd kms already will have very little chance of following a fast, highly agile target in evasive maneuvers. No? Considering the small area of winglets, lower the speed, lower will be the agility of the missile too.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

This is something I wanted to ask infact. While probably not as agile in close combat as the Archer/Sidewinder etc, isn't the Amraam an active seeker till the end? Is that enabled purely with gliding? The rocket motor does not work during final target seeking phase for course correction?

AMRAAM uses two-stage guidance when fired at long range. The aircraft passes data to the missile just before launch, giving it information about the location of the target aircraft from the launch point and its direction and speed. The missile uses this information to fly on an interception course to the target using its built-in inertial navigation system. This information is generally obtained using the launching aircraft's radar, although it could come from an infra-red search and track system, from a data link from another fighter aircraft, or from an AWACS aircraft.

After launch, if the firing aircraft or surrogate continues to track the target, periodic updates—such as changes in the target's direction and speed—are sent from the launch aircraft to the missile, allowing the missile to adjust its course, via actuation of the rear fins, so that it is able to close to a self-homing distance where it will be close enough to "catch" the target aircraft in the basket (the missile's radar field of view in which it will be able to lock onto the target aircraft, unassisted by the launch aircraft).

Once the missile closes to self-homing distance, it turns on its active radar seeker and searches for the target aircraft. If the target is in or near the expected location, the missile will find it and guide itself to the target from this point. If the missile is fired at short range, within visual range (WVR) or the near BVR, it can use its active seeker just after launch, making the missile truly "fire and forget"

As far I know since the rocket motor is only fired for 6-9 seconds it would not be active at the terminal stage for a BVR target, maybe for a WVR target when the trajectory would more likely be a straight line.

Originally Posted by Reinhard

In that case, the kill chance with such a missile will be very low unless those are transports/airliners or planes that haven't noticed that they are pinged and marked by a missile seeker. A glider that has traveled 50 odd kms already will have very little chance of following a fast, highly agile target in evasive maneuvers. No? Considering the small area of winglets, lower the speed, lower will be the agility of the missile too.

If you see actual combat history the AIM-120 has Pk of 63.15% (19 missiles for 12 kills) and almost all of these were within 40-50km and against older aircraft and helicopters which had no ECM or modern RWR to warn them of the incoming missiles. This excludes the 4 AMRAAMS the IAF claims were fired against Indian Su-30s that missed and one that hit the Mig-21.

Mach 4 is 5,000 km/hr which means it will cover 50 km in about 44 seconds, actually a bit more depending on the altitude it was launched. So if the target is a fighter and aware at launch time it can potentially out manoeuver the missile.

The lack of propelling power in the terminal stage for the AMRAAM is why the French Meteor will be a game changer for the IAF. A solid-fueled ramjet motor allows the missile to cruise at a speed of over Mach 4 and provides the missile with thrust and mid-way acceleration to target intercept. It has a no-escape zone more than three times greater than that of the current AIM-120.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

The AIM-120 has a max velocity of Mach 4 (during the boost phase) after thats it glides to its target.

Since speed associated with Mach 1 is variable, depending on altitude, do you have actual values in Kmph.

Regards
Sutripta

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Since speed associated with Mach 1 is variable, depending on altitude, do you have actual values in Kmph.

Regards
Sutripta

I'm not sure how this will be relevant to the discussion given that we are just making an estimate based on publicly available information which is not entirely accurate.

A plane flying Mach 1.0 at sea level is flying about 1225 km/h, a plane flying Mach 1.0 at 30000 ft is flying 1091 km/h. That is a difference of 12% which is not much given that we don't know the exact launch velocity of an AMRAAM nor the deceleration due to air drag, atmospheric pressure, humidity, manoeuvring target etc.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

I'm not sure how this will be relevant to the discussion

Time to target for ballistic lob.

Regards
Sutripta

[dodge3p]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

AMRAAM uses two-stage guidance when fired at long range. The aircraft passes data to the missile just before launch, giving it information about the location of the target aircraft from the launch point and its direction and speed. The missile uses this information to fly on an interception course to the target using its built-in inertial navigation system. This information is generally obtained using the launching aircraft's radar, although it could come from an infra-red search and track system, from a data link from another fighter aircraft, or from an AWACS aircraft.

I saw this video a while back where a retired fighter pilot dissects missile launch and hit scene in 'Behind enemy lines'. Cool video I believe, however based on his explanation it looks like chances of a SAM/BVR missile hitting a competent fighter is minimal. Otherwise multiple missiles should be in air to improve chances.

Missile chase starts around 5:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51uw3drjpFc&t=

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

This is something I wanted to ask infact. While probably not as agile in close combat as the Archer/Sidewinder etc, isn't the Amraam an active seeker till the end? Is that enabled purely with gliding? The rocket motor does not work during final target seeking phase for course correction?

AMRAAMs are Active Radar Homing missiles, but they are usually directed to a rough intercept location using inertial navigation and radio commands from the launch aircraft. This Launch aircraft can either provide this information by tracking the target itself, or by receiving location updates from AWACS or other nearby aircraft( i.e the launch aircraft has its radar off). If it is tracking the target itself, the target might be alerted because the radar focuses more energy on it (in order to not lose track). The target could also detect the "information bursts" that the launching aircraft sends to the missile for mid-course corrections, but this all depends on how sophisticated the RWR on the target is, how much ECM(Jammer/ dumping Chaff to confuse the aircraft or missile radar) is in the air and how close the launch platform is.

When an AMRAAM is close enough to the intended target, it will switch on its own radar that will search for the target in the location given by the launch platform, and the missile will guide itself from there (called going pitbull). At that moment, the RWR of the target will very likely detect it and give an accurate direction, but the target will have to react quickly because the missile is already close.

When an AMRAAM is fired at long range, the target has a lot of time to maneuver and the missile will have to bleed a lot of energy to succesfully hit it, but it doesn't have that much spare energy because it needs to fly longer so is likely to miss. This is what happened in a recent AMRAAM launch just near the Turkey Syria border. It was known that Turkish F-16s were taking shots of Syrian Air Force jets engaged in bombing rebel position in Northern Syria. TO protect Syrian jets, Russian Air Force started flying Combat Air Patrols using their Su-35s and Su-30SMs backed by ELINT & AWACS aircraft. A Turkish F-16 launched an AMRAAM against a Syrian Su-22 that was flying deep inside Syria from very long range( the launch F-16 was flying within Turkish airspace). The Syrian Su-22, with its antiquated RWR and no ECM to speak of, was still able to defeat the AMRAAM with guidance from Russian AWACS and some crafty maneuvering. Even the SU-22 that was shot down in 2017 by a US Navy VFA-87 F/A-18E, was able to defeat the first missile that was launched from the F/A-18E. It was the second missile - an AIM-9X, that shot the Su-22 down.

When fired at medium ranges, an AMRAAM has lots of spare energy and can do sharp turns while still being having enough energy left to reach the target. At short range, the missile will only be limited by it's structural g-limits. It needs to make much harder turns to intercept the target which by now is doing desperate maneuvers,to beat the missile.

To summarize, it *can* be relatively easy to beat an AMRAAM if the launch aircraft didn't have optimal launch conditions (long range, no AWACS guidance for the missile, maneuvering target,...), but the AMRAAM is probably one of the hardest AAMs to evade if the launch conditions are just right (medium range, AWACS support, unaware target,...).

On the HUD in the lowest left Corner( Screenshot from F-15 cockpit from DCS World). THe distance of the locked target from the F-15 is 10.4 miles.

M - Missile
3 - Missile will go Pitbull in 3 seconds
17 - Missile will impact targert in 17 seconds

[AlphaKilo]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

...

On the HUD in the lowest left Corner( Screenshot from F-15 cockpit from DCS World). THe distance of the locked target from the F-15 is 10.4 miles.

M - Missile
3 - Missile will go Pitbull in 3 seconds
17 - Missile will impact targert in 17 seconds
Attachment 1994612

Sandesh sir, do you play DCS? and this looks like a video grab from Ralphidude/Growling sidewinder's tutorials. I am a big fan of both of these guys, especially of the growling sidewinder and his tacview debriefs.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

Sandesh sir, do you play DCS? and this looks like a video grab from Ralphidude/Growling sidewinder's tutorials. I am a big fan of both of these guys, especially of the growling sidewinder and his tacview debriefs.

Good observation and you are right, it is indeed a screenshot from one of those videos.

Eventhough I can't play DCS, I love watching those videos and learning from it, in the hope that I will buy a PC powerful enough to run DCS smoothly in the near future. Being a Tomcat fan, the Tomcat will probably the first addon module I buy for DCS.

I used to play DCS's spiritual predecessors - Flanker 2.0/2.5 & Lock On : Modern Air Combat. DCS World runs like a slideshow on my laptop so I never had a chance to even fly the freeware Su-25 that comes stock with it.

I do however fly Falcon 4.0 BMS 4.34 - probably the greatest and most accurate F-16 flight sim ever. But even that has a stopped for 2-3 months or so after my Saitek X52 Pro joystick stopped working but thankfully my Saitek Pro FLight Yoke still works. To loosely quote Gene Hackman's character from the movie Behind Enemy Lines , I patrol friendly skies in a bus (civilian aircraft in X plane 11 )

[mpksuhas]

Not so pleasent news, however glad that no injury to crew.

Also, from what's mentioned in the news link, the aircraft is salvageable.

A brand new Apache attack helicopter of the Indian Air Force (IAF) Thursday made an emergency landing in a field an hour after taking off from its base in Punjab’s Pathankot.

This is the first such incident involving the choppers that were procured in an approximately $2-billion-deal from the US.

The IAF in a statement said all crew onboard the helicopter are safe and there had been no damage to any property.

It added that the helicopter, after approximately one hour of flying, had indications of a critical failure and carried out a safe landing west of Indora, Punjab. The captain of the aircraft took correct and prompt actions to recover the helicopter safely. The aircraft will be recovered after necessary rectification, the IAF said.

Link

[Alfresco]

It's such a pleasure reading the discussions here.
Thank you all.
I used to buy books on fighter planes whenever i would visit Delhi. This was in the pre-internet era.
Am attaching a photo from one of the books i'd got in 1985!.
Makes for interesting reading when you see what the thought process was at that time and how it has changed over the years.

[Aviatoraval]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Good observation and you are right, it is indeed a screenshot from one of those videos.

Eventhough I can't play DCS, I love watching those videos and learning from it, in the hope that I will buy a PC powerful enough to run DCS smoothly in the near future. Being a Tomcat fan, the Tomcat will probably the first addon module I buy for DCS.

I used to play DCS's spiritual predecessors - Flanker 2.0/2.5 & Lock On : Modern Air Combat. DCS World runs like a slideshow on my laptop so I never had a chance to even fly the freeware Su-25 that comes stock with it.

I do however fly Falcon 4.0 BMS 4.34 - probably the greatest and most accurate F-16 flight sim ever. But even that has a stopped for 2-3 months or so after my Saitek X52 Pro joystick stopped working but thankfully my Saitek Pro FLight Yoke still works. To loosely quote Gene Hackman's character from the movie Behind Enemy Lines , I patrol friendly skies in a bus (civilian aircraft in X plane 11 )

Good news BHPians. DCS is free for a while now. All modules can be downloaded and played.
JF-17 can be downloaded only if you have DCS Beta. Try your hands on flying aircraft with exceptional clarity and near real world feel.

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by Redline6800

The Super Hornet will likely emerge the winner here as it will also support interoperability with P-8I, MH-60R and commonality of weapons also.

Super Hornet deal will also keep the US happy and being FMS is less controversial. Boeing has already partnered with HAL for the Super Hornet.

The Rafale M is operated in small numbers with the French Navy and will not get any other export orders.

The Super Hornet will be operated by the U.S. Navy till 2040 and is also operated by the Royal Australian Air Force. Future upgrade cost will be spread across the U.S. Navy fleet and maintenance costs will be cheaper.

I too think the F18 will end up being the likely winner. Primarily due to economic considerations.

Of the two large aviation players in the US, Lockheed has a backlog of F35 orders and plenty more in the pipeline. Boeing on the other hand is in a very precarious position. Cancellation of future orders, the max controversy, declining financials...... US cannot sit back and watch Boeing fail.

I suspect US will put forward a very favourable credit line with the F18 purchase, which will be very helpful present circumstances considered. This also suits India's current relationship with America (fickle as any American relationship is nowadays), +Boeing has a considerable Indian presence which will likely grow.

Finally the F18 platform has room for growth with the block 3 versions in pipeline. Also it has far more users spreading cost and ensuring platform longevity. Canada, Australia, plethora of Gulf air forces and now the German order.

[DrPriyankT]

Originally Posted by shortbread

I too think the F18 will end up being the likely winner. Primarily due to economic considerations.

Of the two large aviation players in the US, Lockheed has a backlog of F35 orders and plenty more in the pipeline. Boeing on the other hand is in a very precarious position. Cancellation of future orders, the max controversy, declining financials...... US cannot sit back and watch Boeing fail.

I suspect US will put forward a very favourable credit line with the F18 purchase, which will be very helpful present circumstances considered. This also suits India's current relationship with America (fickle as any American relationship is nowadays), +Boeing has a considerable Indian presence which will likely grow.

Finally the F18 platform has room for growth with the block 3 versions in pipeline. Also it has far more users spreading cost and ensuring platform longevity. Canada, Australia, plethora of Gulf air forces and now the German order.

I would still push for more Rafale purchases. We already are buying 36 ( I pray to God this number gets quadrupled to say the least). We have already spent on base and maintenance infrastructure, and on training infrastructure for them. Acquiring more won’t add much to costs as would be added by acquiring an entirely new type of plane.
Also I have deep distrust of Americans when it’s buying something as crucial as a fighter jet which may act as a nuclear delivery platform too. The French are more trustworthy. I would also like to make a point that with around 100+ Rafales ,we would have a big say in the global supply chain of the aircraft, which is not possible given that the US Navy and Marine Corps themselves operate over 500 Hornets.

Coming to the aircraft, the Rafale gives us access to the Meteor BVR missile, which is way superior to the AMRAAM operated by the Hornet. The likelihood of the French allowing us to integrated our Astra missile to the Rafale is higher than the Americans allowing the same with the Hornet. Also the Rafale has the integrated RWR and EW system called Spectra which is superior to the suites being deployed by the Hornets. The hornet also has an integrated infrared detection system, it’s something the Americans are still thinking of integrating onto the Hornet. The Rafale also holds the edge in manouverability and dogfighting ability. The real disadvantage of the Rafale over the Hornet is the less diverse array of weapons it’s able to yield. But it’s a relative disadvantage, given the ability of our Airforce to integrate diverse weapons systems to our fighters.

https://hushkit.net/2019/12/20/dassa...ters-compared/

The only subfleet of Hornets which I think is worth acquiring is the electronic warfare variant which is the E/A-18 Growler. Definitely it will bump up our cost, but the capability given by it is some worth paying .