AIM-120C

[fox100]

Actually, that 25% of the a$$ end shot isn't accurate as the missiles envelope is naturally reduced in that scenario, especially at the longer distances where the 22 will be spending most of its sorties.... So its not that cut and dry as most everyone knows....

[danhutmacher]

You guys are forgetting that it's radar guided. As such when it's internal radar turns on it will be detected by the targets RHAW gear. That should give the pilot several seconds to try to outmaneuver it.
It will definitely give the ECM gear time to jam it or deploy Chaff to decoy it away.

[ACMIguy]

Seems with the computers running the show (and being able to think faster) for the last few seconds of the incoming missile's flight that it might be more effective at generating a miss than the pilot. Just a thought.

Do you think an automatic system would have a tendency to over g the pilot?

[Pilotasso]

You guys are forgetting that it's radar guided. As such when it's internal radar turns on it will be detected by the targets RHAW gear. That should give the pilot several seconds to try to outmaneuver it.
It will definitely give the ECM gear time to jam it or deploy Chaff to decoy it away.

You simply dont know what your talking about. This is much more complex than DOS era PC sims. For example, the 120 is reported to be nearly immune to chaff. ECM Pods have blind spots, specialy if they are under the fuselage or wing. Furthermore AMRAAM's have home-on-JAM mode, I.E they follow the emmision source untill it burns through. youll never get any lock warning from the missile or the launcher aircraft untill it does wich can be very, very close. JAmming could thus be a bad bet.

The best way to avoid the AMRAAM is to use proper tactics BVR, and get the target evasive before he shoots or force him to break link with his missiles, if you ever hear the AMRAAM lock warning you have seconds before you get slammed. Most likely single digit figures. If you get caught in the kinetic no escape zone then your chances of survival are slim to none.

[Guysmiley]

Not to mention that even if you go defensive and defeat the first one, Lord knows how trigger happy fighter pilots are , there's probably a second one on the way.

[danhutmacher]

I know it has a home on jam mode. But you don't need to jam it forever. just a short burst to throw it off.
Second any radar guided weapon goes after the biggest target. That's why chaff is so effective. While modern computers are quickly able to detect a chaff cloud but again all you need is to throw it off for a second or two to cause it to miss.
There is also the story of an F-16 pilot in the first gulf war who dodged SEVEN SA-6s fired at him.
And Pilotasso don't assume that I don't know what I'm talking about because you don't like what I'm saying. Just think If you where an enemy pilot how would you defeat an amraam.
By the way to date fifteen have been fired in combat with six hits. Doesn't quite sound so wonderful now does it.

[Raptor_One]

The AIM-120 AMRAAM uses a monopulse radar and employs 4 radar receivers. It operates in HPRF (high pulse repetition frequency) mode to lock onto a target once it goes active and transitions to MPRF (medium pulse repetition frequency) mode at shorter ranges. Once an AIM-120 locks a target up in HPRF mode, neither chaff or "conventional" self protection jamming gear will be of much use. MPRF mode, if I'm not mistaken, is even better at distinguishing chaff from from the real target. Regardless, the only way to reliably defeat an AIM-120 once it locks onto you is through the use of a towed decoy. Chaff... only marginally effective at throwing the -120 off before it's actually locked onto you at the maximum extent of its radar seeker's range in HPRF mode. Self protection jammer (internal or external)... useless due to employment of HOJ (home on jam) mode at extended ranges before burn-through occurs. Without a towed decoy, defeating an active radar homing missile like the AIM-120 or AA-12 Adder using countermeasures designed primarily to defeat SARH missiles and the supporting fire control radar system is not a healthy endeavor. Unless you know a Slammer has been fired at you (but simply hasn't gone active yet), chaff and self protection jamming gear is far down the list in terms of evasion tactics. Beaming an AIM-120 won't really work either. Monopulse radars aren't like pulse-Doppler in this respect.

And for anyone who's thinking about crying OPSEC and bla bla bla, don't bother. This is all public domain stuff. You might not find it for free by doing a search on Google, but the right trade journals and certain highly specific Jane's reference books go into much more detail than what I wrote above. I can give anyone more specific references if they'd like to send letters to the editors of these publications. Don't shoot the messenger though.

[danhutmacher]

Raptor one is right about the seeker to the AIM-120 but so far roughly fifteen have been fired in combat for six hits.
You don't have to jam it for long. Just enough to get it away so the warhead won't hit you. I think about three hundred feet is far enough.

[Raptor_One]

Raptor one is right about the seeker to the AIM-120 but so far roughly fifteen have been fired in combat for six hits.
You don't have to jam it for long. Just enough to get it away so the warhead won't hit you. I think about three hundred feet is far enough.

What are you talking about? I don't think you know either. It sounds like you know nothing about electronic warfare in the real world. Similarly, it sounds like you know nothing about why a missile might hit or miss. Of the 15 AIM-120s that have been fired in combat, do you have any idea why only six hit their targets? I doubt it. Sometimes missiles just fail, other times they are purposely fired outside their ideal launch envelopes simply to gain a tactical advantage, and then sometimes they are just defeated kinematically. Are you trying to tell me Serbian MiG-29s were jamming AIM-120s? LOL... yeah right.

[Steve_Davies]

Raptor one is right about the seeker to the AIM-120 but so far roughly fifteen have been fired in combat for six hits.

You are on a different planet to everyone else. You seem to be happy to quote a statistic and to then use it in isolation to make a point. That makes you less than credible in my book.

[Raptor_One]

Raptor one is right about the seeker to the AIM-120 but so far roughly fifteen have been fired in combat for six hits.

You are on a different planet to everyone else. You seem to be happy to quote a statistic and to then use it in isolation to make a point. That makes you less than credible in my book.

He's less than credible because his statements simply aren't scientific. His notion of jamming could very well have something to do with the act of putting jam on toast based on his vague statements. The fact is that the AIM-120 is highly resistant to chaff and self protection jammers. You either need a towed decoy to draw the surface paint lock away from your aircraft and onto the decoy itself or a dedicated EW aircraft in your flight like an EA-6B Prowler or EF-18G Growler. That's how you defend against advanced A-A missiles like the AIM-120 in the real world. If you don't have one of those two assets, you will end up going down like like MiG-29s over the skies of Yugoslavia or some such.

[danhutmacher]

The point I'm trying to make is simple. In every war from World War Two to the present the leaders of the Air force have been wrong about what shape air combat would take.

[Ozzy_Blizzard]

What are you talking about? I don't think you know either. It sounds like you know nothing about electronic warfare in the real world. Similarly, it sounds like you know nothing about why a missile might hit or miss. Of the 15 AIM-120s that have been fired in combat, do you have any idea why only six hit their targets? I doubt it. Sometimes missiles just fail, other times they are purposely fired outside their ideal launch envelopes simply to gain a tactical advantage, and then sometimes they are just defeated kinematically. Are you trying to tell me Serbian MiG-29s were jamming AIM-120s? LOL... yeah right.

I think a few people are missunderstanding the statistics and the situation in which they occured. I beleave this discussion is only concerning the terminal phase of flight when the slamer's pinging. For the targeted fighter to get into a situation like the one being discussed (haveing to use ECM to evade an active slamer) the launch would have had to occured within the NEZ or detected late enough so the missile could not be outrun, the energy of the missile was still high enough that defeating it by kinematics alone is not an option. Outside of these peramiters there are plenty of reasons why the missile didnt achieve a kill. Maybe they were fired at maximum range or at an altitude dissadvantage, or at a fleeing aircraft at long range. The correct statistic to quote in this scenario is how many slamers have missed after they have started pinging, aquired the target and been defeated by by ECM. Id bet the number was about 0.


I'd be interested to see how well an AIM 120C's seeker holds up to an electronic attack made by an APG 79, 77 or 81. "Offenceive" Jaming like this could be significat development in defending a platform, in conjuction with X band VLO. Same could be said for a defenceive laser system when a phocal plane array seeker equiped WVRAAM has locked onto you.

[avon1944]

In every war from World War Two to the present the leaders of the Air force have been wrong about what shape air combat would take.

That is not accurate at all. Korea, aerial combat took place as the leaders thought. The same is true for the Israeli AF, they planned and fought effective wars. Were they surprised in October 1973 about the effectiveness of SAM-6's and even more effective the ZSU-23-4's, yes. But, how did they counter the threat? They went to tactics or versions of them that they knew worked.
Viet Nam was a tactical air war for by an Air Force that was structured to fight WW3. Thank gawd, we never knew how effective the weapons would have been in these scenarios. Poor political leadership in Washington was the cause of the poor performance of the USAF in the Viet Nam War.
Operation Bolo is a good example of how effective leadership (negating the ROE's), produced results more typical of American pilots.
When the "DC" leadership realized they were the problem and let the on-scene commanders run Operation Linebacker 2.... everybody came away saying this is the way we should have fought the war in the first place.
The conflict in 1991, set the standard as to how an effective air war should be conducted. It also put on notice to the world, the part in which training plays.
Look at America's potential opponent, they were further off the path of success than America or France was in designing aircraft or tactics.


Ozzy_Blizzard, thank you for your insightful input.

Adrian

[donk14N]

As has been stated already on this board, the first AMRAAM shot may not have been fired with the intention of hitting its target. I'll refer to exercise COPE INDIA as an example. The tactics employed by the IAF FLANKERS were to fire an AA-12 while BVR, this would put the F-15 on the defensive and they would start to maneuver. While the F-15 was trying to avoid being hit by the first missile, the FLANKER would use this chance to close the distance to target. When they got WVR to the target they would follow-up the first shot with an AA-11. The first missile was fired with the intent to distract the F-15 and cause it to loose airspeed while performing defensive maneuvers, putting the target in the perfect position to fall to a follow-up missile.

Also, from my understanding, the AMRAAM doesn't necessarily go live as soon as it is off the rail. The aircraft can guide the missile with it's own radar until it is practically on top of the target. In the case of the Raptor, they can guide the missile with the radar in LPI all the way to the target. So by the time the target craft's RWR goes off they have a split second to maneuver (or jam it as that seems to be your defensive measure).

On a side note what is a RHAW? Did you mean RWR (radar warning receiver)?