First F-35 AMRAAM Release.

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1645
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 03:43

boogieman wrote:Produced by what though? Better navigation/flight profiling due to the GPS link?


You think this didn't occur? Look at acquisition program text descriptions, it's D instead of C for the stated reasons.

boogieman wrote:To EDs credit they do go to great lengths to base everything on solid data.


Off-topic aside I came to a very different conclusion. Yes, they model comprehensive parameters except it's just an entertainment game, and the developer set arbitrary performance limits for 'game-play' purposes to sell more. A few years back when interested in that sim I did some low-level testing of SAM firing radius against approaching aircraft on the deck, just to check the relative performances, and discovered the area an S300 complex addresses turned out to be exactly twice the area, and airspace volume a Patriot complex's best launch radius addressed. Gee, how do such things happen? So the claims of being the "most realistic missile sim evah!" are technically correct, the sim covers the relevant parameters in an ISA standard atmosphere, except it's then all been arbitrarily undermined to 'play-nice'.

Russia Stronk! :mrgreen:
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 04:03

element1loop wrote:
boogieman wrote:To EDs credit they do go to great lengths to base everything on solid data.


Off-topic aside I came to a very different conclusion. Yes, they model comprehensive parameters except it's just an entertainment game, and the developer set arbitrary performance limits for 'game-play' purposes to sell more. A few years back when interested in that sim I did some low-level testing of SAM firing radius against approaching aircraft on the deck, just to check the relative performances, and discovered the area an S300 complex addresses turned out to be exactly twice the area, and airspace volume a Patriot complex's best launch radius addressed. Gee, how do such things happen? So the claims of being the "most realistic missile sim evah!" are technically correct, the sim covers the relevant parameters in an ISA standard atmosphere, except it's then all been arbitrarily undermined to 'play-nice'.

Russia Stronk! :mrgreen:


Interesting, that's news to me. I suspect they may try to justify that by citing the Clam Shell elevated low altitude radar, but I really don't know. I will give them credit for improving somewhat since their Flanker 1.5/2.5 days. Back then they modelled the vanilla R77 as having ~80% longer range than the AIM-120B (50km vs 90km). Peel back the curtain decades later and we know "the retarded missile" couldn't even top the AIM-120A in that regard. Russia stronk indeed :P

element1loop wrote:
boogieman wrote:Produced by what though? Better navigation/flight profiling due to the GPS link?


You think this didn't occur? Look at acquisition program text descriptions, it's D instead of C for the stated reasons.


Not at all, just wondering if there's something I'd missed.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1645
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 04:10

It may also be weight reduction of more integrated electronics. Less mass to accelerate uphill to higher speed at a higher apogee. That would be an eternal high priority for the new 'D' designation to be meaningful.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4980
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 04:10

element1loop wrote: A few years back when interested in that sim ...

And to be fair the sim you played is not the sim available now, they update every 2-4 weeks. However, their missile programming is one missile at a time for CFD data, and only player carried missiles, and takes months. SAMs are a relatively generic missile template with some variables set. The sim is top notch, nothing better for civilian use, but it is always wise to understand it's limitations when trying to use it as a basis of argument in real life.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 04:18

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
element1loop wrote: A few years back when interested in that sim ...

And to be fair the sim you played is not the sim available now, they update every 2-4 weeks. However, their missile programming is one missile at a time for CFD data, and only player carried missiles, and takes months. SAMs are a relatively generic missile template with some variables set. The sim is top notch, nothing better for civilian use, but it is always wise to understand it's limitations when trying to use it as a basis of argument in real life.

Indeed, hence why I'm not doing so for anything more than the most basic of concepts. Still interesting for a civilian though, as it is one of the only ways you can get a rough approximation of how these things might play out in real time.

Back on topic (don't want to derail into OT land) I suspect a combination of electronics miniaturization, GPS and 2-way datalink must be at work here...
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1645
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 04:24

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
element1loop wrote: A few years back when interested in that sim ...

And to be fair the sim you played is not the sim available now, they update every 2-4 weeks. However, their missile programming is one missile at a time for CFD data, and only player carried missiles, and takes months. SAMs are a relatively generic missile template with some variables set. The sim is top notch, nothing better for civilian use, but it is always wise to understand it's limitations when trying to use it as a basis of argument in real life.


That was 2012 when I found that, but combined with many prior glaring issues it put me off entirely, haven't used it since. Why I appreciate the efforts you go to with available data.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1645
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 04:26

boogieman wrote:I suspect a combination of electronics miniaturization, GPS and 2-way datalink must be at work here.


It does not have to be GPS, and almost certainly isn't.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3668
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 04:27

boogieman wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
element1loop wrote: A few years back when interested in that sim ...

And to be fair the sim you played is not the sim available now, they update every 2-4 weeks. However, their missile programming is one missile at a time for CFD data, and only player carried missiles, and takes months. SAMs are a relatively generic missile template with some variables set. The sim is top notch, nothing better for civilian use, but it is always wise to understand it's limitations when trying to use it as a basis of argument in real life.

Indeed, hence why I'm not doing so for anything more than the most basic of concepts. Still interesting for a civilian though, as it is one of the only ways you can get a rough approximation of how these things might play out in real time.

Back on topic (don't want to derail into OT land) I suspect a combination of electronics miniaturization, GPS and 2-way datalink must be at work here...

Combined with optimized flight profiles as has been mentioned, allow for much greater performance (i.e. much larger NEZ).
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 04:31

element1loop wrote:
boogieman wrote:I suspect a combination of electronics miniaturization, GPS and 2-way datalink must be at work here.


It does not have to be GPS, and almost certainly isn't.

??

"The latest AMRAAM variant, the AIM-120D, delivers improved performance via Global Positioning System (GPS)-aided navigation; two-way datalink capability for enhanced aircrew survivability and improved network compatibility; and incorporates new guidance software which improves kinematic performance and weapon effectiveness"

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf ... 3F_189.pdf

So better guidance software then? Sounds so boring. Much sexier to say we stuck a brand new honkin rocket motor in the back :wink: :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1645
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 04:50

boogieman wrote:
element1loop wrote:
boogieman wrote:I suspect a combination of electronics miniaturization, GPS and 2-way datalink must be at work here.


It does not have to be GPS, and almost certainly isn't.

??
... via Global Positioning System (GPS)-aided navigation ...


GPS "aided" nav does not mean GPS-guided nav. It's what they say when they don't want to say the other stuff. Every platform and weapon has GPS, but that does not mean they'll use GPS to navigate and prosecute a target with, in a predictably GPS-denied conflict, when half the constellation is metallic vapors and tinsel.

Being Australian and interested in such things (and where you read), I thought you'd have noticed the past decade of RAF and RAAF combined research emphasis pursuing passive independent precision nav systems for aircraft and weapons. This was a big part of the Taranis prototype's nav. There was quite a bit of boffin collaboration for that, and still is. And how it is now being applied to the Tempest and associated systems. I have no doubt every new platform and weapon variant in US services, or in development are doing the same things.

Let's call it "GPS" ... because it has that too ... of course.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 05:23

element1loop wrote:GPS "aided" nav does not mean GPS-guided nav. It's what they say when they don't want to say the other stuff. Every platform and weapon has GPS, but that does not mean they'll use GPS to navigate and prosecute a target with, in a predictably GPS-denied conflict, when half the constellation is metallic vapors and tinsel.

Yes, I am aware of that.

element1loop wrote:Being Australian and interested in such things (and where you read), I thought you'd have noticed the past decade of RAF and RAAF combined research emphasis pursuing passive independent precision nav systems for aircraft and weapons. This was a big part of the Taranis prototype's nav. There was quite a bit of boffin collaboration for that, and still is. And how it is now being applied to the Tempest and associated systems. I have no doubt every new platform and weapon variant in US services, or in development are doing the same things.

Let's call it "GPS" ... because it has that too ... of course.

No not really? Sounds rather hush-hush. Oh to be a fly on the wall in some of these projects...
Offline

aussiebloke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 09:25

boogieman wrote:
I suspect a combination of electronics miniaturization, GPS and 2-way datalink must be at work here...


Some interesting discussions of the AIM-120D and GPS occurred a few years ago:

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=28908
Offline

aussiebloke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 09:41

A comment from Raytheon back in 2016 on AIM-120 range:

Neil Jennings, AMRAAM's business development director at Raytheon Missile Systems told IHS Jane's:

"The AIM-120C-5 extended the range of the AIM-120B fairly significantly, by shortening the control actuation system in the back and adding fins to the back end of the rocket motor. That added pretty decent range capability when you go from AIM-120B to AIM-120C-5. The C-7 and the D share the same rocket motor, and the same form, fit, function, size, and control actuation system. And both the C-7 and D have the same rocket motor as the C-5. Throughout AMRAAM's development, there have been improvements into the flight profile of the missile to get to the target. These improvements have led to range increases as well, and the jump from the B to the C-7 was fairly significant. The D can fly slightly farther than the C-7, and the C-7 can fly farther than the C-5. But this range increase is in the order of low double-digit percentages."

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... 127/page-2
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7029
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 10:26

What's the word Sidekick??? Is it still progressing as planned on the F-35C and what about the F-35A for the USAF and Export???
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post17 Dec 2020, 10:57

aussiebloke wrote:A comment from Raytheon back in 2016 on AIM-120 range:

Neil Jennings, AMRAAM's business development director at Raytheon Missile Systems told IHS Jane's:

"The AIM-120C-5 extended the range of the AIM-120B fairly significantly, by shortening the control actuation system in the back and adding fins to the back end of the rocket motor. That added pretty decent range capability when you go from AIM-120B to AIM-120C-5. The C-7 and the D share the same rocket motor, and the same form, fit, function, size, and control actuation system. And both the C-7 and D have the same rocket motor as the C-5. Throughout AMRAAM's development, there have been improvements into the flight profile of the missile to get to the target. These improvements have led to range increases as well, and the jump from the B to the C-7 was fairly significant. The D can fly slightly farther than the C-7, and the C-7 can fly farther than the C-5. But this range increase is in the order of low double-digit percentages."

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... 127/page-2

Thanks, good find :thumb:
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests