Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

APG-68v1 has longer range than APG-66v3

You can see in that old Doc posted again from swiss how good the upgraded 66 might have been:

During the field trials on a BAC-1-11 test aircraft, the APG-66(V)2’s performance surpassed expectations; it was possible to demonstrate the radar in the high electromagnetic interference environment of the Netherlands and in the high clutter environment of the fjords of Norway. According to company officials, the demonstration radar doubled range detection, reduced false alarms by a factor of 10, and simulated six AMRAAM shots. Ground mapping was improved and demonstrated out to 80 nautical miles, and the buyers had the opportunity to see the full-color display. In demonstrations to other potential buyers, engineers emphasized design maturity and growth potential. The upgraded radar’s performance was nearly that of the APG-68(V) installed in the F-16C/D,

So garrya pointed out a source to me that actually states the fuel in an AIM-120C-5/7/D. I had ~20% too much fuel. So I re-calibrated.

Re-calibration 1:
Set fuel to 51.2559kg (form 61.36kg), ISP 265 for 8s (not changing these two) and 28 degree loft (changed from 25), 180s assumed max electrical power.
This allows an 87nm (160km) launch from 36,000ft and M1 against a non-maneuvering and head-on target at 36,000ft and Mach .85 in 178.5s. Peak speed of this shot is 4.19M.
This also allows a 183nm (337km) launch from 60,000ft and 1.6M against a non-maneuvering and head-on target at 75,000ft and Mach2.5 in 179.6s. Peak speed of this shot is 4.91M.

I think this all falls more in line with what we think the AIM-120D should be doing in terms of speed.

Importantly, this drops the M1 flight range from 71nm to 65nm as well as dropping max potential speed from 6.0+ to less than 5.0 even when fired from a Raptor.

So garrya pointed out a source to me that actually states the fuel in an AIM-120C-5/7/D. I had ~20% too much fuel. So I re-calibrated.

Re-calibration 1:
Set fuel to 51.2559kg (form 61.36kg), ISP 265 for 8s (not changing these two) and 28 degree loft (changed from 25), 180s assumed max electrical power.
This allows an 87nm (160km) launch from 36,000ft and M1 against a non-maneuvering and head-on target at 36,000ft and Mach .85 in 178.5s. Peak speed of this shot is 4.19M.
This also allows a 183nm (337km) launch from 60,000ft and 1.6M against a non-maneuvering and head-on target at 75,000ft and Mach2.5 in 179.6s. Peak speed of this shot is 4.91M.

I think this all falls more in line with what we think the AIM-120D should be doing in terms of speed.

Importantly, this drops the M1 flight range from 71nm to 65nm as well as dropping max potential speed from 6.0+ to less than 5.0 even when fired from a Raptor.

How does that affect our "Intercept a maneuvering Mig-31" scenario from earlier? Now only Meteor class can defeat it?
Can you draw similar chart to what you did earlier but with new re calibration value ?

Remember, I had a significant guidance issue before where it was effectively pure pursuit.

Against a MiG-31BM that can theoretically detect the missile (in spite of a M6.5 relative speed) from 16.3nm, begin turning in two seconds, and turn at 2 dps at a 0.5G deceleration (significantly more agile that I was modeling before).

F-22 shot? 60,000ft 1.6M launch from 150nm?--> Hit
Top speed 4.91M. Final speed 3.45M. Total flight range 92nm. Final turn rate/Radius available 11.0dps 17,500ft

** IMPORTANT NOTE** In my previous posts I mentioned the turn radius of the missile being ~18nm or something like that... my sheet readout was 18. I forgot that was in thousand of feet, not nm. I picked the units so they would graph together well.

F-15E(X) shot? 49,000ft 1.4M launch from 150nm?--> Hit
Top speed 4.66M. Final Speed 2.75M. Total flight range 86.5nm. Final turn rate/radius available 8.8dps 17,500ft

F-16 Cruise shot? 36,000ft .9M launch from 130nm? (not under 180s ToF until 137nm)--> Miss
F-16 Cruise shot? 36,000ft .9M launch from 120nm?--> Miss
F-16 Cruise shot? 36,000ft .9M launch from 110nm?--> Miss
F-16 Cruise shot? 36,000ft .9M launch from 100nm?--> Hit
Top speed 4.09M. Final Speed 1.79M. Total flight range 50.6nm. Final turn rate/radius available 5.7dps 17,500ft

So the speed of the MiG and its relative agility compared to its predecessor allows it to be "invulnerable" to shots taken beyond 100nm from a low energy state fighter.

I will work on another chart.

Here it is

I added more steps to the new one. My new loft guidance and the new motor are readily apparent especially in the "Raptor shot". In the new speed plot we see vartical lines attached to the end, these are for missiles that reached the MiG within 180s flight time for a launch 150nm away.

Thanks Spurts

Here it is

The attachment AIM-120D flight profile old-v-new.PNG is no longer available

I added more steps to the new one. My new loft guidance and the new motor are readily apparent especially in the "Raptor shot". In the new speed plot we see vartical lines attached to the end, these are for missiles that reached the MiG within 180s flight time for a launch 150nm away.

These lines represent AMRAAM range versus Foxhound fly in straight line?
Is this graph correct still?

Here it is

AIM-120D flight profile old-v-new.PNG

I added more steps to the new one. My new loft guidance and the new motor are readily apparent especially in the "Raptor shot". In the new speed plot we see vartical lines attached to the end, these are for missiles that reached the MiG within 180s flight time for a launch 150nm away.

These lines represent AMRAAM range versus Foxhound fly in straight line?
Is this graph correct still?

9A04DD98-B2C8-41BB-9F1C-B90E82964E05.png

That chart was for the Meteor. I haven't changed that other than general guidance changes made across the board.

I remember reading somewhere AIM-120A can reach Mach4, while AIM-120C can exceed Mach5.

I remember reading somewhere AIM-120A can reach Mach4, while AIM-120C can exceed Mach5.

Where did you read that and in what context?

I remember reading somewhere AIM-120A can reach Mach4, while AIM-120C can exceed Mach5.

Where did you read that and in what context?

Well, it was not a research paper, but some popular journals (i.e. combat aircraft) that you can purchase at a train station

The train station??

F22 vs PAK-FA aerodynamic efficiency water tunnel test:

https://www.iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/uploa ... 06_026.pdf

That chart was for the Meteor. I haven't changed that other than general guidance changes made across the board.

HARMs top speed is 2 Mach so base on their relative motor length and size, can your simulator estimate AARGM-ER top speed?. Let say it can't, your educated guess is good enough for me

F22 vs PAK-FA aerodynamic efficiency water tunnel test:

https://www.iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/uploa ... 06_026.pdf

Layman cliffs?

The F-22 has greater aerodynamic efficiency, but the PAK FA has better resistance to stall?