AMRAAM
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why do people keep saying that the AMRAAM is a bad missile? Not necessarily on this site, but on other sites, people on other sites refer to the AIM-120 as though it were a joke that never hits the target. They say it has low pk. Is this true? Is America's air force built on a house of cards?
>>29071864
Dunno russians and euro's are still mad that they didn't invent the powered aircraft and whine for some kind of advantage to make they peepees feel special I guess.
>>29071864
>They say it has low pk
Well it has the highest PK of any ARH BVR missile, so...
Missiles still kinda sucked even in the 80s, like the sparrow, but even in the 90s they got a lot better. I think the AIM-7 from the 90s had a PK of like 20 to 30%.
The AMRAAM is much, much better than that.
The newest models have enough delta V to hit bomber type targets out to about 100nm head on. This would give them a no escape zone of something like 10 to 30 nm. Couple that with modern AESAs that pretty much WONT drop the track, and the wizbang wizardry in the new AIM-120s guidance system, means its likely gonna fuck Ivan's shit up.
Nobody knows much about the red's stuff like R-77s because theyve never fired on in anger, but historically, their missiles suck. Not saying the new ones do, but I dont think an AA-10 has ever hit a target in combat.
Oh, but IR missiles are basically confirmed for GOAT, you are just so fucked if somebody fires one at you within perimeters.
>>29071864
Because they keep comparing it to BVRAAMs that technically don't exist yet.
>>29072054
*parameters.
and speaking as somebody who flies fighter jets for a living... it depends and it's all classified. come sign up if you want to know more.
>>29071864
The AIM-120 is probably the best overall medium-sized missile in existence. The Meteor is a very strong competitor.
>>29072087
so are airforce twinks as cute as they say?
>>29071864
It's 11:13 in actual combat use, which is an 86% Pk. Even if you subtract fratricide, that's 9:11 (kek) which is an 82% historical Pk. Even the early testing 46% Pk with the A model would be insanely deadly, desu.
>>29072118
The problem with a lot of its combat application was that it was against shitbuckets, or pilots that didn't even react before pitbull (though thats arguably a positive in favor of the missile)
But yes, its the most proven missile fired in anger. Not like aircraft with anywhere near modern parity are engaging each other these days to actually find out for sure.
>>29072246
The vast majority of air-to-air kills have been scored by undetected missiles anyway.
>>29072054
>ARH
What does ARH stand for?
>>29072277
Active Radar Homing. Basically, the missile has a radar inside it, and can use that to hit the enemy
>>29072246
>The problem with a lot of its combat application was that it was against shitbuckets, or pilots that didn't even react before pitbull
And thats still very much true today. WHat do you think the average fulcrum or flanker, ( china or russia) is equipped with in terms of RWR gear? Suprise, its not great.
Hell, even OUR pilots dont have that great of RWR gear. The last pilot I talked to at length, said that the RWR was the biggest shortcoming on his jet, an AESA equipped eagle. Though in that context he was talking specifically about SAM threats, namely SA-10 and 20s.
With a radar in TWS mode, you as the badguy doesnt know if a missile is in the air. What are you going to do, just assume a slammer is inbound as soon as you see an F-15 or viper on your RWR scope? Well you fucking better.
The AESAs take this to a whole new level of sneakyness. It is unlikely Ivan will know an F-22 is looking at him, let alone bugging him for an amraam shot.
>>29072087
How hard is it to qualify?
>>29072292
Thanks. I knew the term 'active' as in 'active guidance' but not the acronym. Thanks for the info. :)
>>29072477
how's the F-35's RWR?
>>29072542
baracuda is the most secretive part of the aircraft plus it's pretty much all over the fucking plane and takes up a huge amount of space. so probably good
>>29072505
there's some combination of intelligence, skill, competence, attitude, pride, and the willingness to work very hard that will get you into a fighter jet daily.
and yes, you will be self-confident. some would say arrogant. but it's only arrogant if you can't back it up.
so in short, my fighter pilots and WSO and NFO's are all very good. if you want to know more, sign on the dotted line.
>>29072555
Barracuda?
>>29071864
Yes. we are built on a house of cards, and surely we will fall soon.
Or we are fucking fine and there is no competition for us. Your choice.
In the event of Earth vs the United states, the United states would win in a conventional war.
In the event of nuclear war and earth vs the united states. The unites states would probably still have the most in tact population centers when you look at the state of the current nuclear arsenals of the world.
>>29072721
AN/ASQ-239 “Barracuda”
>>29072759
Interesting. I've never seen this aspect of the F-35's avionics publicized in any way. Every other system is proudly proclaimed on the various websites belonging to their manufacturers.
>>29072583
>if you want to know more, sign on the dotted line.
How much are you making in commission to sign sods up?
Seriously, not even listing the preliminary qualifications.
>>29073229
the military doesn't work on commission.
>>29072114
I am also curious
>>29071864
Well if DCS World is any indicator you need to shoot 2 to connect with maneuvering target BVR but unlike a fucking R-27ER at least they hit eventually.
>>29073325
Dont mention DCS when talking about missile performance. Real slammers have a Pk above 3% outside of 10nmi.
That being said, I did play DCS for three hours today, and the Russian devs even realize R-27s are utter shit.
>>29073325
>Well if DCS World is any indicator
It isn't.
>>29073325
Don't talk about DCS. It's terrible in regards to reality.
>"B-but muh A-10"
The only use it had was to familiarize pilots with how the avionics worked for the C.
>>29073325
>Well if DCS World is any indicator
You might as well have cited Ace Combat.
>>29073483
Be that as it may, its far better then say ace combat. What modern era CFS does /k/ approve?
>>29073553
None of them. If I HAD to choose, Falcon.
>>29073544
Very well then, but frankly I don't think any of us armchair generals has the ability to answer the question is the AMRAAM an effective platform. Perhaps then until its seen combat no one will really be able to say for certain.
>>29073598
Falcon is just as garbage in other areas as DCS is
>>29073601
>armchair generals
speak for yourself.
>>29073553
nothing commercially available
>>29073601
AMRAAMs have seen combat.
>>29072846
Some time ago I remember some conversation about most jets lost in the first gulf war to missiles never knew they had been targeted and that the Barracuda is a pretty big deal in applying what they had learned from that.
>>29073612
OK then I guess i'll keep flying DCS. :/
>>29073614
When has the AMRAAM been used in combat? We were still using the AIM-7 during desert storm and thats the last time I can recall NATO aircraft in Air to Air situation with comparable opponents (close to it).
>>29073612
>Falcon is just as garbage in other areas as DCS is
Hence why I said none of them. It's better than DCS in most regards, but it ain't perfect.
>>29073645
In Desert Storm and afterwards.
>>29073654
How so? Its a far older game as i recall. I'm honestly curious. I always assumed since DCS was newer it was a more detailed...
>>29073667
I googled. Seems like its been quite successful all like 16 times its been used lol.
>>29073679
It's been updated constantly by a devoted group of modders, and overall has better flight and avionics simulation.
>>29072530
the inverse is semi active, which means you need to maintain a lock until it hits the target. Just in case you didn't already know.
>>29073698
Is the latest version BMS the best one? Or is allied force still standard.
>>29073731
BMS 4.33 is the best, yeah. Just came out earlier this year.
>>29073553
Any commercial Mil-Sim is basically just the devs making their best guess as to how the classified stuff works. Like CMANO, it's a great sim, but do the devs know what the flight controller on an SM-3 looks like, or what the output of the radar on an AEGIS cruiser is? God no.
>>29072542
Dude the RWR gear of 80s jets is still hyper classified. We likely wont know much about the F-35's for another 50 years.
>>29073612
>Falcon is just as garbage in other areas as DCS is
The only area, other than graphics, that I find falcon bms lacks, is in the AI, and in missile performance. A missile fired at 40k feet has no more KE added vs a missile fired at 20k ft. Its a difficult fix as I understand it, as its deeply embedded in the source code.
Do enlighten me as to the other areas the game lacks in realism though. It is widely held to have an extremely hi fidelity representation of an IRL viper's handling.
>>29072846
EODAS actually grew out of the X-35's missile warning system.
The IR cameras were originally there to see missile launches coming at the aircraft from any direction. But the engineers realized the cameras had enough resolution to act in their current role and cranked the system up to 12.
You can bet your ass that DAS is very highly integrated into the overall missile warning scheme.
>>29074518
No shit. There are similar systems on other aircraft (helicopters) which are basically a camera pod.
>>29071864
>Thinking the AIM-7 is a AIM-120.
I think you should remove your sources.
>>29074193
>or what the output of the radar on an AEGIS cruiser is?
Yes.
>>29071864
>Why do people keep saying that the AMRAAM is a bad missile?
Because we've yet to fill a 747 to the brim with one.
>you got any idea how many AMRAAMs this baby's carrying?
>>29072277
>>29072292
>>29072505
>>29073710
Is "ARH" commonly used? I've always heard the broad classifications as AR/SAR/IR.
>>29071864
All BVR missiles are pretty meh for PK. But it's the most proven one out there; name another in its class with more kills.
>>29072054
>>29072087
This.
>>29073601
A guy claiming to be a pilot said some smart shit earlier in the thread, and the AMRAAM has been in service for like thirty years; smoking Serbs, Iraqis, and Libyans like OP on cock.
>>29073710
semi active radar homing (SARH) means the missile only has a receiver and requires A) something to illuminate the target with radar or B) an active radar to home in on
the final model of AIM-7 Sparrow was SARH with a terminal IR seeker and a datalink, it never entered service though
>>29077168
Fairly common usage.
>>29077168
Yes. Active radar describes the sensor itself, and homing describes it's purpose.
>>29076849
>you got any idea how many AMRAAMs this baby's carrying?
Not sure if ISGATG reference...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SXd28US0-0
>0:45
