Why isn't the AIM-120 used much?

[JG7_X_MAN]

I have installed the F-22 ans F-35 and no AR missiles - why is that?

[pablo10692]

Are your missions starting in "close to target"? If so, you'll never be far enough to use BVR missiles.

[Silverbolt]

or the basic...did you installed the weapons pack?

 

wich kind of mission, wich game install and wich patch?

Edited July 27, 2009 by Silverbolt

[+ST0RM]

Stock SF2E only goes up to the mid-80's. The AIM-120 wasn't fielded until 1991-ish.

 

As Silverbolt said, you have to add it via a weapons pack.

[JG7_X_MAN]

Hey guys! I found the issue - .LOD named incorrectly in the SF2 Weapons pack. Thanks

Edited July 28, 2009 by JG7_X_MAN

[ironroad]

Personally I have ensured that the Aim-120 never gets deployed in my install. I never fly anything post 1960-70s and no mission past the early 1990s. The only plane I do fly in the 2000s is the F-14 and it never carried slammers.

[+Dave]

Personally I have ensured that the Aim-120 never gets deployed in my install. I never fly anything post 1960-70s and no mission past the early 1990s. The only plane I do fly in the 2000s is the F-14 and it never carried slammers.

 

 

Well LA DE DA for you!

 

 

 

The AMRAAM is being procured for the Air Force, US Navy and America's allies. The AMRAAM program improves the aerial combat capabilities of U.S. and allied aircraft to meet current and future threat of enemy air-to-air weapons. AMRAAM is compatible with the Air Force F-15, F-16 and developmental F-22; Navy F-14 D/D ® and F/A-18 C/D; German F-4 and the British Sea Harrier aircraft. A small number of AMRAAMs were carried by F-15 aircraft during Operation Desert Storm, though none were used. The AIM-120 was redeployed to the Persian Gulf in 1992 for use on F-15 and F-16 fighters. In December 1992 an F-16 pilot fired the first AMRAAM in actual combat, shooting down a MiG-25 Foxbat during a confrontation over southern Iraq.

[+streakeagle]

AMRAAM should have been developed and deployed in the 1980s, but even with all the advances in technology made since the first attempt at the Sparrow II in the 1950s, the engineers found it very difficult to make a missile more capable than a SARH Sparrow fit into an air frame smaller than a SARH Sparrow. The goal was not just to make an active homing missile (the AIM-54 already achieved that) but to make it small enough to fit on fighters that only had AIM-9 Sidewinder rails. In particular, the USAF wanted F-16s to be nearly as capable as F-15s when performing intercepts, sweeps, and CAPs since MiG-23 and later opponents had a credible long range radar missile threat. I am curious as to how good AMRAAM really is. If you shave 150-200 lbs from a Sparrow, go to a smaller airframe, and add an active radar, you have to give up something. Of course you gain a bit in maneuverability, but there must be some loss of range/speed/warhead etc. Given that F-15s, F-18s, F-4s, and Tornadoes can arleady carry Sparrows, I would want active radar homing Sparrows. If the AIM-120 seeker/guidance is better, surely it would fit into the larger Sparrow air frame providing a longer range punch for those fighters capable of carrying them.

[+Dave]

AMRAAM should have been developed and deployed in the 1980s, but even with all the advances in technology made since the first attempt at the Sparrow II in the 1950s, the engineers found it very difficult to make a missile more capable than a SARH Sparrow fit into an air frame smaller than a SARH Sparrow. The goal was not just to make an active homing missile (the AIM-54 already achieved that) but to make it small enough to fit on fighters that only had AIM-9 Sidewinder rails. In particular, the USAF wanted F-16s to be nearly as capable as F-15s when performing intercepts, sweeps, and CAPs since MiG-23 and later opponents had a credible long range radar missile threat. I am curious as to how good AMRAAM really is. If you shave 150-200 lbs from a Sparrow, go to a smaller airframe, and add an active radar, you have to give up something. Of course you gain a bit in maneuverability, but there must be some loss of range/speed/warhead etc. Given that F-15s, F-18s, F-4s, and Tornadoes can arleady carry Sparrows, I would want active radar homing Sparrows. If the AIM-120 seeker/guidance is better, surely it would fit into the larger Sparrow air frame providing a longer range punch for those fighters capable of carrying them.

 

Serverandenforcers father was one of the brains behind the AIM-120, he has some great insight on the Slammer. (just a tid bit of trivia for you all) Its all about micro electronics. That is why its lighter and smaller. Nothing was given up. Its prgress of technology.

 

The D model when deployed with have 50% more range, AESA radar, and data linking between missiles. The range will be 120 miles. AIM-7 has been obsolete since the AIM-120 was deployed. When I left Sheppard AFB in 2006 we were no longer teaching AIM-7 maint. It was all AIM-120B/C

[+streakeagle]

Whatever technology improvements that permitted AMRAAM to succeed could be applied to the Sparrow, with the extra size/weight allowing even bigger gains in some areas.

For instance, the larger diameter of the AIM-7 permits a larger radar antenna to be used which could improve seeker capabilities.

If the same warhead is used, the extra weight/space could permit an even bigger engine for more range/speed.

If a smaller engine could be used to get the same range/speed, a larger warhead could be carried...

etc.

 

Missiles are no different than airplanes, there are trade-offs in size/weight, but if you can afford the increase in weight, cost, and loss of maneuverability, bigger is generally better.

Smaller fighters (F-16) and stealth fighters' missile bays make smaller missiles more appealing.

But a whole lot of F-15s, F/A-18s, Tornadoes, F-4 Phantoms, etc. can still easily carry AIM-7 size missiles.

Why not use modern technology to create a long range AAM comparable to the AIM-54 and squeeze it into an AIM-7 sized package?

The answer is that it was already done, but budgets being what they are, newer versions of the AIM-7 are not considered cost effective given that the ones we already have are still getting the job done and newer fighters can't use them.

But, given that AMRAAM seekers are in production, it would make sense to be able to upgrade AIM-7s as needed to the same standard.

 

It is not true to say nothing was given up.

There is a big difference in warhead size.

AMRAAM's aerodynamic maximum range was about half of the AIM-7F/M missiles (30 nm vs 54 nm).

Whatever engine improvment that is giving it a 50% bonus would probably provide a similar improvement to the AIM-7, which combined with midcourse guidance and an ARH seeker would make the AIM-7 a lighter more maneuverable AIM-54.

Edited July 28, 2009 by streakeagle

[+Dave]

Why not use modern technology to create a long range AAM comparable to the AIM-54 and squeeze it into an AIM-7 sized package?

 

Because the AMRAAM can do it better. As I said the AIM-120D is lighter, and can go farther and with AESA radar it cant be jammed. (for now) The USAF IIRC doesn't even using the AIM-7 anymore. Who would want to go backwards? the AIM-120 is a better missile period, you can spew all the logic you want, but its like buying F-4's again when you already have a fleet of F-15's. Bigger is not always better. Never has been.

[ironroad]

Well LA DE DA for you!

 

Don't hate me because my install is beautiful *snaps fingers*

 

Btw, I have always be curious about this, how do the Aim-120 and Aim-7 warheads compare?

[+streakeagle]

Because the AMRAAM can do it better. As I said the AIM-120D is lighter, and can go farther and with AESA radar it cant be jammed. (for now) The USAF IIRC doesn't even using the AIM-7 anymore. Who would want to go backwards? the AIM-120 is a better missile period, you can spew all the logic you want, but its like buying F-4's again when you already have a fleet of F-15's. Bigger is not always better. Never has been.

 

Bigger is not always better, but it is the sure way to bet.

Maybe the Navy should go back to WWII sized aircraft carriers with 30 foot long airplanes because bigger is never better and never has been?

The F-22s should be scrapped right now, because the smaller F-35 is just a much better fighter.

The USAAC questioned the need for a 4-engined bomber when Boeing first showed up with the B-17, then upgraded to the B-29, the B-47, and ultimately the B-52.

Yup, bigger never has been better.

 

Actually, bigger has almost always been better whether you talk bombers, fighter planes, or missiles, otherwise why not just use the smaller and cheaper AIM-9 missiles and F-16 fighters?

No, when you want range, speed, payload, etc, you have to go bigger.

F-15s carried the brunt of the air superiority mission because they were designed to do so with more fuel, a bigger radar, and the capability to carry bigger missiles.

Of course the Navy needed even more endurance and a longer intercept range, so they made and even bigger F-14 with an even bigger radar and bigger missiles.

F-4s didn't lose early in the Vietnam War because they were bigger, they lost due to poor planning and training... its bigger F-15 replacement easily defeats smaller MiGs.

 

AIM-120 was the smallest lightest package that could be made to be ARH, but that doesn't make it the best choice, just the one that met the specifications that would allow it to work on F-16 Sidewinder rails. As an added bonus, smaller means a better fit into a small internal bay, critical to the stealth fighters... but to be stealthy and have internal bays, the F-22 and F-35 had to be much bigger than conventional fighters built to the same performance specifications.

 

Smaller is rarely better, unless you are talking cost.

The smaller F-35 is not anywhere near as good as an F-22... but it sure is cheaper, so that's why the F-22 is being cancelled and replaced with the F-35.

Of course, if we ever get into an air war again, it is our pilots who will pay the cost of our decision to save money and prepare to fight only small 3rd rate air forces...

Just as the Vietnam pilots paid in blood for the decision to prepare to fight only nuclear wars and to save money and reduce peacetime accidents by not allowing air combat training.

 

AMRAAM is a great missile, but who would argue that a better missile can't be made?

We have an awful lot of AIM-7 airframes and an awful lot of fighters that can still carry them, so I am merely suggesting that we tap into that potential and get extra capability at the same time.

[+Dave]

AMRAAM is a great missile, but who would argue that a better missile can't be made?

 

Thus you confirmed my arguement. The AMRAAM was the improvement over the AIM-7, and of course a better missile can be made in the future. That goes without saying.

 

I also said bigger has not always been better. Carriers yes, big trucks that guzzle gas, no. I mean we can get into semantics all day.

[DWCAce]

Streak, you forgot to add that the USAF totally went the wrong way with the B-36... j/k! Good points, I wish more 'disagreements' on the boards went this civil.

[+daddyairplanes]

i believe the Slammer so far has a 100% record in combat and somewhere between 80-90% in training shots. theres reasons AIM-120 is called the Slammer and AIM-7 was called the great white hope.

[MigBuster]

i believe the Slammer so far has a 100% record in combat and somewhere between 80-90% in training shots. theres reasons AIM-120 is called the Slammer and AIM-7 was called the great white hope.

 

No it doesnt - Mike Shower in an F-15C (1999 Allied Force) fired 3 at one MiG-29 - 2 fired initially which both failed - so he then fired a third from about 6 miles which hit - not sure which version though.

[+Dave]

No it doesnt - Mike Shower in an F-15C (1999 Allied Force) fired 3 at one MiG-29 - 2 fired initially which both failed - so he then fired a third from about 6 miles which hit - not sure which version though.

 

A models and B had their teething problems. The C and the C-5 are the heat though. They do very well in tests against a jinking target. I am not sure if a C has been fired in anger yet though.

[JediMaster]

A bigger missile that isn't fired is a bigger waste of fuel/payload. You also can't carry as many. An F-15 can carry 8 AMRAAMs if it wants, but only 4 AIM-7s. No Hornet could carry more than 2 Sparrows IIRC.

Internal stealthy carriage of a Sparrow could never happen. They could have conceivably replaced the AIM-54 with an uprated Sparrow, but the AMRAAM wasn't just meant to replace the Sparrow but to do more and go where the Sparrow couldn't--like on Harriers.

 

Also, if bigger weapons are always superior, why do all American jets use 20mm cannon and not 30mm like the Russian jets? The Russians thought 100-150 rounds of 30mm was enough, while US jets always had 500+ rnds of 20mm.

[DWCAce]

The legacy hornets can carry 4, but special pylons are used on the wings.

[Rambler 1-1]

Pfft. BVR missiles... REAL pilots use guns. Or missiles with 20% reliability (AIM-9B).

 

Besides, it's much more fun to get into a holy hairball with MiGs and Tomcats or Eagles or Hornets or what-have-you, rather then just getting a lock and killing your targets before you even see them. That's why the AIM-120 isn't used much.

 

(*ducks and runs from things thrown by other forum members*)

[serverandenforcer]

Serverandenforcers father was one of the brains behind the AIM-120, he has some great insight on the Slammer. (just a tid bit of trivia for you all) Its all about micro electronics. That is why its lighter and smaller. Nothing was given up. Its prgress of technology.

 

 

I believe the reason why the sparrow is larger is because of the size of the rocket motor and the fuel load (not to be mistaken by payload). The new sparrows can travel quite far, however the AMRAAM goes about half the distance (untill now with the new AIM-120D - which will probably be replacing all Sparrows). Plus, the Sparrow was developed by a different company, Raytheon I think. The AMRAAM was developed by Hughes Aircraft and Missiles Systems. Both companies have protected rights to the designs of their equipment. So you just can't simply swap out one part and replace it in another product made by a different company. Can you imagine how bad that would go down for goverment contracts?

Edited July 30, 2009 by serverandenforcer

[jomni]

Pfft. BVR missiles... REAL pilots use guns. Or missiles with 20% reliability (AIM-9B).

 

Besides, it's much more fun to get into a holy hairball with MiGs and Tomcats or Eagles or Hornets or what-have-you, rather then just getting a lock and killing your targets before you even see them. That's why the AIM-120 isn't used much.

 

(*ducks and runs from things thrown by other forum members*)

 

Remember if you can use BVR missile... so can your enemy. And that's not a fun experience. That's why I appreciate the timeframe of the SF games.