The information regarding the Aim120 PK vs the AIM7 is extremely debatable, as Carlo Kopp, the famed "Air Power Australia" nut, is where much of this internet land "the Amraam sucks" nonsense originates from. I'm no huge F35 defender, nor do I slag it at this point, but in order to make the F35 look worse in A2A engagements, Carlo Kopp used data from the F35's only current long/medium range weapon, the Aim120, to do so. He fudged this data in the most advantageous way for HIS argument.
Example: He deliberately excluded "non-BVR" successful warshots, he deliberately excluded instances where more than one missile was successfully fired at a target and he deliberately included instances where missiles were fired WELL out of their NEZ with the pilots aiming to suppress a threat and achieve a "mission kill" knowing full well the missile was unlikely to achieve an actual kill.
Depending on how you interpret the declassified Aim120 data out there, you canget anywhere from a 43% to a 90% pk rate with it.
I will say that from what I've been told in person, by several fighter pilots, and by a very good high school friend that is a 2500 hour Hornet pilot, Canada's current test pilot for whatever new fighter we get, and an Empire test pilot grad with experience in the Typhoon and Gripen at Empire, the Superhornet and F16 on exchange, and flights in 2 other front line US fighters, that the Aim120 is the probably the most lethal weapon ever fielded in the USAF or USN/USMC fighter corps. Arguably the Aim9x block 2 is just as effective, but it doesn't have any warshots for comparison yet. Also, the Major of whom I'm speaking,
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jason-paquin/39/72b/444, has fired 3 Aim120 while working in the testing/experimental unit of the RCAF. Stern chase shots and an extreme range BVR shot vs a hard maneuvering drone target. All three caused catastrophic destruction of their targets.
Also, Bodhi, one thing regarding the range figures - The F35's range is nothing to hop up and down for, but neither are the legacy or Super Hornet's either. You're quoting the ferry range figures for the legacy and the combat radius for the F35, apples and oranges. They are both fairly close to one another in terms of combat radius, which is to say, crap. I know Gsholz will correctly say that the F35 carries a much larger fuel load and has a larger fuel fraction than the legacy and SuperHornet, but from what is currently available regarding radius range info to the public, they don't really differ all that much. FYI, even the SuperHornet with it's larger fuel fraction than the legacy it replaced still needed USAF fixed wing tanker support to operate anywhere further than 30 miles north of Baghdad, and tons of tanker support in Afghanistan. I hope Mace will come by this thread and use the F14 example of its range compared to both Hornet types, it's ridiculous how poor both the Hornet models range is, even with max drop tanks and massive tanker support. That said, I too believe the F18E/F is a great fighter despite this issue, very capable, great AESA radar, and so on.
I'd like to hear Eagl and Mace's opinion of the Aim120 (again, but just to re confirm it for those here that will no doubt continue on with the Air power Australia propaganda about it), as well as any updated opinions from them regarding the F35.
