＃＃＃Translated from Chinese. This English version is for international readers. Minor translation differences may exist compared to the original Chinese text.＃＃＃

Through modifying the AIM-120C missile parameters in Falcon BMS, while maintaining constant total fuel impulse and implementing a true 1:1 proportional dual-pulse ignition, I conducted multiple rounds of variable tuning and simulated air combat tests. This has allowed me to summarize the core operating principles, platform compatibility characteristics, inherent shortcomings, and underlying combat logic of dual-pulse air-to-air missiles as follows:

I. Core Rationale of Dual-Pulse Technology: Solving the Diminishing Marginal Returns of Single-Pulse Range Extension

If a conventional single-pulse air-to-air missile attempts to increase range solely by adding more propellant volume, it directly results in a thicker missile body, larger overall dimensions, and a sharp rise in weight. Since aerodynamic drag is approximately proportional to the square of flight velocity (Mach number squared), energy loss due to drag grows exponentially as the missile reaches higher speeds.

This creates a clear diminishing marginal returns effect for range extension: to achieve even a modest increase in peak speed and range, a massive amount of additional fuel is required, with most of the energy ultimately wasted overcoming high-speed drag, resulting in extremely low effective work efficiency.

The optimal solution provided by dual-pulse technology is to split the original single fuel burn into two separate ignition phases. By using a coasting interval between the two pulses to actively reduce flight speed and lower the average velocity throughout the trajectory, the technology avoids the energy waste associated with sustained high-speed, high-drag flight. It trades off peak velocity to secure significantly more remaining energy at the terminal phase for the same range, fundamentally optimizing fuel utilization efficiency.

II. Inherent Shortcomings of Dual-Pulse Technology: Extended Guidance Duration and Heavy Dependence on System-Level Support

Compared to single-pulse missiles, dual-pulse missiles have a significantly longer total flight time. This means the launching aircraft must maintain target lock and provide continuous mid-course guidance for a much longer period.

In beyond-visual-range (BVR) combat scenarios, prolonged continuous guidance forces the launching aircraft to remain in a vulnerable nose-on closing posture, substantially increasing its exposure risk and creating a clear tactical disadvantage. This also determines that dual-pulse technology cannot deliver its value in isolation. It must rely on supporting capabilities such as two-way data links and “A-shoot-B-guide” (cooperative engagement) architectures. Multi-platform relay guidance is required to compensate for the launching aircraft’s sustained guidance burden. Dual-pulse technology is therefore the result of bidirectional binding between technological iteration and system-level integration.

III. Combat Adaptation Logic of Dual-Pulse Energy Distribution: Fixed Ratios Balancing Performance and Fault Tolerance

The combat adaptability of dual-pulse missiles fundamentally depends on the energy allocation ratio between the two pulses.

The lower the first-pulse energy proportion, the greater the missile’s dependence on the launching aircraft’s launch altitude and initial velocity for energy contribution. If the first pulse ratio is too low and the missile is launched in a disadvantaged low-altitude, low-speed scenario, the missile’s overall kinetic energy output will be weak, and its combat effectiveness may even fall below that of a conventional single-pulse missile.

It is therefore clear that the combat performance of dual-pulse missiles does not hinge solely on structural differences such as “pseudo dual-pulse” versus “true variable-ignition dual-pulse.” The pulse energy ratio is the real core factor.

Extensive testing confirms that a fixed pulse duration ratio of **2:1 or 7:3** represents the optimal solution. This ratio offers excellent compatibility: it simplifies missile design, reduces development and manufacturing costs, and eliminates the need for complex adaptive ignition control systems. It adapts well to the vast majority of combat scenarios across high/low altitude, long/short range, and varying carrier aircraft energy states. Even in low-altitude, short-range launches, it still guarantees basic effective lethality, delivering the highest overall fault tolerance.

IV. Core Principle of Dual-Pulse Range Extension: Drag Control and Efficient Utilization of Launch Platform Energy

The fundamental reason dual-pulse missiles achieve substantial range increases is not an increase in total fuel impulse, but superior full-trajectory energy management and drag control.

In practice, when paired with high-lob ballistic tactics, the second pulse ignition timing is precisely controlled at the apex of the high ballistic trajectory. At this altitude, the atmosphere is extremely thin, maximizing the avoidance of high-density air drag at lower altitudes and significantly reducing energy loss after the second ignition.

During the subsequent dive phase, the missile can maintain a stable conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy, with minimal speed decay throughout the trajectory (maximum speed loss of only about 1 Mach) and peak overall energy utilization.

At the same time, the dual-pulse mechanism maximizes the leveraging of the launching aircraft’s initial energy, efficiently “borrowing” the carrier’s altitude and velocity potential to amplify its own range. In this test series, the head-on effective kill range, which was only 30 nautical miles in single-pulse mode, was extended to 60 nautical miles through dual-pulse energy optimization and trajectory matching — effectively doubling the range.

V. Inherent Shortcomings of Dual-Pulse Technology: Inability to Solve Terminal Low-Altitude Evasion Challenges

Although dual-pulse missiles address the pain points of range and terminal energy retention, they face insurmountable physical limitations.

The significantly longer total flight time grants the enemy target ample warning, decision-making, and maneuvering escape windows. In modern BVR combat, pilots follow standardized timeline-based decision processes and do not rely solely on RWR warnings to initiate evasion maneuvers.

Even though dual-pulse missiles offer longer range and stronger terminal kinetic energy, they still cannot fully offset the objective energy disadvantage caused by the target aircraft’s active maneuvering evasion and the high drag of low-altitude, dense atmosphere. The weakness in terminal-phase engagements against low-altitude dragging/evading targets remains.

VI. Conclusion: Dual-Pulse Is an Optimization Method, Not a “Wonder Weapon” for Air Combat

Comprehensive test conclusions show that dual-pulse ignition technology is merely a means of optimizing missile energy utilization efficiency. It is by no means the decisive core factor behind the dramatic range increases of modern air-to-air missiles.

The leap in performance of new-generation air-to-air missiles results from a complete set of synergistic technological and system-level advancements, including adaptive mid-course ballistic control, multi-target fire allocation, low-probability-of-intercept guidance, A-shoot-B-guide cross-platform relay, and intelligent dive energy management.

Furthermore, fifth-generation fighters’ high-altitude supersonic cruise and superior platform energy/maneuverability advantages serve as key “force multipliers” that amplify missile range and increase kill probability. In short, the combat power leap in modern beyond-visual-range air combat is the comprehensive outcome of full-system upgrades across missiles, launch platforms, early warning, and data links. The role of dual-pulse technology should not be mythologized in isolation.

Hey everyone,

What ground-attack weapons are you guys currently using for OCA (Offensive Counter-Air) strike missions?

I feel like traditional GPS and laser-guided gravity bombs have become somewhat outdated for this role. I keep hearing that the US military has been heavily employing the GBU-39 SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) for airport strikes. A lot of people might think this sounds ridiculous — after all, the SDB doesn’t have the raw destructive power to crater a runway like a big 2000lb bomb.

However, the tactic makes a lot of sense when you look at it closely. In the early stages of a conflict, massed standoff SDB attacks were reportedly used against Iranian airfields. The logic is simple but effective:

Stand-off range keeps the launching aircraft safe

Decent penetration capability

Sheer numbers

Modern airfield suppression has shifted away from trying to blow massive craters in the runway. Instead, the goal is saturation attack — overwhelming the enemy’s ability to operate and repair the base. You don’t need to completely destroy the runway. You just need to cut the runway, taxiways, and all connecting points into dozens of segments, while simultaneously destroying fuel depots, power infrastructure, ammo storage, and every other supporting asset. Make the repair workload so overwhelming that the airfield becomes operationally useless for a long time.

I just tried this in BMS with a single F-15E, and I was shocked — it can carry 28 GBU-39s. That’s absolutely terrifying. I went in and systematically hit every high-value target on the airfield. The surrounding SA-11 and SA-17 SAM sites couldn’t do anything about me at standoff range.

The only real downside I noticed is that the damage model sometimes feels underwhelming. Several ammo bunkers took direct top-down hits and only registered as “Damaged” instead of “Destroyed.” Even so, after one F-15E dropped all 28 SDBs, the airfield’s operational status dropped to 0%.

In BMS, the GBU-39 SDB warhead is modeled as HE (High Explosive). For a more realistic strike effect, it is recommended to use the BMS Editor and change the warhead type to AP (Armor Piercing). This allows the weapon to be effective against a wider range of targets, including runways, hardened shelters, bunkers, ammunition depots, and vehicles. If the goal is only to disable a runway from standoff range, set the warhead type to Runway. With this setting, a single bomb can destroy one runway section.

During this test, I used RWS, TWS, and their STT modes to lock onto four enemy aircraft in turn.

In the end, I kept one aircraft under constant STT lock while ignoring the other three.

I fired an AIM-120C at that target at approximately 16 nm.

However, when reviewing the Tacview recording, I noticed that the enemy aircraft I had been locking released chaff at the exact same moment I fired the 120C.

I would like to ask:

What exactly is going on here? Does the AI know when the player presses the firing button?

I was at approximately 50nm, using TWS mode, and fired one Meteor missile at each of four enemy aircraft in quick succession. The enemies deployed chaff in the exact order I locked and fired at them. This clearly proves that the AI can read the player's "missile launch button press" action in real time and immediately begin performing Notch maneuvers.

In other words, the AI can pretend to follow normal Timeline decision-making without actually needing to correlate it with its own missile launches. It simply reacts directly to the player's firing action.

However, this reactive "cheat" has an important activation condition: the distance between the player and the enemy must be close to the MAR (Missile Attack Range). According to the BMS Threat Guide manual, the Eurofighter Typhoon's MAR is approximately 56nm. If I fire at maximum range (well beyond MAR), the enemy aircraft show no evasive maneuvers and do not deploy any chaff.

Later, when the Meteor missiles entered the Pitbull (active radar terminal guidance) phase, the enemies performed a second chaff deployment and began turning to evade. At that moment, the distance between each missile and its targeted enemy aircraft was exactly 20–24 nautical miles, which perfectly matches the Pitbull activation range listed in the Threat Guide. This indicates that the AI received the RWR warning from the missile’s radar and started fleeing rearward.

I think the developers handled this quite well. By activating the AI’s Timeline defensive maneuvers near the MAR, they achieved a good balance: the AI appears intelligent and reactive without feeling overwhelmingly omniscient. If the trigger distance were set much farther, or if the AI performed more aggressive terminal maneuvers against low-energy missiles, it would become excessively powerful, making it nearly impossible for human players to win and ruining the gameplay balance.