Maneuverability improvements dont have to be proven, the current maneuverability is nonsense and based on nothing so buffs should come because the current one makes no sense.
Also mate stop being such a bonehead, the missile when into service in 2015, unsurprisigly its very classified.
Not the same logic, no. Advanced technology research pretty much died for 15-20 years in Russia after the USSR imploded while the US kept pumping out new technology and enjoyed the largest R&D budget in the world year after year.
Case in point, the homemade thermal you can find on Russian T-90M today are inferior to the French Catherine FC from the year 2000 Russia imported.
Don’t know enough about these missiles. Yes maybe?
Now do that against a target flying at top tier speeds and actually paying attention. Top tier brain damaged examples.
Edit: you can literally see in your video the 120d was slow as hell too. Barely hit the mig couldnt be more disingenuous if you tried
Therefore Gaijin can and will do whatever the suck they want fully knowing no one can prove them otherwise. If so, why do we have all this drama in first place?
Derby ER shares seeker with regular Derby, which in turn is identical to all other ARH seekers except Phoenix, MICA and latest SAMs like Buk/ASTER/CAMM. Even then, excluding Phoenixes only difference is seeker FoV for chaff rejection against fast moving notching targets.
In about the same condition R77-1 and Mica also will fail against anyone having two neurons to spare, despite turning better as it still takes sweet ass time to maneuver. Nihil novi. MICA also I’d expect to be easily outrun, as air drag on it is not exactly helping with speed retention.
Because the missiles suck?
Gaijin so far seems to nuh uh that statement of yours.
Its quite literally a fantastical nonsense impractical condition, if you actually tried to do a realistic scenario he aim120d would perform much worse. You put it in a nonsense scenario were seeker limits and energy retenuon is all that matters and wonder why its the only one capable of doing so
That is par for the course
This one is really big with AESA. When we had this discussion the other day about datalink after seeker activate or not. I checked again and again in missile replay. The reason why missiles easily miss is that they lock onto chaff even if you still have a clean radar lock in your plane for datalink, and thus ignore datalink.
If they ignore chaff like MICA and instead continue with IOG+DL, this increases their PK by folds. The MICA is just as easy to notch on paper but it’s super hard to defeat its IOG+DL from the shooter plane.
Combined with GPS IOG+DL, MICA level chaff rejection would make the AIM-120D truly special.
its kinda jank curently, i imagine hopefully it would be better in live but idk for sure
For starters, entire point of the clip was to prove missile is “HOBS capable” thanks to 360 launch capability, as some people were resistant to acknowledge that. Missile actually connecting is just happy accident, given amazingly dogass launch conditions.
Yesn’t. “MICA ignore chaff” is half truth, as thanks to narrower seeker FoV chaff leaves its view sooner, which against usual one chaff per second or two allows missile to resume tracking and update IOG? Rewatching replays with Sensor View also doesn’t seem to be conclusive if IOG+DL is actually used when missile flies with angle gating active - sometimes you can see missile outright switch from TRK to IOG(+DL), sometimes it remains in TRK state but white IOG marker appears, sometimes seeker bites into chaff, but missile continues flying with previously established interception course. Gaijin gonna Gaijin
Chaff still needs to remain detectable, so either same alt, or look up scenarios and correct density of chaff, result in MICAs being decoyable all the same. Especially when you get 15s+ as RWR starts yapping at medium to longer range shots, unlike usual MICA application of “in your forehead” with often less than 5s to take action.
120C5 initial draft already had MICA grade seeker, getting that on 120D would be nice I guess. Or heck, model “ECCM improvements” via gradual narrowing down of missile seeker would also help. So, in AMRAAM case - 15 degrees for A/B, 12 for C5, 8 for C7/D. R-77-1 could get a bump to, uh, 11? Same with Derby ER and PL12A.
After all we already have “IRCCM” capable of dealing with flares as well IRCM dazzlers of various flavors. Basic “ECCM” is already established through angle gating for missiles, while 3rd gen Pulse radars received something similar (angular velocity check) in the past as well
still need a fin aoa buff and maybe a thrust buff tbh
Was this just changed? What are we looking at?
apparently the C5 and D now pull better but still worse than A and B
With latest dev update yes, new C5 is the one in the middle
It has exactly same motor we have sources about
And it has same missile body. Not much to improve with those information
Speaking of amraams, what is the source gaijin using for the 15542n of thrust for the C/D variants? the basic amraam A has 22300n for 1.7s then 13485 for 5.3s sustainer. Just for .75s of additional thrust burning at the same rate the rocket motor runs on slightly more thrust than the sustainer of the old one? seems very odd that the rocket thrust would be so dramatically inferior.
Afaik the docs mention it has 5kg/5inches more propellant, idk if it mentioned the rocket now outputs less thrust. Maybe this is why WT’s C and D amraams are such hot garbage that A is superior in all practical scenarios. Like are we for real saying the only improvement the US dod made is BATTERY LIFE and guidance and actively gimped their missile in thrust envelope?
edit: read somewhere with calculated thrust of 16672N of thrust over 7.75s? honestly that 7% gain would help quite a bit into actually making the C and D capable upgrades over the currently superior A/Bs.
Motor thrust isn’t inferior, its linear for amount of propellant added - 46.5 to 51.3, about 10%, with the same propellant at ±240lsp, standardized for most dogfight ARHs in game.
However missile weight goes up from 147 to 161kg, which negates most of the thrust gain, then changing profile from booster/sustainer to single speed further “doesn’t help” in War Thunder.
265lsp propellant sounds interesting and this could be venue of further improving AMRAAMs. Question is, if its “primary source” to satisfy Gaijin.
yeah i don’t think any of these sources are past “simulations” at best. but a 1100N more thrust will help a LOT with making the missiles less lethargic and improve that controversial cqb performance.
