Aim120C document that proves that the aim120 is to weak in WT

Machinery of War Discussion
,
1

The AIM-120C AMRAAM can achieve a maximum lateral acceleration (G-load) of up to 40 G.

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

This document says that it can pull 40g at peak.

Here are the key details regarding maneuverability:

Maximum Load: A maximum overload of 40 G is specified specifically for the AIM-120C-5, C-6, and C-7 variants. Older versions, such as the AIM-120A/B, often operate in a range of approximately 28 G to 35 G.

Improved Kinematics: Starting with the C-5 version, maneuverability was enhanced through improved HOBS (High Off-Boresight) capability, enabling tighter turns against targets flying off-bore.

Control: The missile utilizes four movable control surfaces at the rear to achieve these high G-forces during the final stage of interception.

Influencing factors: The actual G-load that the rocket can exert at any given moment depends strongly on its current speed (up to Mach 4) and altitude. At high altitudes, the air is thinner, which reduces aerodynamic maneuverability.

Official military reports often classify specific G-load data as classified, but reliable values ​​can be derived from released documents and technical analyses.

Maximum G-load of the variants

Variant Max. G-load Special Features

AIM-120B ~28 ​​G to 35 G Utilizes larger control surfaces than the C variant, which theoretically allows for high maneuverability at low speeds.

AIM-120C (C-5/6/7) up to 40 G Despite smaller (“clipped”) wings for internal transport (F-22/F-35), the G-load was increased to up to 40 G through improved actuators and software.

Details from official & technical sources

Improved agility of the C series: Starting with the AIM-120C-5 version, an improved control system was introduced that explicitly raised the maximum load to 40 G. This is primarily intended to intercept targets with high maneuverability in the terminal phase.

Influence of airspeed: The full G-load is primarily reached at high speeds (near Mach 4). In simulations and technical analyses (e.g., for DCS World), a value of 35 G is often discussed as a realistic limit for the B variant, while the C variant achieves higher peak values ​​through optimized control.

Aerodynamic differences: The AIM-120B has a larger wingspan (approx. 53 cm) compared to the AIM-120C (approx. 48 cm). The C variant compensates for the loss of wing area with improved aerodynamics and more powerful engines (from the C-5 onward), making it kinetically superior overall.

Official fact sheets from the U.S. Air Force and the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) confirm its operational capability and high off-boresight capability, but usually list the exact G-limits under “Classified” or refer to its superiority over the AIM-7 Sparrow.

2 Likes
2

okay but like, you still need a source,

we cant just change stuff because we’re pretty sure it can do it, we need a source that can give definitive, reliable numbers

1 Like
4

Not really.

Gajin says; prove that the R77-1 dont pull 50g
So anyone please prove that it’s not true.

And you can google, search via KI all answers says: aim120c minimum 40g’s

5

what? what proves that it doesnt pull 50g?

what on earth is KI

also burden of proof isnt go find the source yourself, you are supposed to provide it bro

6

KI is AI in german XD

wikipedia says 40g

7

ai is not a source bro

wikipedia is also not a source bro

wikipedia doesnt even give a source for the 40g overload, but also seems to imply that its for dual plane which isnt in game I believe

8

image
image2550×1400 406 KB

9

burden of proof is not proving something isnt true, you have to prove it is true first

10

and we talking about 5g’s… the 5gs would make the aim120c not so useless as they actualy are. No one can say that the 120s aren’t the worst in the game after the Sparrow.

12

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

This document says that it can pull 40g at peak.

13

If you use wikipedia as a source you might wanna use the links down at the bottom to see the sources.

1 Like
14

35 vs 40 g’s isnt the issue AMRAAM has, the issue is that the wings on it are modelled as being ridiculously small. Thus it cannot produce a large enough force to even get close to 35g’s. And uses a large AoA to pull, increasing drag.

1 Like
15

Another problem with the AIM-120C.5 is its insufficient thrust.

According to the AIM-120C-5 Performance Assessment (PDS/Performance Document), the AIM-120C-5 has the following thrust specifications:

Thrust: ≈ 16,700 N (more precisely: 16,771.9 N)

Burn time: approx. 7.75 s

Engine type: Single-boost solid propellant (HTPB, reduced smoke)

This value is derived from the assumption specified in the document (≈ 50 kg propellant, Isp ≈ 265 s) and is explicitly stated in the report as the total thrust used.

Ingame Thrust: 15542 N
The burning time is the same.

The increased thrust would help to reduce the difference to the R-77-1.

4 Likes
16

Your document is not a primary source

17

There are accepted 2 year old reports for Aim-120A/B being too weak. Just using that as a basis, All 3 should be a lot better than they currently are

18

Yep. The AIM-120-C5 is underperforming in thrust output.

If the AIM-120-C5 has the same engine as the AIM-120-C7 (AFAIK this is true)

It should have the thrust of a sidewinder
Which is ~18000N in game

image

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2013_SARS/14-F-0402_DOC_08_AMRAAM_December2013SAR.PDF

Per the manufacturer it offers a significant increase in performance over the A/B and early C models.
The 120-C5 using 15% more thrust of the SUSTAINER of the 120A/B when it’s an ALL BOOSTER is definitely not what I would put as “significant increase in performance”
It has lower drag, it has “higher thrust” but at BVR hits targets at the same time as the A/B? Not buying it gaijin.

image

1 Like
19
  1. That isnt a primary source and is barely even a secondary source
  2. It doesnt even say the missile can pull 40g anywhere, it talks about the missile in their simulatons being able to pull 30g for like 2.2 seconds at mach 4 but never even mentions 40g
20

Aerodynamic Reality (implicit, but not explicitly stated)

In aerodynamics:

When rapidly increasing the angle of attack (AoA)

before a complete stall,

a brief lift overshoot often occurs

➡️ Short-term g-peaks above the steady-state maximum

➡️ Unsustainable, uncontrollable

⚠️ These are precisely the kinds of effects not simulated in the PDF because:

they are constant-g maneuvers

with a static AoA limit

80
35–40 g is a technically plausible upper limit,
derived from the equations,

21

okay? you do need a source that states it explicitly though, gaijin doesnt really accept an “implicit” statement

and 35-40g isnt a solid number and is still useless

there is nothing here to support a 40g overload, they dont even really test past 30g

image
imagep21
imagep30

did you even read this source?

it isnt even official or anything, it was made to improve the performance (almost exclusively the range i believe) in DCS
imagep5

22

Stop using AI. Half the time it’s incorrect about things and still thinks it’s correct.

For reporting issues of this kind you need actual sources to prove your claim. Even if the AI is by chance correct it can’t be used as a source and you would still need to prove the claim with actual sources.

When you find a document that contains references (The numbers [1] , [2] , etc at the end of paragraphs and sentences) then it can’t be used as a source and you will need to look up where they got the information from to begin with by looking in the list at the end of the page/document and opening and reading the source they got their claim from. That can then often be used as a source but not always.

Here is Gaijins requirement for valid sources (the most modern things in the game do have a little bit of leeway for some sources):

image