Yesn’t. There was change to center of gravity to stabilizers value, with this render being thrown around:
At the same time, it looks like whoever made this render forgot to add 0.6s guidance delay typical for AMRAAMs, as green (new) missile starts to turn sooner. If you were to address that, odds are this “buff” has no impact whatsoever on flight model.
yeah for gajin it is completly the same, in reality the D has a longer engine and a extra booster for close range
thats the D-3 which we dont have
Saving for F22 to go against su57 with r77m
-.- we need something that makes fun
you can launch aim120d at much higher angles off bore than aim120c, how is that not an improvement?
feels like people read ‘‘improved HOBS’’ on some brochure and thought that amraam suddenly turns into MICA.
i would gladly take it over 120a/b/c for gripen any day so i could just keep launching missiles from the notch
I totally agree but i do think it kinda deserves a maneuverability buff making it turn better than the A with some tweaks done on the PID and a loft angle buff so it can keep its energy for long range intercepts
And at close range it becomes extremely maneuverable
Or at least make it better than the C by buffing the booster
there is no diff when you use = guidance delay for the old and new c/d
Theres a diff, the D got a Nerf and now she perorms less than the C
its not even 1kg, it doesnt have a noticable effect at all on it´s flight performance, it still performs the same as the 120C
it should have no effect, but you know gajin? there is no official source that the D performs like the C. and in the ingame replays you see that the C turns better
The C turns harder cause the D tries to conserve energy (keeping in mind both were buffed), also wdym with “there is no official source that the D performs like the C.” Do you want them to make up missile stat´s when the D shares most similarity with the C.
The public info says the aim-120D should use sidewinder propellant
The thrust in that graph is wrong and should be bumped up to what the sidewinder 9x has.
If you do calculations the increased thrust kinematics will fix most AIM-120 issues.
The dimensions of the rockets show there is 50 extra lbs in the AIM-120 rocket engine over the sidewinder.
and before anyone comes in and says butbut the rocket fuel doesn’t mean it’s the same thrust!
Yeah and the C5 is not a “significant increase” in performance. This is proof that C5/C7/D should have better thrust kinematics than the A/B because at the moment they don’t at any range.
And they do.
Sauce is paywalled tho.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2011-6941
All you can gleam from it isn’t AMRAAM underperforming, given it has 240s specific impulse in game which seems to be average for AP/HTPB, but Sidewinders being underperformers at 212 if memory serves me right? To make it funnier, 9X block in 2 game is also below AMRAAMs at 232s impulse. Then there’s discrepancy in listed AMRAAM weight, as it claims both A/B and C/D weigh the same. IF, IF you can get C5/D weight down then those 5kg propellant extra would help.
Yeah I’ve seen that and posted it in the AIM-120 thread.
The thrust force is what I’m talking about not impulse time. That would fix most of the problems in the AIM-120C5 and higher. Do the calculations and just bump it up to the sidewinder 9x thrust of 18000 instead of the 15500ish from the “all boost” even though the sustain of the A/B is 13500ish but it’s boost is 22000ish? The missile will have an easier time hitting sideways moving targets within 20km and longer shots will have ~10s chopped off.
The weight discrepancy is that the AIM-120A/B are actually underweight in game. They removed 10KG from the warhead, updated the fragmentation pattern for more fragments and moved the extra 10kg to the motor.
Except improving thrust also improves impulse for given propellant mass.
Even one analysis (from DCS dev?) claiming 265lsp/17800ish N of thrust is still modest 10% improvement, it won’t turn AMRAAM into wunderwaffle everyone copes about.
Except 9X in game has 11885N?
To breathe some life back into this thread:
The AIM 120D is on the live server, and it’s really, really bad compared to the C.
Yes, for some it’s whining, but for those who like playing US vehicles, it’s just another bad joke at the players’ expense.
Oh I love when US spends billions for research and development for new and improved missiles, opss… nevermind it’s as same as previous one
except for the letter XD
Alternatively, billions spent on a fraud.
Or more likely, “item meets the required specifications” where no one bothered to specify new, more powerful motor and/or improved maneuverability.
