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.
4 Likes
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?
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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
4 Likes
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.
AMRAAM-equipped fighters can attack several targets simultaneously. The AIM-120C series began deliveries in 1996 and continues for US allies. Joint procurement of the AIM-120D series began in fiscal 2006 and continues today. The AIM-120D features improved accuracy via Global Positioning System aided navigation, kinematics, lethality and hardware and software updates to enhance its electronic protection capabilities against more capable threats.
there it is, the US navy said that the D have more Power than the C, and we get exact the same XD
One could argue about what “more power” (as I’ve termed it) actually means. But what’s undeniable is the fact that the D model has exactly the same, or rather, worse performance than the C model.
Now tell gaijin “Navy said D has higher stats than C”. And to make things funnier, BVVD or who was Ru dev during the stream stated 120D is “improvement that will help US”.
You have amazingly vague “kinematics” which can mean everything and nothing. Meanwhile I bring you that chart I’ve posted earlier, stating C and D share motors and propellant. Is it true? Dunno, but any sekrit dokuments stating 120D has different/more powerful propulsion likely will be shot down by Gaijin own policy of not using classified stuff. Maneuverability is case of no one can prove anything, so Gaijin did a Gaijin.
Thus we’re here and now.
1 Like
tbf, the chart you posted is known to contain inaccuracies
eg, motor length is known to have been increased between 120A and 120D but that is not shown in the chart
1 Like
the missile has an enhanced motor with an additional 5 inches of propellant and is commonly referred to as the
“+5 rocket motor”.
no it means something and not nothing or exact the same
Which is in game, modeled as well as it can be since C5 entered the chat.
AFAIK it was controls/steering section that was reworked/compacted, to allow more propellant? Motor itself total length didn’t changed, as it is restricted by missile body
Then Gajin should invent the AIM120Z; they invented the PL12A, and that doesn’t exist in real life.
1 Like