It’s not 190 kilonewtons of thrust, its 190 kilonewton-seconds of total impulse. Impulse is a measure of the total energy the motor can produce over its burn, calculated by multiplying the thrust by the burn time. In the case of AIM-7F (in game), there is a boost phase producing 26,940 newtons for 4.5 seconds and a sustain phase producing 6,340 newtons for 11 seconds. (26940*4.5)+(6340*11)=190970 newtons of impulse.
I think this point is already well understood even if it was not said correctly. He was asking if the AGILE would also have increased thrust for the same reasons as the AIM-7F? If so, again… the increase in thrust would obviously apply to both missiles and they’d again have the same or similar newton-seconds thrust.
My bad, I misunderstood their question.
IMO it would make sense for both missiles to get a similar boost in thrust, but my understanding is the way Gaijin came to those figures was by adjusting the thrust, drag, etc. until the missile’s range and time to hit figures lined up with the data from IRL tests, given a constant burn time, fuel mass, et cetera. Because of this I would imagine the thrust increase would not be the same if it were ever implemented in game.
We have no proper range figures to go off for the AIM-95. The AIM-7F was adjusted significantly along with all other missiles for maneuvering energy retention after my report. The AIM-7F still overperforms in certain high altitude scenarios, but Gaijin has stated they adjusted all missiles in-game to match their 1-5km altitude performances as best as possible and there may be some deviation from this at higher altitudes and speeds.
Unless I’m missing something (or doing something horribly wrong with my math), those thrust and duration numbers don’t add up to 30,549 lbs of total impulse. (5750*4.5)+(1018*11)=37073 lb-sec. Is it possible that the total impulse and the thrust/duration were measured under different atmospheric conditions?
No, thrust figures and burn time are given for the same parameters as the total impulse.
You’re not accounting for the time it takes from burn start to ramp up to peak thrust and then ramp down to the sustainer phase / burn out. The booster burns the sustainer propellant at the same time as it is burning as well, which is why it appears the booster / sustainer propellant weights are switched around if you read the datamine a little too closely.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1143738021401854023/image.png
For other missiles, Gaijin instead reduced the burn time. For example, the R-24R with a total burn time of approximately 5s only has a 3s boost phase in-game. The thrust and drag are then modified to better meet the launch envelope and time to target data. Obviously this isn’t 100% perfect, but it is really close.
I see, thank you for clarifying.
Guess we’re back to square one then, bummer.
Is it less flare resistant than AIM-9L?
We do not know yet.
One source mentioned the seeker was “more sensitive” than the 9L’s, which allowed for notably increased locking ranges (no specifics)
There were more than one seeker developed, we will need to wait and see what types and how they differ.
If it has lower flare resistance than AIM-9L then I think they can add this missile right now.
It could also be due to the fact that it doesnt need as much weight for batteries and is running a smaller warhead as well. I think you might be right about it being a little much, but if we consider the missile to be optimized for shortish ranges where the motor burns for the most or entire duration of the guidance, instead of something like <50% of the flight, battery weight could be drastically reduced, and batteries arent light. Cut the 39kg warhead from the 7F down to something like an 11kg warhead like a 9L, you could probs save a solid bit of weight and space. I think 100kg is a bit much tho.
“More sensitive” doesnt necessarily equate to “less flare resistant” in this case seeing as its speaking about lock range, presumably of aircrafts.
Theres also the fact that the 9L, by gqijins own admission last I checked, is substantially LESS flare resistant than it should be.
1 Like
Yeah, batteries are almost irrelevant because the missile can only track as long as the motor is burning. Beyond that it has no control authority, so at 15 seconds, that’s dramatically less than any SARH battery bank
1 Like
So this says it has a more sensitive seeker than the AIM-9L (less resistant to flares), but also better capability against countermeasures?
Wouldn’t this mean it is at least as good as the AIM-9Ls seeker, or better, against flares? Also of note that AIM-9L is massively underperforming against flares, it should behave like the R-73 does currently - cut afterburner and then flare
1 Like
Something like that. This missile was in development along side the AIM-9L, so it’s reasonable to assume a similarly advanced seeker head. Unfortunately, no specifics are currently available as to what specific seeker is used.
Oooh, thank you for reposting this, I have not been active in a while.
Additionally, a massive thank-you to user @tripod2008 for their discovery of solid figures for the launch limit on the gimbal.
I am very happy that so many of you are still interested in this topic and that many more sources continue to be found.
Thank you @MiG_23M for your continued presence. It would seem that a total thrust of 30k lbs over the duration of at least 14 or greater seconds would be the most logical, with the added caveat of booster/sustainer staging being absent and instead simply one long burn.
3 Likes
Oh, nevermind. Now I’m confused again.
That’s weird, I don’t think the impulse metric adds up.
That booster alone should have an impulse of about 25,000lbf, and the sustainer another ~11,500lbf.
So more like 36-37,000 lbf total impulse based off the boost/sustain thrusts and times