Worth noting that the AIM-120 is still underperforming compared to the British documents.
13 Likes
British documents aren’t super trustworthy imo, likely falsified on purpose. These are also probably where the Russians got their absurd estimates for AIM-120A.
ALERT a new MIG23 bad take
14 Likes
The range estimates are likely possible but not with the production battery life as stated by devs. If my take is bad, you’ll have to live with it.
Mods can you do me a favour and allow me to mute this man?
2 Likes
Your take is the British are lying because i said so
17 Likes
Imagine actually thinking this. Go read your TMs, my guy.
9 Likes
Why would the MOD purposefully falsify the documents they were using internally to discuss AMRAAM?
The British AMRAAM data explicitly states it is using 80 second battery life, which we know is what production AMRAAM had.
British documents include maximum range data for AMRAAM from multiple sources, namely:
- AMRAAM firing envelope diagrams provided directly by Hughes Aircraft Co.
- The PACAM-E simulator provided by the US for AMRAAM simulation
- The MOSSILE simulator developed by the Royal Aircraft Establishment, programmed using performance data provided by the AMRAAM Joint Service Project Office, and shown to consistently provide results within 1-2 km of the PACAM-E simulator.
You can take you’re pick, the AMRAAM currently under-performs against data from all three sources. So unless they’re all lying it’s not right in game.
25 Likes
Even though I ain’t much of a Missile type of guy I.E I don’t know a whole lot other then its history when it comes to missiles.
But what you are saying is that, the documents about the AIM-120A that were used in RAF Service is that they are deem
“Untrustworthy”? So therefore, the AIM-120A is good where it is, that being it is under performing compare to the other FOX-3 Missiles? Is that what I’m getting from that comment? Or What?
2 Likes
They had access to the R-27 and tested it a multitude of times - still posted erroneous data of the weapon confirmed by multiple primary sources. This isn’t the only time what they’ve said did not match better data in spite of the claims that they had direct access to or testing of a weapon.
My what?
Why would they post erroneous data on the AIM-9L, R-27, etc?
These are a lot of assumptions, I did not state it wasn’t underperforming. What I said is that the sources used for the claim are dubious because they have been shown to be erroneous in many other cases.
1 Like
So they allegedly had bad test on a Russian missile that was known to barley work means that they lie on every document
3 Likes
They haven’t
3 Likes
What erroneous data on 9L?
3 Likes
Posting blatantly wrong information about the missile vs erroneous test data is two different things. In one case, a missile that has poor maintenance reliability would still work a certain % of the time and good test data would consider these issues.
The difference is that East Germany unlike other lesser funded countries would have had the means to maintain these missiles better. They didn’t sit in storage for 10 years as they did in Africa.
The British AIM-120 data alleged the AMRAAM was capable of 250km range but the actual distance traveled by the missile and not the launch range of the target is a totally different story. It is underperforming in certain regards according to the British documentation. As are most other missiles such as the R-27R/ER. In fact, to a similar degree in the case of the R-27ER. It is 100 m/s too slow at all known datapoints and lacks head-on range in my testing (haven’t tested tail-on). This is because they configured the majority of missiles in-game with their simplistic thrust and drag model for low altitude.
If you want it fixed, we need more data and especially in regards to low altitude performance.
1 Like
ER was erroneous because we didn’t have access to it, what was erroneous about R-27?
6 Likes
Guidance wavelengths, overload, a couple of other major statistics.
Overload was a single plane figure, there is suggestion the 35G’s currently is dual plane.
Frequency was what was used in British RWR’s so if that’s wrong that’s pretty bad news for our pilots…
Russian documentation doesn’t indicate anything about combined plane and states nothing of single / combined plane. Only a maximum overload of 35Gs ‘laterally’ for both R/ER.
This is plenty of data for low altitude targets and that has been reported.
3 Likes