The “SLAMRAAM” seems to be lack cluster as of the last dev server. It might not be enough, but there are things that can be done in order for it to reach the capabilities of other SAM systems E.g. S1 or IRIS-T SLM
The AIM-120"C-7" as they made that to perform like the AIM-120B plus a little less drag.
It should have a better HOBS capability. Better tracking. A smokeless motor.
The missile is rated for Mach 4 yet it’s the same or slower compared to the AIM-9X. Both are ground launched. Max speed is 780m/s for both iirc.
Also. It should have an even better motor than the one on the C-5
Last time I tested the 9X, it was butchered. It had no HOBS capabilities whatsoever
If nothing is to be done to the current missiles, we can always add the AMRAAM-ER and the AIM-9X-2
I don’t think this is correct. The “+5” motor was already a thing for the C-5, and just like in the first image, no motor improvements are mentioned for the C-7. Though apparently the C-7 did get a motor replacement at some point, but the only difference is that it’s from another manufacturer (Nammo instead of ATK).
I think the C-5 and C-7 are fairly accurate as is at the moment, only that that the “software” part is completely wrong. The C-5 and 7 both should probably loft a lot more efficiently, and perhaps have additionally a bit less drag than the small decrease modelled now. I don’t think the missile reaches mach 4 from a ground launch configuration. As it stands, it would require the motor to output 50% more impulse (unlikely) and experience nearly 0 drag, only then can it actually reach mach 4. Current Mach 2+ is fairly accurate, maybe mach 2.5-3 is possible if we assume bit more thrust and lower drag/better loft.
Sadly I don’t think this one can be used on the humvee. Only the larger launchers that NASAMs uses.
I think this one should be the one that the current humvee uses anyway. Considering we got the C-7, I hope they also correct the blk1 9X to the blk2. The datalink is useful for HOBS shots against maneuvering targets, which may not happen often, but handy for if it does.
I don’t know but it’s written right there. Wouldn’t be able to comment any further on the matter as other info about it is non existent (for public use)
I agree
I didn’t say it has to reach it’s maximum speed. My point was that the AMRAAM that is rated for Mach 4+ is going the same speed as the AIM-9X that is rated for Mach 2.5
You might be right on this one because I’ve only seen images and sources providing for the NASAMS and not for the SLAMRAAM.
Exactly. It would be closer in performance to the IRIS-T SL and SLM
I see, the figure of the 9X is probably just brecause it’s the same (public) figure for all previous sidewinders though. I also see mentions of Mach 2.5+, in-game it’s also “rated” for Mach 3, though it’s currently capped at 780 m/s. I believe the 9X also doesn’t even reach 780 m/s and is also slower than the AIM-120 from ground launch. Maybe they just gave it 780 just because that’s what they gave the AMRAAM too.
I would need to test again, but the 9X I think reaches just about mach 2 (not sure if this was pre drag buff or not), and the AIM-120C reaches something more like 2.3. Not a huge difference, but it’s there. Mainly has to do with that in ground launch configuration, drag is initially low anyway due to low speed, so everybody is pretty even. Only the faster you go, the more the drag coefficient starts to matter (and the 9X has a considerably higher one).
when they have a hard speed limit when the missiles hit that speed limit it will drop down instantly so any booster thrust or remain thrust will not increase beyond the limit
from one of my doc SLAMRAAM can engage high speed aerial target up to 20km, which ingame rn its about 14km for moving target or so
they need to buff C-7 and 9X
9X probably has same or less range than MIM-146 for comparison, but a better stinger
C-7 should have 20km effective range(documents) and 25km max range(public sources)
Yes, but from my own tests this hardcap is usually always placed slightly higher than the maximum speed it reaches naturally anyway. Highest I could get the AIM-120C-5 was 776 m/s only at the end of its burn, so even if it did reach 780 m/s momentarily, it would’ve been maybe only for a fraction of a second. That was before they increased the weight, so now it topspeed is actually lower (but retention a bit better). The hardcap now only serves to tell you roughly what speed it will reach at most, without impacting performance.
i think the real problem here is the improved motor is modeled so poorly as it is rn that it can not be considered an actual improvement over the base aim120, the missile is currently 14kg heavier for what amounts to a 0.7 second increase to burn time.
I mean what can you do. Motor was only roughly lengthened by about 10%, fuel weight is about 10% higher as result leading to about 10% in increase of total impulse. It makes sense at least.
Fuel efficiency wise it’s the same as the 120A/B, but more fuel total. Not sure if they changed the fuel irl, but Gaijin assumed the same fuel. It’s a pretty marginal improvement I agree, like disappointingly small. But it is an improvement nonetheless: higher mass with same deltaV means higher energy retention due to higher inertia.
Main range improvements probably came from longer guidance time and better lofting.
Sadly no real sources to actually confirm the current engine performance.
Burn time coincides with one analysis made for DCS. So likely they actually used that as source, just in the document they used a higher Isp, which Gaijin didn’t like probably, and instead made it the same Isp as the current 120A/B.
the foul efficiency could not be the same since at least in war thunder both motors burn in different ways as 1 has a booster sustainer combo and the other is a consistent burn. im not asking for like +5 seconds on the burn time here even just 2 second would be a huge improvement over what we have now
With just 2 extra seconds of burntime with current thrust, it would lead to an Isp of 301s. Not impossibly high, but the assumed fuel for the AMRAAM is AP/HTPB, for which the expected Isp may only be around 250s (according to sources for HARM). I have found maybe you could push it to 260-270s (theoretical maximums or something) maaaaybe with the right engine/fuel geometry configuration.
Currently it’s running at about 240s. So improvements could still be made, but not that much as your 2s extra burntime even though it looks small.
Here is the estimate for DCS which goes a lot more in depth analysing it than Gaijin probably did. But we’re only looking according to their estimate at an ~8% improvement in the engine department (2s extra burn would be like 26%).
Only thing that may be wrong with current Amraam’s is low lsp, its 239.73-239.50 for A/B and 239.55 for C-5/7. Maybe it should be higher for all Amraam’s, or maybe not. Make a bug report if anyone has some info, for Aim-120A/B at least.
Yeah, there are probably some things that were setted-up just by guessing. It may have wrong loft, especially on the C-7 model, wrong drag(its almost the same as A/B rn), probably weaker engine, its all can be slightly incorrect and result in pretty significant degradation of its performance.
the biggest issue is agility, for some reason all aim 120 including the C has double or more the guidance delay of any other top tier ARH, without any sources and too low of fin AOA so they only pull ~25Gs max instead of the 35G they should
welp cause people complained about it so the devs nerfed it in almost ever aspect shortly after it came out, now if only they would do the same when people complained about the pantsir or kh38mt (prob not even a real missile btw)
