Speed is not ∆v. If the missile does not reach it’s stated 510m/s from a stationary launch, it is underperforming.
6 Likes
Idk what you guys actually want because you all want to NERF the missile by putting all of its power in booster phase.
You dont seem to know what “underperforming” means
Are you stupid?
The missile is still accelerating as long as either of the motor sections are burning.
If it does not reach at least 510m/s when the sustainer runs out it is underperforming, period.
9 Likes
So its overperfoming because the current way its a significantly better missile then your made up max speed on trajectory want it to be.
What you’re proposing is very hard nerf to its capability
Except that it’s not?
Until it reaches 510m/s from a stationary launch, and travels 16km while doing it, it’s underperforming.
4 Likes
It will never do that because its not magical, using the mass given out for JAGM-MR and JAGM i simuleted them using hellfire stats (only adding wet mass to JAGM-MR)
Wherever you read that mach 1.5 value is just bullshiting using rocket equation for that extra 1.8kg of propelant (20% more impulse) you are not getting a significant difference, only matching the lighter hellfire performance.
2 Likes
It’s likely that the fuel used has also significantly improved in the 4 or so decades since the M120E1 was designed. considering it uses APC/HTPB, there are significantly improved options that exist.
4 Likes
Russians will not tolerate the United States having better missiles than them. You can take a look at the CM502KG they made, and they even only gave this poor missile a top speed of 0.6 Mach XD.
2 Likes
By the way, regarding the CM502KG, they claimed that they could not confirm that this missile was a HEAT warhead, so they only stuffed 4.5 kilograms of explosives into this 11 kilogram warhead missile, which was even inferior to a regular 125mm HE.XD
Gaijin always make up some stuff haphazardly according to their ideas, and when you think they are doing things haphazardly, you need to provide “at least two unrelated and official (whether or not the official interpretation is also in Gaijin’s hands) sources” before they reluctantly accept your issue. Whether or not to change it is once again irrelevant to you.XD
1 Like
It hasnt improved solid rocket motor is gonna be solid rocket motor, we havent changed anything about rockets since the 1960s. Physics is hard
…
Sure, youre not changing physics. But you can change materials used for motor, which will give more thrust.
2 Likes
Its missing the power in the booster phase XD
are we sure that the mach 1.5 speed thing is from rotor launcher and not fixed wing? because launches from aircraft will obviously increase the speed not attainable from helicopter launches
The Fixed wing option is known as the AGM-187A, not the -179. It has slight physical differences that optimize it for fixed wing launch.
3 Likes
hmm, thanks for correction
Nice suggestion i was also thinking of this the stats are way off.
Edit: could someone make a bug report???
Also plans for it to be integrated onto other helicopters we have in-game such as the MH-60 DAP, AH-6M and the AH-1Z.
You can’t because we already pretty much use the most efficient motor. The amount of mass means there is maximum amount of impulse it can produce, you just cant do better with solid propellant.
AIM-9B in game already has pretty much leader in class 250s of specific impulse at ground level. You can get better with better nozzles at higher altitude but you will always be limited to the fundamental efficiency of solid rocket motor. Oh and if you want “smokeless” you are paying performance penalty for that.
There are ways around it like liquid fuel engines, or airbreathing engines (jets), but they require so much more dry mass of injectors, turbopumps, plumbing that they barely start exisiting in the 150kg MRAAM air-to-air missile today while being way more expensive.
Literally all of the improvement from aim9b to aim9x comes from bigger size (and relative reducing of dry equipment mass due to more modern electronics) as well as more efficient aerodynamic designs (which we also plateaued at) and better trajectories (instead of tail chase, try intercept)
TLDR: There is no way for the missile to have more performance to match that made up mach 1.5 number without growing significant weight (which it cant because we have hard number)
Dang guys we a have an engineer from Rocketdyne over here.
1 Like