Didn’t get a chance to check yet.
Anglehalfsens is beamwidth if i rememebr correctly
thats my understanding as well, larger beamwidth means more chance to pickup something that isnt the target.
For comparison btw, 15 deg (all the new fox 3’s) beamwidth at 20km (AIM-120A lock range) gives a scan area of 90.22km^2
At the same 20km range, the AIM-7M from the F-14 has a scan area of 3.00km^2, putting the AIM-120A scan area at 30x that of the AIM-7M fired from the F-14…
To get a similar scan area as the AIM-7M at 20km, the AIM-120A needs to be at ~3.65km from the target… this is despite the fact that the 7M and 120A share a same sidelobe sensitivity.
Should go to illustrate pretty well how much more stuff like chaff and other planes end up in the AIM-120A’s seeker in-game vs that of the 7M, and therefore how much more likely they are to be pulled off target in a near notch scenario.
Keep in mind, this is just my understanding of the seekers atm, i could and likely am missing some crucial info, and if someone has a better understanding, feel free to correct me.
He said PL-12 is not same as SD-10. != means not equals to.
This isn’t a fair comparison because a SARH missile has two beamwidths, the beamwidth of the transmitter on the supporting aircraft and on the receiver.
So the AIM-7M has a 3.0 degree transmitter on the F-15 and it has a 13 degree receiver. So only a little smaller than the AIM-120 which makes sense given the slightly larger missile.
Gotta read it more carefully, he said PL-12/SD-10 =/= SD-10A, so he is equating PL-12 and SD-10
No, SD-10A=PL-12. PL-12A is known to just be an electronics upgrade. The initial SD-10 was an export offering but nobody ever actually bought it.
good point, any idea what the transmitter portion of the code for the SARH’s is for then?
That doesn’t align with my sources
There are two actually, not sure how they relate to each other though.
One is right next to the receiver portion in the missile’s guidance section
The other is in the radar file, right after the transmitters section:
Spoiler
N001VEP:
My guess is that the code in the missile is what actually dictates the behaviour, and the code in the radar is for RWR (since that portion was added with the RWR update).
1 Like
is there a source or anything for the aim-120’s max fin AoA?
This study suggests maximum missile AoA of 30 degrees and provides comparative lift / drag coefficients for the AIM-120C-5 at least.
2 Likes
Does that mean that the AOA nerfs are fabricated non-sense then?
No, the elevators do not need to deflect very high to achieve 30 degrees maximum AoA. 30 degrees itself is perhaps too much - the FCS would prefer less instabilities. The AoA seems appropriate currently. The early AIM-120’s did not have off-bore or close-in dogfight performance like models after the AIM-120C-5.
I personally believe it’s too much, it makes amraam have a very poor terminal effectiveness.
1 Like
To have sufficient guidance error and stability - and to maintain high levels of energy until hitting the target they would need to improve the lead computing and AoA limiter would need to be provided.
Btw uk sources confirm this if you’d like, also is there any official source for the total motor mass for any amraam?
Orbital ATK leaked the propellant mass and that was used in the DCS study to get accurate AIM-120C-5 information but for AIM-120A we rely I believe on the yellow book for ordnances from the Fuji marines site iirc.
both propellent masses are known iirc, but what about the total mass itself of the motor section?
I guess that means the 75 something kg for the motor section in that study is correct?