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?
The motor section explosive mass (propellant weight) and total mass should both be listed. And yes the weight listed in the study should be correct.
BTW guys, did some testing using the Dertava missile software, every datapoint i tested is within ±0.5km of the real value, the only values that suffered were the ones which exceeded 5400KPH which induced a range deficit. Kinetically, for non maneuvering targets we have an accurate amraam guys, (ignoring oscillation’s)
1 Like
With what?
This
**
**
Compare this to a high and fast launch, where we see the clipping occuring, which limits the range and hence causes the descrepancy in performance.
Note there is about 10s of IAS clipping.
I don’t think this is reliable and it certainly isn’t usable in reports. Similar to the flare.flo site which was definitely not accurate for the R-27ER.
Does the AMRAAM in-game meet the performance outlined in the British documents?
I don’t think you read the first part of the comment you quoted. Dertava’s software is not in-game performance.
Given it should purely be following equations through the missile envelope, ignoring oscillations it should be accurate to warthunder, and given that the report was closed, this suggests it was tuned to the reports pretty exactly - which was shown by the software.
It may well be inaccurate to a certain degree, but it’s incredibly easy to test lots of test conditions quickly, and is conveniently accurate to the real data after an in game fix.
Just unlocked AIM 120B and pretty disappointed how they just nose into the ground if the target aircraft dives. It’s like the seeker is locking the ground and not the aircraft.
They seem to be massively over leading targets. I know we shouldn’t compare DCS, but AIM 120 in game are not so easily defeated
Such is what happens with proportional navigation, and it definitely happens in DCS it’s a big way to defeat missiles.
4 Likes
Diving on the deck can work but the missile is aiming for the deck you have to lead the missile i’m watching jets just lazily dive to the ground and the missile gives up.
4 miles from an AIM120 you aren’t defeating it
It seems pretty stupid for a missile that likely has a built in radar altimeter due to its seeker tbf… I’d be incredibly surprised if fox 3’s irl did not cancel normal prop nav when it would lead them to colliding with the ground, choosing instead to follow LOS until target no longer has an estimated intercept point that intercepts a massive chunk of radar clutter…
Nevertheless, there are methods that prevent missiles from doing this.
SA2 system could already do this in the 60s.
In the BMS, the AIM120 does not simply fly into the ground
Do we have data on RCS for aircraft and how the missile interact with that value?
Seeing some weird things with the AIM 120B