the missile is heavier overall with bigger warhead specifically
otherwise it is has 10% more impulse
Any news about the seeker performance?
clearly a marketing lie
5 Likes
Straight wrong
14 Likes
Well, the AIM-9X is rated as HOBS capable.
This kind of implies that it is the datalink which enables better HOBs performance, rather than the missile being more manoeuvrable:
In addition, the AIM-120D will have increased range and third party targeting which expands the HOBS launch envelope.
If so, that would potentially imply the aircraft’s sensors / ability to direct the missile at a HOBS target is what previously limited HOBS performance.
6 Likes
the issue there is the US says the exact samething for the C5 and C7, implying that it has one of my other points changed
There’s a actually a reliable source to say the AIM-120C-5/7 have improved HOBS?
Yes but gaijin reads it has can do a 180 degrees
Basically even aim54a could possible do a 180 if programmed to bank the entire way
It Will have the turn rate of a f104 loaded with bombs but according to gaijin that is enough of a improvement
Its not a r73 which pulls 110 degrees before clearing the wings (wen r73 was introduced to the game not sure how they perform now)
the core issue is that amraam have been artificially gimped maneuverability wise and because there are no straight forward sources we cant do anything about it.
we cant have the amraams fixed if gaijin is willing to share their standards
Could you post it?
Thank you gaijin, this will surely fix all issues with the AMRAAM. I will now waste 500 dollars on premiums.
goes from worst hobs missile to worst hobs missile.
Still, i’ll take anything atp
10 Likes
Even AIM-7M should incorporate modest lofting profile, later models true lofting. The report has been open for quite some time maybe it could use a bump @Gunjob
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/qXZgF5fLYEAe
Thrust burn time and total impulse of missiles are not always matched to real world values, especially in cases like R-23/R-24 for example where they burn for 5+ seconds irl but only ~3 in-game iirc.
Instead they just try to get it close and match expected range data if available. In this case, we have little to go off of. Gaijin will do what they think is right, but one thing they are not modeling is ISP improvements for propellant over time since we know the 90s C-5 motor saw many iterations between the 90s and 2020’s much the same way the MK36 on the sidewinders saw improvements over time.
There are many documents that claim improved HOBS capability for various Sidewinders, we know the AIM-120C series have had it and it was enhanced on the AIM-120D.
Not “improved” I guess, that is the AIM-120D. Likely two-way datalink shenanigans is what it is referring to. However, the AIM-120C-8 at LEAST has HOBS based on the information we have been given. With no major structural changes, this is a feature that all AMRAAMs should be capable of.
Source 1, 2010+ AMRAAMs improve HOBS capability.
Spoiler
Source 2, AIM-120 further improves HOBS capability.
Additional supporting sources:
Source 3
Source 4
TL;DR, The AIM-120D “IMPROVES” the off-boresight capability of the AMRAAM. It is not the first to feature it. This likely has a lot to do with the two-way datalink enhancing reliability in such engagements.
i wonder if improved kinematics also means better motor performance or just pure long range energy
it definitely could, because all that is known for sure is that the motor is the same size, it very much could have a more advanced propellant
The issue there is proving it’s actually better and by how much. We can use other missiles maybe as a comparison but they also use different propellants more than likely so the increase can be different and if that same improvement was made to aim120’s and even then which exact lot it would’ve been made too.
Unlike mig23 keeps for some claiming there’s aren’t improvements in solid rocket technology in terms of efficiency per mass