May I ask, what is the max radar lock range on the onboard seeker on AIM-120 family? Current AIM-54 Phoenix has radar lock range and max radar lock range. One is dependable on the RCS of aircrafts.
1 Like
Oh AIM-120A very high manuvering BVRAAM G limit 35G ?
and since AIM-120B to AIM-120D pull same AIM-120A ?
1 Like
The AIM-120 maximum overload is allegedly between 28 and 35G, the actual data is classified and unknown.
1 Like
We do not know, we are trying to find out. The AIM-54 is designed specifically not to lock a target until around 10.3 nautical miles as to avoid enemy having enough time to maneuver and dodge the missile.
1 Like
Do you think developer could add a switch for Phoenixes to target small / medium / large aircraft, so it could go active earlier / later?
This is not something that could be done, the Phoenix was pre-programmed to lock onto targets at around 10.3 nautical miles to target on purpose. It may have been programmable, but it would be done missile-by-missile on the ground.
It’s so hard to answer, I think dev guess maximum overload of AIM-120 but don’t know it higher Super 530D, R-27R/R-27R1 & R-27T/R-27T1 ?
No, we know it has pulled 28G to hit a target due to public test data, but some documentation also claims 35G. We know that 35G is not the dual-plane limitation because that would imply it has a maximum lateral acceleration of just 25G and it is said to be more maneuverable than the AIM-7F.
So the simple answer is >28G. Likely 35G is the lateral limit according to Korean analysis of the missile.
1 Like
120A is supposedly 28G’s, and due to the clipped fins the C-D are supposdly 25G
what age is the 35G doc?
So AIM-120C-AIM-120D maneuvering lower AIM-120A & AIM-120B but range longer ?
The clipped wings does little to affect maneuverability because the missile is TAIL controlled.
Korean Study (Source for their information is allegedly a Korean copy of the TO-34-16C, published with permissions).
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1121040473545515130/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1121045674675425290/image.png
The clipped wings does little to affect maneuverability because the missile is TAIL controlled.
the tail is also clipped:
2 Likes
This WILL affect maneuvreability
2 Likes
The design of the missile is as such that missile is less stable when full on propellant, becoming more stable as propellant burns.
To remain maneuverable it has a tail control design, as the center of mass moves forward (and speed increases) the tail fins require less AoA to create similar torquing moments on the missile.
Further adjustments to the missile weight balance and design after C-3 actually improve maneuverability. The AIM-260 is a wingless design making extensive use of this principle - almost solely having tail control sections only.
2 Likes
I remember reading “enhanced kinematics” regarding the AIM-120C-5, likely the extended tail section restores some of the maneuverability lost from the AIM-120C-3 variant (if any) or is referring to improved performance when lofting due to the longer propulsion unit. Regardless, I do not think the clipped wings has any significant bearing on maneuverability… nor was I referring to the tail section as to infer it was not also clipped. The tail control design benefits greatly from the AMRAAM type missile layout.
AIM-120C (variant unnamed) has high-off bore capability, showing the improved weight balancing mentioned before and it’s enhanced maneuvering characteristics.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1122659545601282058/image.png
So they reimplemented the English bias system of the Sparrow?
“High-angle” off-boresight is not necessary for simple English bias at BVR. Usually this is only referred to in the sense that the missile is being used within active range. This is a capability only possible through an increase in the level of instability of the missile when motor propellant is full, owing to a bias in weight towards the rear that was capitalized on and possible due to lighter weight electronics… and later in the AIM-120C-5 a move towards a shortened control actuator section (SCAS) and longer rocket motor.
Comparing the DCS AIM-120 to the real thing based on confirmed sources;
AIM-120B
Spoiler
Weight [4]
DCS - 157.85kg
IRL - 147.87kg
G-Limit [Korean Source]
DCS - 30
IRL - 35
Booster Burn Time (Korean source says total is 6-8s burn)
DCS - 2.1s
IRL - 1-2s
Sustainer Burn Time (Possibly accurate?)
DCS - 5s
IRL - ~5-6s
Fuel mass (Correct! Hurray!)
DCS - 46.54kg
IRL - 46.54kg
It seems to me that the DCS missiles accuracy is based on outdated information, at the time it was made they had the best available information… I hope when the AIM-120 comes to war thunder we have a more realistic example of the missile than what can be found in DCS and so that’s what I’m striving for here. (Without the use of restricted sources).
1 Like
Their drag CFD is really cool though, great post!
1 Like