Regardless, the AIM-120 should be at least 35G, I think it is the single-plane maneuverability of the AIM-120B/C.
According to designer of PL-12, the AIM-120C is a 50G missile (presumably combined plane) which would be 35G single. This also agrees with the Korean source for the AIM-120B (Which itself references the F-16 manual).
I remember you went for 28G in the old forum for both models (120A and 120C-3
I could see A/B being 35G’s and B/D being 28G’s. Both still more manoeuvrable than sparrow.
New documentation says otherwise, I’m not one to dismiss better sources for data. The 28G maneuver comes from a source that simply stated it pulled 28G to intercept. In no place did it ever claim the maximum overload was 28G.
Seeing as it gets more maneuverable over time, I don’t think this is the case. It says in these sources the AIM-120B is 35G and the Chinese source says AIM-120C is 50G (combined).
I have updated the original post now that I’m able to edit it again.
Also it seems I was right and they capitalized on the AIM-120C-5’s increased motor length to reduce missile stability and allow “over-the-shoulder” launch capability of the AIM-120 in 2002. They did this through a simple software update. @Fireball_2020 @tripod2008
Some interesting photos from the Smithsonian
Is that a s225x?
No, it’s the Raytheon AMRAAM which competed against the Hughes model. Later Raytheon bought Hughes in the mid to late 90s and continued the legacy of the AMRAAM.
To be fair, 28G is just the floor it seems. In the source, it states that it pulled 28G in order to hit a target. The situation might not have required more than 28G, so the missile did just enough G’s to hit the target.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1078877088087552102/1128760347193528421/Hughes_1.png?width=1366&height=889
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1078877088087552102/1128760347680063709/Hughes_2.png?width=1267&height=889
All early Hughes documentation labels the missile as 326 lb “tactical weight”. Other sources also quote this and later models such as AIM-120C as 335 pounds, or even more in the case of much newer versions.
The maximum overload of AIM-120B is confirmed around 35G due to the Korean Study referencing TO-34-16C (with permissions).
Northrop and Motorola also teamed up and came out with advertisements of a similar design to Raytheons.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1136495240140820540/HRy17v9.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1136495481393008811/QQaUuEz.png
You’ll hear it here first, but the AIM-260 takes more after these “body-lift, tail-control” designs than it does the AMRAAM we all know and love today. A “high performance wingless missile” of sorts.
Speaking of motorola and AMRAAM, they are a subcontractor making a number of parts for the AMRAAM to this day as far as I am aware.
http://blog.planet4589.org/space/archive/MartinPfeiffer/SandiaNews84-97/C1055_Lab_News_10-04-91.pdf
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1136499170878955541/image.png
What are the 2 distances representing in-game?
Is the launch distance the distance you can fire with a radar lock and the lock distance the pitbull distance?
Lock distance is for the active seeker, launch distance is the maximum theoretical kinematic range in a high altitude type scenario.
I guess I still don’t understand the 2 values.
For a SARH such as the 530D the stat card gives a 30 km lock range and a 40 km launch range.
How can you fire the missile at 40 km if you can’t even lock the target at that range?
Imagine two targets are traveling the same direction, you fire a missile from rear aspect and they are 18km apart from each other.
The missile likely will travel >30km overall despite being launched from target at just 18km rear aspect.
Likewise, of you fire at 30km but target turns to the side to “crank” the missile may have to travel further distance to hit target.
Though we must also consider… Missiles with inertial guidance and datalink do not need the target to be within lock range for a launch.
No counters? I doubt Gaijin would give the americans the AIM120 without also giving the russians R77
R-77 outperforms AMRAAM up to AIM-120C-5
The AMRAAM currently doesn’t perform on par with the R-27ER with the exception that it can be fire and forget after missile is a certain range to target. I think nullifies the disadvantages of the AIM-120 being only similar to the AIM-7F in performance (albeit a little faster time to target with similar range).