Again, that’s not on topic and irrelevant. No one did anything wrong. Just so you’re aware I’ve been recommended by senior forum staff not to continue entertaining your antics.
1 Like
keep up the good work! I’ll be reading the rest of this thing when i get the chance. not an expert on radar or missiles, but i’m a quick learner ;)
1 Like
I’m not an expert either, just sharing sources and my interpretations. Rather let everyone read and see the basis for my opinions than to just say things.
that’s how a humble person does it, well done!
1 Like
Question. The British Tornado f.3 could already carry amraams? Or we need another version with an updated radar?
And the Italian one is already amraam capable?
I have no idea, probably a better question for the Tornado thread.
1 Like
As far as i know both F3’s are capable of carrying Amraams, difference is İtalian version never carried Skyflash SUPERTEMP on its service life but in theorically it can carry.
You can find better answers at Tornado thread like @MiG_23M mentioned.
1 Like
The Italian Tornado ADV cannot carry AMRAAM or ASRAAM. The British offered to upgrade the Italian aircraft to be ASRAAM and AMRAAM compatible, but the Italians decided the price was too high, so gave the aircraft back and got F-16s instead.
1 Like
Then i confused Skyflash with AMRAAM, thanks for correcting the misinformation.
It depends how Gaijin want to do it. They could say our current F.3 represents the entire service life and add them to it. Or they could add a Tornado F.3 FSP as a separate aircraft
I think the latter option is more likely because of how much of a step up the AMRAAMs and ASRAAMs would be (the BR would go up substantially).
See my comment above, the Italian Tornado will not be getting AMRAAM.
Smin says the current f3 won’t get AMRAAMs so it would be a new plane
2 Likes
thank you!
The Hughes and Raytheon designs are most obviously different in that the Raytheon AMRAAM has no wings, relying on body lift. Raytheon tells IDR that the wing-less design has been made possible by the appreciably higher cruise speeds (than those of Sparrow) projected for the new missile. The wingless configuration which is almost a scaled version of the Patriot fuselage, although the length/diameter ratio is different reduces drag and allows the missile’s weight to be kept down, yet provides sufficient manoeuvrability to meet the design target of 50-60 g.
Nice find!
The 50/60G figures is probably for an early developement project. Since at the start the missile was supposed to be only 135kg compared to the 150 of the AIM-120A.
Or maybe it’s the dual-plane maneuvrability that’s mentionned which is logical since the AIM-120A is supposedly a 35G missile.
MICA gets its maneuvering from thrust vectoring , if MICA is limited to 30 after the thrust vectoring , then I dont think Aim-120 should be able to reach 50,60
Please tell me you’re joking.
you what know what i can’t find the reply anymore
1 Like
If it’s dual plane then why not, it would make the AIM-120 a 35G single plane in game with 50G when facing the rigth direction.
This would be the same as the MAGIC 2 in term of maneuvrability.
Single plane vs dual plane
1 Like
We already inferred that it’s a 35G missile in single plane, this document indicates it’s using combined plane - 50G (and it’s VERY likely that it uses combined plane all the time)…
Tail control missiles (especially those that might use body lift) require that all control surfaces maintain good airflow. The fuselage blocks one fin at all times when pulling AoA in “+” condition. So, “X” configuration is used towards target vector. If it didn’t, when it tries to roll it creates unwanted oscillations because only a few of the control surfaces have sufficient airflow - creating a torque imbalance.
This is the case with the AIM-54… It should very well be the case with the AIM-120. I think this proves it should be a 50G missile.
4 Likes
Just a heads up to both of you @Patriotic_FR. Gaijin does not accept Jane’s, and International Defense Review is published by Jane’s. Gaijin has been accepting IDR on their bug reports without having realized that it is made by Jane’s and so the source shouldn’t be accepted.