If it’s 50G it will be 50G. If not, 35G is already undodgeable
International Defence Review is not the same as Jane’s, it was originally published by Interavia SA. It was acquired by Jane’s in 1987 and continued to be published by its subsidiary, Interavia SA.
2 Likes
Next paragraph explains why the TVC was not used in Raytheon’s prototype.
Steering is by conventional rear-mounted fins, thrust-vector control having been rejected because AMRAAM is not expected to manoeuvre through large off-boresight angles. Raytheon has developed a new radome from proprietary ceramic material to withstand the aerodynamic heating resulting from high cruise speeds. Bench tests have confirmed that the power supply for the active radar seeker will provide twice the power levels needed for long-range acquisition and tracking; this is one of the major areas of potential difficulty in moving to active-radar guidance in a small weapon.
Of course, since Hughes prototype became the AIM-120 we know, it would be better to look at Raytheon’s prototype for fun.
However, the fact that their goal was 50 g is quite interesting.
3 Likes
Why do you keep pushing this fake news?
Authored works (secondary source): Reference books on collections of vehicles/aircraft/ships (‘coffee table books’), biographies, specialist books, “expert” opinion publications, industry magazines etc. At least two unrelated sources required.
You all can keep falsely claiming that Jane’s is unreliable (despite that fact that it is even directly sourced/referenced in DoD/DTIC documents) but that doesn’t change the fact that it is still accepted as a secondary source.
It’s not fake news, they won’t accept it as your secondary source. You need 2x secondary or 1 primary and Janes counts for neither.
As a member of the DoD (though I don’t speak for them), I know for a fact that they are often quite wrong and site third party sources for information. Especially in publications like Janes. (Which often isn’t accepted as secondary sources). When reports go through that site Janes, they have 2 other secondary sources or a primary source backing the information up.
1 Like
It’s real, Jane’s Yearbook is no longer considered a secondary source.
Personally, I think International Defense Review is better than Jane’s Yearbook, too many times Jane’s Yearbook is wrong and International Defense Review is right.
10 Likes
btw in DCS it’s also more 35-40G, don’t trust the Lua files you can see.
Where does it say 35-40G?
30G here in the files: dcs-lua-datamine/_G/rockets/AIM_120C.lua at master · Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine · GitHub
senior forum staff and half the forum.
1 Like
dont read Luas, test it ingame. exact weapon data is not visible to the public in DCS
the picture is a bit older but should fit
This shows 40+ G the same way I can show 16+G in the MiG-29 in DCS. It is showing more than just the lateral overload of the missile.
A 30G missile in combined plane + rolling moments can easily peak at 45G. The lateral overload limit is still too low, at 30G. It should be 35G and maneuver in combined plane only with a maximum pitch of 50G.
1 Like
test it out maybe you can manage 50G
I don’t have the game installed. Also, no thanks. It’s not necessary. The code shows a 30G lateral limitation, this is incorrect. If it can sometimes exceed this it doesn’t matter, it was improperly modeled to begin with.
If there is a method of measuring only lateral load, that would be more precise.
yes for a small moment then the wings also break.
Maybe I can show it with Tacview
and as I said the correct ones are not all visible, they may still be leftovers
No, they don’t.
Leftovers?
Then I’ll have to test it again, they just broke off ingame.
In any case, the aim120 can pull over 30g for a while without any problems - that’s not just a peak.
I may be wrong, so I will check it again
As I said, the correct detailed values are not available. What we see in the Luas is not everything and could already be out of date
So where does the missile derive its’ performance from? What data?
These are not visible to the public.
DCS hid the exact weapon values years ago for reasons. Which makes modding more difficult. This is why 3rd parties can only develop their weapons to a limited extent and then with the help of ED
To find out the performance you have to test it ingame or use tacview to analyze it.
How is something like that hidden?
Would you mind testing the AIM-54 in DCS? I’m curious how much overload that missile has in comparison to War Thunder as well.