Hellfires loft code, as with all american loft code is borderline retarded.
The hellfire’s loft code forces it to correct excessively when nearing the target, which is why it either hits short, or hits near horizontal from the side. On the other hand, the AIM-54 doesnt loft anywhere NEARLY enough for it to matter.
The nation with the best loft code ingame is either Russia (tho nobody knows it cuz they never use their weapons with loft) or the Spike ER, followed by the PARS 3. The Hellfires and AIM-54s all have terrible loft code which is why it doesnt seem to work.
As design by gaijin. I expect no different of the AIM-120.
I don’t care about the hellfire, not in the slightest. I’m discussing the AIM-120. It should hit from top-down as I’ve mentioned on closing targets. This isn’t discussion of hitting a target lower than you (who is hardly moving) at near max range.
@MiG_23M from your research how should the range of the AIM-120 A/B compare to the AIM-7F/M and R-27ER? I notice the moch stat card shows similar range, so i guess i was under the false notion that the A/B didnt have that much range.
AIM-120 from surface launch has 20km range, AIM-7F has approximately 26km range in similar conditions.
However, at altitude and launched from speed the AMRAAM has slightly better range due to battery life and lofting.
The R-27ER has quite literally almost double the range of the AIM-120 and when launched in a head-on (with no deviation or maneuvering) from 60km should reach the target nearly 20 seconds sooner. This would be before the AIM-120 has gone active.
Interestingly, I was testing the uk’s sparrow F, skyflash test firings. It was quite accurate on the sparrow. Very. There’s one firing test where, both planes at 20k ft and M 0.95, the target does a 5g 180 turn after the phantom launches a sparrow at 7.8 N.M it would take 19seconds to reach. If you go back to the footage of the Nat. Guard F16s mock firing the 120, just before the other f16 starts defending he’s at 7.6N.M just in the RTR and Vc was 1000kt at 10k ft. The ToF was 14s. The altitude is lower and total closure rate is lower than the sparrow tests yet time is considerably lower considering it burns for less amount of time.
I would say it due to better guidance, a better trajectory
The AIM-120 has much better acceleration and a higher speed after burnout, optimized in very close range engagements to loft only enough to maintain a high average speed to target. This is expected behavior, and in-line with my testing.
It will certainly be an upgrade, even if the range is similar.
AIM-7F came into the game in a state where it would miss anyone who turned slightly (even though it did have insane range before the drag changes). AIM-9L on planes used to have the same issues as the Navy Sidewinders where they would overcorrect and you could dodge it by pulling to one side and then the other.
Hey! Somebody remembers the dark ages of radar missiles! Where for almost a year, notch widths had been increased by 10-15x and you were more likely to kill a teammate accidentally with a radar missile than hit an AFK enemy flying slightly off from dead straight at you
Russian mains like to forget that cuz it doesnt fit in their victim mentality
@MiG_23M Here’s a little more information on the AIM-120’s lofting. Seems it “cruises” at 80,000 ft, presumably that’s for a high altitude (as in ~40,000 ft) launch, it obviously won’t be getting up there from sea level.
Seems like by locking on to your missile you still irradiate on target because it’s in fov of radar beam and missile’s seeker sees reflected signal from the target.
but also it does work. i’ve tried it and its worked over 10 times. i dont know what kind of warning the target gets but sometimes they dont seem to react
honestly i think its more reliable than locking the target because your radar can’t get notched that easily
