The f14 as well. Its mostly a remained from the bug regarding Mig23s a while ago. But its only the ML, you can’t lock it unless you are in pulse mode.
THE '90s might come in a mid year or September if i am right, but there are some changes that MUST need for yesterday about some radar bugs, ARH missile mechanics and etc
There are already a plethora of 90s missiles…?
1 Like
And post 90s planes
1 Like
not yet but some bugs that i mentioned will get back this feature
Here’s a couple of AMRAAM firing envelopes I found in a British report on the Sea Harrier programme. The report is from the mid 1980s, so is referring to the AIM-120A. There are no launch / target conditions included with the Sea Level one, but seeing as it is based on Sea Harrier it is likely sub-sonic launch (like the medium altitude one is).
And before anyone freaks out the report is declassified, and has been since 2017.
4 Likes
Its nice to finally have hard data, though the wording for each specific region is confusing, considering 15nmi is ~30km , with each graduation being 10 km (range axis), if it was consistent units it would make sense(an immediate 3G defensive turn is made on missile launch, makes up the innermost region of the forward hemisphere). as it would otherwise mean that the target is reacting to the missile before launch, which would change the geometry, in the first place.
And on top of that no mention is made of the seeker going active (or active off the rail), though it may make sense to occur at about ~15km or so.
1 Like
That did strike me as a bit strange. I personally find the rear aspect performance at medium altitude very impressive. That graph shows the AMRAAM hitting the target from a lunch range of about 15 km, the AIM-7F’s max range in game under those conditions is less than 8.5km.
1 Like
from the files it already seems the 120 will have better range, and larger no escape zone xD
mig23 cope inbound
4 Likes
Looks like I obtained new AMRAAM documents just in a nick of time.
1 Like
If it isn’t performing according to the charts flame posted it will simply be fixed, my model performs according to the charts so we know it was relatively accurate already.
The trolling / baiting from you needs to stop.
Does it assume km or Nmi, is used for the range scale?
so this kinda lines up with that “18km no escape zone” that iirc you sent in the Shar thread. very nice to see some conk crete info on it
Enough of the nonsense… take your personal Dispute to PM… the Forum is not the place for these silly games…
2 Likes
I use kilometers for testing but I’ve not mistaken the Nautical miles shown. The model was within 10% of the metric shown in this document, but after small adjustments it has matched previous and now current data points with little to no change in results from prior tests. It still achieves ~75km against subsonic target when launched at subsonic speeds from ~10km depending on loft angle. I’m not going to be home for another week or so, unfortunately I’ll be unable to record or test on the dev server when it comes out.
The performance is still similar to AIM-7F, rather it just lofts a bit to achieve the longer ranges in rear aspect. It’s not much better than the AIM-7P models in that regard.
AIM-120A isn’t getting smokeless motor?
Contrary to your fear mongering the data from the devserver indicates that the R-27ER is not in fact that much faster than everything else as you predicted.
1 Like
This is subject to change though
1 Like