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
5 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?
1 Like
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…
3 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
Obviously, yet given that there is minimal evidence to counter whatever decision Gaijin decides, it is unlikely these numbers will change much.
The chart says aim-7m reaches a peak velocity of mach 6.6?
typo?
2 Likes
At 80km… higher altitudes, un-lofted, and from very high launch speed the R-27ER appears to have inferior performance against the AMRAAM than the scenario indicated previously. ‘fear mongering’ is not what I was doing. I simply looked at a realistic maximum launch range scenario for the AIM-120 model I have and compared it to the in-game R-27ER.
Earlier I hadn’t taken a look at the new missile data.
Now that I have, the AIM-120 in the files has less overall deltaV and slightly higher drag than my model has.
Additionally, as shown in your own post… The R-27ER is nearly 1 mach faster than the competition.
I don’t know where he got this chart, but looking at the in-game data it appears the AMRAAM in-game is inferior to the model I was using for testing.
And yes the AIM-7M peak speed has to be a typo.
1 Like
In theory amraam should I be receiving a couple major buffs to its energy and range shortly though. So I’d wait before making judgements.
2 Likes
Yes, as I said. If it isn’t performing according to the data… it should be buffed. It should only be changed in accordance with real data, though.
For example, it is modeled as 40G when it should be 50G… or if they want to do single plane it would be 35G.
1 Like