maybe they are talking in comparison the AIM-120B?
Well, they bought the AIM-120C-8 in 2017 for their F-35 and then bought AIM-120D in 2022 for their F-35. The only thing left is to find proof that the AIM-120C-8 was delivered to Norway prior to 2022.
““Modern electronics” allowed Raytheon to make the guidance section on the D model as part of a Form, Fit, and Function Refresh (F3R) update. That “allowed us to have a little bit bigger engine from the propulsion side,” said Jon Norman, Raytheon vice president of requirements and capabilities. But the main improvement, he said, is in a more efficient battery and software that takes advantage of the higher altitudes and speeds at which fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 fighters can launch missiles. The AMRAAM uses a solid rocket motor.”
But this is for D-3 no?
yes
so to clear some things up
The Aim-120D-3 is an F3R of the AIM-120D, this F3R apperently made a little space for more propellent
The AIM-120C-8 is also an F3R of the previous 120C´s but is not an equal to the 120D, there are no known changes to propulsion
basically only the D-3 is known to have motor modifications
should only be the D-3 that got an engine mod
More propellant is very relevant. As i said, aim120d3 is the missile meant to close the gap when modernizing to the aim260
AIM-120C/D incorrect explosive filler mass:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/kBMv311QjfGD
The formatting on this is terrible… valid report but damn man you need to work on your report writing.
Issue
I am having this issue
Affected vehicle/weapon/sensor
- item
- item 2
- item 3
Addition information
This source says this
This source also says this
1 Like
And i’d put the explosive safety book as first source, those others are… maybe bit questionable. It was already used for variety of reports
Yes I know, I’ve cut it down to what’s actually needed.
Will try.
It was kinda two parts since I assumed I first need to demonstrate that AIM-120C/D uses the WDU-41/B then talk about the warhead’s filler mass.
You mean the PubLog?
It should be pretty much the same tier as the yellow book as the information about explosive content are written for essentially the same purpose (safety during shipping and storage).
Went for including both sources because the devs sometimes have a tendency of questioning the validity of sources and going with bro science ™ or gut feeling © …
So thought instead of going through all that might as well include as many sources as possible from the beginning …
All the AIM-120’s have received a significant buff on the dev server.
Overall, faster acceleration & reduced drag are the main changes,
Burn time is slightly reduced but is made up by the increase in booster force
Other changes include slightly increased weight and very slightly decreased loft angle (0.5 degrees)
it could also pull a little less cause its heavier but idk how the rest of the changes influence that so we have to test ingame since statshark sucks are pull comparisons
Its 60m/s of delta V less but drag makes up for it in most scenarios
Because of the higher acceleration & slightly increased weight, it does pull a tiny bit less.
Indeed, in terms of its kinematic performance, it is more lethal especially at longer ranges. It still is better at shorter ranges before changes too since as you stated, the drag is reduced by quite a significant amount.
not mine should give a good idead of the changes
they pull less cause they have more speed lmao
4 Likes
RIP. They might actually (significantly) buff the AIM120 one day
1 Like