thank you!
The Hughes and Raytheon designs are most obviously different in that the Raytheon AMRAAM has no wings, relying on body lift. Raytheon tells IDR that the wing-less design has been made possible by the appreciably higher cruise speeds (than those of Sparrow) projected for the new missile. The wingless configuration which is almost a scaled version of the Patriot fuselage, although the length/diameter ratio is different reduces drag and allows the missile’s weight to be kept down, yet provides sufficient manoeuvrability to meet the design target of 50-60 g.
Nice find!
The 50/60G figures is probably for an early developement project. Since at the start the missile was supposed to be only 135kg compared to the 150 of the AIM-120A.
Or maybe it’s the dual-plane maneuvrability that’s mentionned which is logical since the AIM-120A is supposedly a 35G missile.
MICA gets its maneuvering from thrust vectoring , if MICA is limited to 30 after the thrust vectoring , then I dont think Aim-120 should be able to reach 50,60
Please tell me you’re joking.
you what know what i can’t find the reply anymore
1 Like
If it’s dual plane then why not, it would make the AIM-120 a 35G single plane in game with 50G when facing the rigth direction.
This would be the same as the MAGIC 2 in term of maneuvrability.
Single plane vs dual plane
1 Like
We already inferred that it’s a 35G missile in single plane, this document indicates it’s using combined plane - 50G (and it’s VERY likely that it uses combined plane all the time)…
Tail control missiles (especially those that might use body lift) require that all control surfaces maintain good airflow. The fuselage blocks one fin at all times when pulling AoA in “+” condition. So, “X” configuration is used towards target vector. If it didn’t, when it tries to roll it creates unwanted oscillations because only a few of the control surfaces have sufficient airflow - creating a torque imbalance.
This is the case with the AIM-54… It should very well be the case with the AIM-120. I think this proves it should be a 50G missile.
4 Likes
Just a heads up to both of you @Patriotic_FR. Gaijin does not accept Jane’s, and International Defense Review is published by Jane’s. Gaijin has been accepting IDR on their bug reports without having realized that it is made by Jane’s and so the source shouldn’t be accepted.
It’s only a supporting piece to a primary source indicating single plane is 35G.
I figured, but it’s hopefully not used to give 50G which is a strong claim that should be accepted by a strong source.
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