There are two actually, not sure how they relate to each other though.
One is right next to the receiver portion in the missile’s guidance section
The other is in the radar file, right after the transmitters section:
N001VEP:
My guess is that the code in the missile is what actually dictates the behaviour, and the code in the radar is for RWR (since that portion was added with the RWR update).
is there a source or anything for the aim-120’s max fin AoA?
This study suggests maximum missile AoA of 30 degrees and provides comparative lift / drag coefficients for the AIM-120C-5 at least.
Does that mean that the AOA nerfs are fabricated non-sense then?
No, the elevators do not need to deflect very high to achieve 30 degrees maximum AoA. 30 degrees itself is perhaps too much - the FCS would prefer less instabilities. The AoA seems appropriate currently. The early AIM-120’s did not have off-bore or close-in dogfight performance like models after the AIM-120C-5.
I personally believe it’s too much, it makes amraam have a very poor terminal effectiveness.
To have sufficient guidance error and stability - and to maintain high levels of energy until hitting the target they would need to improve the lead computing and AoA limiter would need to be provided.
Btw uk sources confirm this if you’d like, also is there any official source for the total motor mass for any amraam?
Orbital ATK leaked the propellant mass and that was used in the DCS study to get accurate AIM-120C-5 information but for AIM-120A we rely I believe on the yellow book for ordnances from the Fuji marines site iirc.
both propellent masses are known iirc, but what about the total mass itself of the motor section?
I guess that means the 75 something kg for the motor section in that study is correct?
The motor section explosive mass (propellant weight) and total mass should both be listed. And yes the weight listed in the study should be correct.
BTW guys, did some testing using the Dertava missile software, every datapoint i tested is within ±0.5km of the real value, the only values that suffered were the ones which exceeded 5400KPH which induced a range deficit. Kinetically, for non maneuvering targets we have an accurate amraam guys, (ignoring oscillation’s)
With what?
This
**
**
Compare this to a high and fast launch, where we see the clipping occuring, which limits the range and hence causes the descrepancy in performance.
Note there is about 10s of IAS clipping.
I don’t think this is reliable and it certainly isn’t usable in reports. Similar to the flare.flo site which was definitely not accurate for the R-27ER.
Does the AMRAAM in-game meet the performance outlined in the British documents?
I don’t think you read the first part of the comment you quoted. Dertava’s software is not in-game performance.
Given it should purely be following equations through the missile envelope, ignoring oscillations it should be accurate to warthunder, and given that the report was closed, this suggests it was tuned to the reports pretty exactly - which was shown by the software.
