Save weight, service missiles appear to have an optical TDD tho.
No one is convinced.
From Rafael’s own brochure. 100km is substantially less than almost every other missile he listed, including the later AIM-120s.
It’s not a bad missile, but it makes compromises in range in order to be able to be carried on so many small platforms.
2 Likes
Derby (SR) and Derby ER. You can contrast this with the MICAs. MICA NG EM is stated to be 130km in air to air, and a bit over 40km in VL according to MBDA but atleast it uses an AESA seeker.
(Ignore MR and LR, they are completely different.)
So seeing that MICA NG EM has more VL range than Derby ER while claiming to be 130km, Derby ER certainly is more in the 100-110km range.
4 Likes
Another bug report:
AIM-120A/B incorrect total missile weight (Should be 342 lb / 155.129 kg) and warhead filler type:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c3Zavuod4L8o
Bug report:
Polymer Bonded Explosives TNT equivalence (Used in AIM-120A/B):
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dV8HeuLy4P4g
2 Likes
israel uses aim-120s for a reason…
They should also order Meteor missiles if they’re not gonna get Aim-120D’s or Aim-260’s.
they recently got authorization for C-8s (and part of aircraft purchases). D-3s are only better due to improved software allowing for more efficient loft shaping or whatever the term is. they’re unlikely to get Meteor and also theres no integration for f-16, f-15 or f-35 yet but i would assume that they’ll get aim-260s.
or not, who knows. they dont really have a peer adversary to use those against
Even if they dont get Meteors they will surely get more advanced Aim-120’s, one thing for sure Usa will keep supply them against Middle East in order to keep their ally strong.
well they’re getting the c-8. imo the amraam line is ending here as there’s no need to develop an even longer ranged one when the d-3 already touches the min requirement for aim-260
Fair enough, i cant wait to see Aim-260 when it arrives.
There might still be an -120E in future, or otherwise a configuration for export / war requirement with a downrated seeker and / or guidance section mounted to the improved motor / warhead for clients like Ukraine where they absolutely need the improved performance but can’t / won’t be eligible to receive variants with better ECCM as a potential risk of releasing cutting edge examples to adversaries if they were to be recovered may cause issues with other client nation and cause further propagation of advanced systems which is something to be avoided as it eats into theoretical wartime performance reserves.
I though still think a modified AMRAAM-AXE (practically an air launched SL-AMRAAM)would be the way to go for them but unit cost would probably be an issue.
1 Like
you’re describing the C-8. its the D-3 but without the fancy shaping algorithms
or if thats too good then there’s the C-7
The British manual that you have posted:
A- What’s the date on it?
B- It clearly says it was designed to be 327 lb. “327 lb (Designed)”.
Not to mention that it doesn’t even specify any variant …
I.e. This is some generic weight that they were initially aiming for in the design process of the missile.
This is not the actual production weight that was actually realized for any particular variant.
If you look at US aircraft manuals, they all have AIM-120A listed at 348 lb:
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/c3Zavuod4L8o?comment=2Sy4bxZKtZnMAxSUOheBfuHR
Note that I’m not using these as source as I don’t know if they are declassified or not.
But I have provided two public primary sources and one secondary source:
1- “US Defense Logistics Agency Public Logistics Data”: 342 lb
(I don’t see how you can get more primary than this)
2- “ADA357045 Distributed Simulation Testing for Weapons System Performance of the FA-18 and AIM-120 AMRAAM 1998 LCDR Tom Watson Naval Weapons Test Squadron”: 345 lb
(People in charge of testing and simulating the weapon’s performance in 1998 got the weight wrong! right?!)
3- “Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons 1995 COLONEL TIMOTHY M. LAUR AND STEVEN L. LLANSO Edited by Walter J. Boyne”: 345 lb
These are primary sources from the US (which actually makes the missile) whereas the undated UK document that doesn’t even specify the variant is clearly not as it explicitly mentions that the 327 lb is what the missile was initially intended to be in the design process, and not the actual weight of missile that was actualized in reality.
It’s also possible that the 327 was the propaganda/fake figure which was given to magazines etc, as magazines in 1985 and before (before the missile actually went into production) all use that figure: https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/c3Zavuod4L8o?comment=xaNLwmEChsaYsMAXSVfHwob7
Regarding this report: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c3Zavuod4L8o
I.e. It’s not really a primary source.
I gave you two primary sources from the US and one secondary.
(And there are countless US aircraft manuals that … Well you know what I mean …)
My guy, its literally a primary source haha. We were already trialling them on FA2 in the states.
1 Like
When did UK start using AIM-120B? 1995?
How is a document from 1992 a primary source then?
Not to mention that this won’t even apply to AIM-120A.
And in 1992 AIM-120B was not in production yet (it went into production in 1994).
I.e. when the document explicitly says “327 lbs (Designed)” it means what the designers are aiming AIM-120B to be (which was not actualized).
What’s your response to my primary sources from the US which actually makes the missile (and was operating it at the time of writing those, unlike UK in 1992)?
Both sources are primary sources.
You now have to wrestle in a mud pit naked surounded by flurescant pink lamas and judged by Michelle Obama, Eminem and the koolaid jug character from Family Guy. (Presumed to be gaijins main method for choosing between conflicting sources)
5 Likes