Wdym “how do you figure”, the august nerf from last year was completely unsourced lol
Orbital ATK had made public the cross sectional diagram of the motor and weight of the AIM-120C-5 motor at one point, which is the source DCS devs used for their own AMRAAM modeling. They determined based on that diagram and the average density of the motor propellant as explained in their assessment.
They determined the propellant weight should be approximately 51.01 kg, which turned out to be a little short of the real world net explosive weight at 51.256kg according to the yellow book.
Anyhow, it is possible the yellow book is converting the equivalent net explosive weight to lbs / kg of TnT or something.
Rather the AIM-120C-5 being overweight imho.
They USUALLY don’t post the source of a nerf in the dev blogs, but I digress. I was hoping they had some public data scenario to share for our own testing.
IRL or in-game?
I’ve thought so too, but official sources state that it is indeed the correct weight. It’s slightly heavier than the A and the B
if you notice in that document it states the fuel mass is 51.2xxx kg meaning its within spec you can find that on page 8 "Ammendment: Source for the mass of the fuel has been found and now known to be 51.2559kg[7]
.
However, the below information is what was used for all the rest of the document.
"
also according to the document shouldn’t the c-5 and above have 1200~ more N of thrust
Gaijin models these missiles for medium alt scenarios to best match charts without using dynamic thrust conditions. Thrust may be close, but not equal to peak thrust in source data and burn times by differ.
I’m aware of the sourced weight of the propellant, my point is that they calculated very close to the same weight while being marginally conservative even should the yellow book be erroneous.
the slamraam physically cannot mad dog the c7 or the 9x
it lacks the necessary radar and command node integration required for the missile’s self-seeking capability
compared to the tan sam that doesnt need to rely on the radar to fire because it has targeting optics
im more referring to the fact that they werent based on anything. the only nerf that was thanks to a bugfix was the delay
Would love a source on that given the 9X (any AIM-9 for that matter) can outright be engaged and launched from functionally any standardized LAU rail with a battery and some wire, they very much so do not need anything you mentioned to be fired.
Yeah just give me a bit but yeah there was a general that said the slamraam if it would happen that the towed radar gets destroyed, the launchers would be completely useless
If you think about it the launcher vehicle only has antennas that communicate with the command vehicle/ radar and its mostly for datalink probably for other things too
Thats not a source my guy, hearsay is not accepted here.
Here is my source
Also to be honest with you mad dog in game on the tan sam is quite useless and i never found a proper use to it
I really wish i could guide them with the irst
1 Like
that means nothing, “combat ineffective” does not mean it cant launch missiles
if anything it hints at it still being able to just not as effectively
1 Like
Yeah this is grossly irrelevant, he is describing the standard operations of any battery style SAM in existence, the TAM SAM would be included in such a critique, this is not at all a unique “issue” nor does it actually delve into the system itself.
Reminder that TAM SAMs cannot be fired from the vehicle, there is no onboard equipment to actually facilitate such inside the vehicle, said controls are part of a director package that is externally mounted, the sights onboard the launcher simply feed data to said director. The only difference present between these two systems is the presence of a sight on the vehicle’s turret proper, neither sport inbuilt direction equipment as far as I am aware.
You can even see such in game, there is no “gunner” onboard the TAM SAM, only a commander and, for some reason, a machine gunner, with no fire control equipment in the cab, such is identical, minus the machine gunner, to the SLAMRAAM.
It could also be blatantly false information, the source isn’t entirely credible on its own.
Our attached anti aircraft guys never had additional radars or air cover when they launched them during training, I can’t imagine they’d just be sending amraams off like a hail Mary.
Not in the military venacular. If something is combat inefective it cannot fulfil it’s function.
yes the function of medium ranged air defense, which it cannot fulfill without outside support detecting threats, however that in now way implies that it cannot launch missiles just that it will not provide effective air defense