For like 2 days it was upgraded heavily over the A and B on the Dev Server. I remember because the French guys were mad and wanted the Mica buffed.
1 Like
it was during dev server
when first added it had pre nerf amraam fin AOA and lofted a lot
then it was changed to have the nerfed fin AOA and loft the same as 120A
1 Like
It’s far more likely the missiles was nerfed cause the community wanted it on f15e and ef2k.
that was only the EFT, it was on 15E when dev opened
but yeah was probably placeholder
The AIM-120D (before the D3 if there was a change? idk) has an all boost motor
Just like the AIM-120C5 to whatever
Per the Sr. Staff engineer of the engine’s manufacturer
“Features an all-boost design that delivers a significant increase in performance over the baseline motor”
Edit: lol the back chart says the AIM-120A/B and the AIM-120C/D are the same weight
1 Like
Until the 90s one would have thought the AIM-9M had the same motor as the AIM-9D because they were both “MK36” variants, likewise the C-5 got the improved WPU-16/B. That does not mean the WPU-16/B could not see major revisions over the years the same way the MK36 did.
They entirely changed the grain pattern and type in the MK36 and they only changed the designation when they added the TVC unit to the backend for the AIM-9X Block 1. By the same logic you used, the AIM-9M has the same motor as the AIM-9D.
Reread what I wrote, read what I linked then come back lol.
I did not use any “logic” I simply reiterated what was in the article from the sr engineer of the booster manufacturer. If you’re arguing the facts bring counter evidence.
To say they all use the same motor is the exact same as saying the AIM-9M uses the same motor as the AIM-9D. This just isn’t an honest argument from your side.
I stated C5+ and provided the quote “designed for integration with AIM-120C5 and later versions of AMRAAM”
I stated some versions of D and admitted that I wasn’t sure.
You call me dishonest and attack me without refuting the evidence, your disingenuous argument is tiring. Go away.
Cite your sources. I cited mine.
I’ll reiterate, what you have implied is that they all use the same motor. This is confusing, as so does the AIM-9D and the AIM-9M. To say they are all the same is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. Getting defensive about it leads me to believe the latter.
What is far more likely, is that the motor has been updated over time and offered improvement in performance. The AIM-120D-3 we know for certain has an improved motor. I’ve cited my sources in the past and this is in fact my thread. If you want to repost nonsense that has been discussed and debunked them please find the door.
5 Likes
State where I said “they all use the same motor”
I said C5+ and D before D3 which means it wasn’t ALL. You are trying to assume things I never said nor an argument I was trying to make other than hey look at this source I found.
You bring up some other missile like it matters in this subject when we are talking about a specific rocket.
Still trying to attack me and not the paper with your ad hominems and “inferred” reading between the lines I see. Hmmm makes me wonder if you are really the squeaky clean person you purport to be. What do you have to hide? Why are you lying?
Another article by the booster manufacturer stating “This motorrepresents an all-boost design thatdelivers a significant increase inperformance as compared to thebaseline production motor.”
The C7+D models use the sidewinder propellant
From the document above I superimposed it next to an aim-120b cutaway
This is a quick and dirty sketch so it’s not precise.
A visualization of the “+5 inch” propellant while the booster carriage is the same length.
2 Likes
The sidewinder was the primary focus of several high performance propellant programs, it is no surprise they would reuse modern high performance propellants already developed for those programs when trying to enhance the performance of the AMRAAM.
This furthers my point, these missiles see improvement in propellant over time regardless of a change in motor designation. The MK36 propellant used in the AIM-9D is certainly not the same propellant they are discussing here for use in the AMRAAM.
That being said, the use of the same propellant and motor casing does not mean that it will continue to be all boost. The MK36 saw changes to the grain that changed the thrust profile over time.
That was never in question. Of course propellant can be improved over time.
The missile uses the same HTPB/aluminum powder compound as the AIM-9x and the documents I showed list that. What could change is the percentage of aluminum powder oxidizer mixed in the HTPB. Changing that mixture would require recertification which can easily be shown.
The NEWQD (net explosive weight for quantity distance) hasn’t changed since ~2007 and still remains at 113lbs of explosive power in the booster per the “Hazard Classification of Military Explosives” paper.
There are 3 part numbers for the booster itself. One is canceled and one adds a “-1” to the end of the part number like: 12345-1
So at some time there was a revision or a possible second manufacturer?
The +5 inch of booster still had to fit in the aim-120 carriage dimensions and weight.
You can see that from the 10lbs lighter WDU-41/B warhead and 10 lbs heavier booster WPU-16/B.
If this is taken at face value the AIM-120C5 should have ~20% more thrust to match the aim-9x in game
~18000force vs ~15000force (from datamine)
But then the monkey paw curls and the AIM-120A and AIM-120B get a weight nerf.
2 Likes
Would you mind sharing exactly where the latest AIM-9X uses HTPB?
That is total nonsense and can change with grain pattern and nozzle dimensions, the same propellant does not equal the same maximum thrust output. It just equals the same efficiency. That is to say, the same total impulse for the same total amount of propellant burned. Roughly.
The AIM-9X block 1 and block 2 use two separate propellants. High performance enhanced sidewinder propellants could have been used despite not seeing mass production due to budget cuts in the AIM-9X upgrade program.
Tell the WT devs that. I only gave what they currently are in game. Not my horse, not my rodeo. I’m looking at the AIM-120, you can find what the AIM-9x has exactly. You’ve been looking for a long time from what search says.
Here you can read up on whats in them. I was wrong HTPB/AP is not aluminum powder. AP is ammonium perchorate.
HTPB is a smokeless polymer that replaced aluminum powder or something idk.
I’m not a rocket scientist. I just play videogames and find articles.
Various components of the aim9x and aim120 boosters are detailed here.
https://www.businessdefense.gov/docs/resources/2017_AIC_RTC_05-17-2018-Public_Release.pdf
1 Like
HTPB/AP generally includes a certain amount of aluminum powder. HTPB is the binder and also a fuel, the ammonium perchlorate is the oxidizer which usually includes some degree of aluminum powder to improve specific impulse. The amount is what changes, with higher amounts meaning higher smoke volume.
Do note some errors in the chart provided in the outdated source you provided. The motor lengths aren’t exactly conclusive here given the C-5 adds 5" worth of propellant and somehow only 10 pounds of mass.
And again, keep in mind propellant grain changes are as simple as changing these shapes to modify the thrust curve… no redesignation required:
WPU-6/B (TOP)
WPU-16/B (BOTTOM)
156lbs / 74inches = 2.09lbs per inch
2.09lbs/inch x 5 inches = ~10lbs
nah sounds reasonable
An increase in motor length also includes casing, nozzle, ablative materials, etc. The increase does not seem 100% accurate. Like many of the AMRAAM numbers it has likely been fudged intentionally.
You can see in the third video an AMRAAM being fired and immediately maneuvering.
2 Likes