I mean idk what values Gaijin uses to model their missiles, No one does. Its why you can’t just report the fin aoa even if you had hard numbers from an primary source. We do know that the fin aoa of the aim120 is simply not 15 degrees in reality.
Specifically because apparently Gaijin pulled the source for 15 degrees of fin aoa from this paper, which is nuts in itself considering the fact its just done by some students in korea. We have video proof of the actuators on the c-5 at least being at least double that. We also know that the c-5 got new actuators, the 120d even newer actuators. Did they improve from the aim120c-5 to aim120d? We don’t know. But we do know for a fact that the c-5’s actuators are capable of at least double what the cited source from the aim120a/b are.
Missile aoa or fin aoa of the missile? I cant really tell from the bug report but it seems like its referring to the missile’s aoa, which is a different issue though should be fixed.
Seems to me that the AIM-120C-5 actually got a new actuator system, the SCAS, which aligns with the motor improvement. This would give a realistic take on the actuator upgrade and the video of the AIM-120D
You need data like we used for magic 2, all this AoA talk is pointless. Show the range it should hit a target when launched at a certain angle off boresight with all the conditions listed. If it fails, it lacks energy after the turn and it will be corrected.
We also showed the AIM-7 series was underperforming similarly due to the maneuvering drag being too high some time ago.
This is a common problem with many many missiles. We lack the data to fix most of them and the ones we do have are old enough that Gaijin does not care to modify them (such as the R-23/R-24).
We know from 0.8 mach the R-24 should pull the maximum G limit of 24G’s. In-game it cannot do this until much much later when it is nearly 2 mach and at the end of the burn. It should have much better turn radius than it does in-game. The proximity fuses were less reliable in real life, so the missile should have some “wobble”, and in-game it tracks very precisely. Of course it is an arcade so these things are expected… but it is still somewhat frustrating when they change things on a case by case basis with some level of bias.
So anyway, the AIM-120 (and all other ARH missiles, literally every one of them) has much too large turn radius and achieve maximum overload only at higher speeds which is unrealistic.
A high loft where the missile has an optimal glide path downwards to maximize altitude over time such that a target approaching it meets it just before the missile can no longer maintain the same altitude as the target due to lack of energy.
More likely, a shot from very high altitude against a sea skimming target from 250km out such that it runs out of energy and impacts the ground at the same point the target is at that position.
These are not impressive numbers, and by no means indicate the missile has more or less potential in a real engagement. “Effective range” is quite an overstatement in such conditions.
AMRAAM-AXE is a private development from Raytheon, not a contracted weapon the government is actively seeking out to my knowledge. There are other programs as well that offer other unique ordnance options.
