wondering if this could possible help in any way
that definitely could because it backs up the logic of AMRAAM ER having similar flight performance to ESSM
of course that shouldnt really need evidence because they use the same motor and it doesnt have a shape that would cause significantly more drag, but apparently bug report managers have an issue understanding those sorts of basic properties
4 Likes
Oh its only a simple mistake! You see, they mixed their units, using 25 km instead of 25 miles…
Spoiler
Question, I was made aware that there’s an active radar seeker of essm. What’s the point of Amraam-er duplication into nasam if essm already existed and could be adapted for ground to air use?
1 Like
When will people learn to stop coping about any “range” number given anywhere, because without full exact condition, its completly 100% useless
Amraam ER has 20000km range - fired at mach 3 in stratosphere against space shuttle re-entering atmosphere
The fact that it has the same motor as the ESSM, and the same weight, would make you think that it would perform to the same effect as the ESSM. It is Gaijin that uses the listed 50% increase in range from their own modelling of the C-5/7 performance.
1 Like
Norwegian company Nammo produces propulsion systems for the ESSM, so might just have been a convenient matchup between Kongsberg and Nammo to enhance the NASAMS.
gajin doesnt use any “50% range” in their modeling they use physics. If you have some dry/wet mass comparisons shoot reports ahead by “range” will never get you in physics land as i shown in the example:
Amraam ER has 20000km against space shuttle
Amraam ER has 160kg dry mass vs amraam C 110kg so for 120kg more propellant 50kg in structure, bigger fins and its controls doesnt sound excessive.
Nope). Russian moderators will require you to provide secret documents in 3 examples and it’s still not a guarantee for accept.
Since AMRAAM-ER uses an AIM-120 guidance kit, it is cheaper and can be immediately implemented into a system like NASAMS that has already used AIM-120s
2 Likes
Have you ever made a bug report? It’s really not that hard if you have the correct kind of sources. For this kinda understand where the bug report managers are coming from, tho ofc I don’t agree with them
I’m not crazy.
No. Report on hot topics will only be accepted and realised if it benefits Gaijin.
Source: trust me bro
Dude. I don’t think you know how to bug report then
If they want to listen to our sure but if they don’t want to implement something then that’s that. No amount of evidence is going to change that
1 Like
That’s fair… especially for new stuff like this missile. Most of the stuff I report are like 20+ years old so theres plenty of sources, while nasams is like 5 years old
The only source trust me bro is crying about range numbers. AMRAAM-ER is currently reasonable single stage missile with 42% wet mass ratio it may be slightly under performing (as the front section is taken off smaller missile so seeker+warhead are lighter) but its definitely not magical energy missile some here want it to be.
So if you want removing 10kg dry mass for 10kg of motor gives you roughly 120m/s of deltaV so from ~1300m/s you go to ~1400m/s which doesnt change that much considering its fat not amazingly aerodynamic missile
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
NASAMS is nearing 30 years, while the AMRAAM-ER is 10 years
1 Like
Whoops confused them