Thank you for doing the work and sharing this info. It’s a shame these devs and mods don’t seem to have any common sense.
2 Likes
They have more than most people think, I think the community has less than them. And this thread is an example that, deep down, this is nothing more than something that seeks an artificial buff in the AIM-120C5s that are in the game.
they are 2 different missiles with the same weight, same motor, same physics, same shape and same control surfaces with the only difference being the guidance, it’s like calling the R-27ET a completely different missile that can’t be derived from the R-27ER just because of a very very minor weight difference.
3 Likes
Your problem was trying to refute me and not reading what the person who started the thread wrote, but I already posted it there, read it.
It would, this would buff the C-7 and C-5 by extension because they are kinematically the same
The AIM120C-5 even being ungimped won’t be the best ARH missile, that would still be the mica em, R-77-1, AAM4 and PL12,
PLus it is a different ARH, we are talking about the AIM120C-7 and AMRAAM-ER
I didn’t even make this thread because I want C-5 buffed, I just want NASAMS to have more accurate performance, I’m just stating I believe they are gimping it because they know they would have to buff C-5
Wrong, one just needs to be ‘thinner’ and the other ‘thicker’ or larger and the other smaller, which is the case with length, which changes everything completely.
Well to be fair the R27et has considerably less range due to the increased drag from the seeker. IR seekers in general tend to have more drag due to being unable to use a nose cone.
Ah yes, the thinner a missile is, the worse the performance of the motor is because “AMRAAM-ER and ESSM are completely different” despite sharing the exact same motor section
Yes, just the engine, everything else is different.
Funny enough the R-27ET and ER performance difference should be greater than the AMRAAM-ER and ESSM because the ET has a flat nose cone. AMRAAM-ER has a pointed nose cone which has aerodynamically been fine for any other AMRAAM
4 Likes
Seeker is different, the length is different, the diameter is different, the weight is definitely different, so a lot of things change.
that’s fair, but in the case of these two missiles the seeker head is the same nose cone… so i don’t know what this guy is smoking. just take the example of R-27ER vs another R-27ER with a slightly different seeker
3 Likes
Can I get the link to that by any chance?
so by your opinoin which missile should or would have better performance?
Et seeker forever gimped or actually never will see the upgraded one due to old IRCCM meta during the release of new irccm fox2/ and it would have been a bit too broken at the time to make it somewhat accurate.
I hope devs some time later on revisit the missile, not just russian ones but other ir missiles as well. They all could use some fine tuning
Once again, I would like to remind everyone, especially Cof, that this same kind of logic was used by Gaijin themselves, but in their case they did with multiple missiles with absolutely 0 commonality. The AMRAAM-ER and ESSM as I, and other users have shown are almost the same exact missile just with a swapped guidance kit to have better functionality for nations that already have AMRAAM integrated. MANPADS Missiles and Overload: The Technical Details
3 Likes
I’ll say it again, prove me wrong. You can’t prove that the missile does what it does. The same engine is not an argument; They were the same missile.