Also to cut cost and be able to be integrated to the nasams since iirc the guidance section of the ESSM is only able to be guided by ships
Provide proof that the amraam-er nose causes it be so aerodynamically different that it causes it to have less top speed by Mach 1.4, or more, and in excess of 10km less range. As I said in my report, I would be fine if they are not 1:1 the exact same, that’s understandable, but they should not be so wildly different.
7 Likes
I don’t have to prove anything, the fact that they are physically different is enough and I tested the missile and it reached Mach 3 and hit a target 10 km away at over Mach 1.9, but okay.
you tested the missile ingame…?? that’s the whole point of this post my brother in god… it’s to get it changed and fixed to the correct value
3 Likes
but it seems to me to be close to what it should be in the game.
The maximum speed of it in game is 920m/s, which is Mach 2.68, so I highly doubt that
4 Likes
we’re making up values now? great job Cof…
Max speed? That’s useless in the game, and I got very close to Mach 3 because there’s gravity. Otherwise, an AIM-120 can’t exceed 4.4 Mach, but I’ve seen many exceed that.
the fact that you dont have any proof and are going of some (really bad) mental gymnastics to try and disprove multiple people saying you are wrong isnt helping (+ plus going of the missile stats ingame that we are trying to get changed) also where are your physics cause they would really help to understand where you are coming from
1 Like
because of gravity? really? a missile that’s launched with 0 gravitational potential energy…
2 Likes
I actually saw one reach Mach 2.81, but I consider it Mach 3. But anyway, if you want to be precise…
thats not how this works mach 2.81 is not mach 3
1 Like
the stat card max speed is useless, but there is another max speed in the files that actually is the limit
and for AMRAAM ER the actual max speed is 920m/s
At the end of the day you have made multiple claims that were so outrageously wrong multiple users had to correct you and everything you have said is based on “well uhm it technically could be this,” or “hypothetically what if,” type scenarios. At least I put together a well constructed argument with sources, and understandable deductive reasoning. If you have nothing else to say but be the devils advocate of hypothetical scenarios and misinformation, I would kindly ask for you to go somewhere else.
6 Likes
you’re literally going against the logical thinking of everyone, so please stop arguing…
At the end of the day, you all do this without any proof, because there is no information. I already said we are all speculating.
There’s a big difference between your baseless speculations, and deductive reasoning and critical thinking based on the facts provided and common sense.
1 Like
this is the second time you have resorted to this. Also if read what mig has posted and others have provided you would know where we are all coming from, since our “speculation” have solid grounds while yours fail to even adhere to basic physics
1 Like
What facts? The only fact I’ve seen so far is that it technically has more than 50% range than an AIM-120C7, which in the game is only 33%.
This right here just proves you did not read what I said or you do not understand it. That is not what I said.
3 Likes