I’ve used both of them. Range matters at top tier —most battles happen at 10 km+. It’s kind of sad when a missile misses someone right above you at 20 km without them even dropping a single chaff, plus it doesn’t pull like crazy like the MICAs and you never used any R-77, so you’re obviously going to say they’re better than the AIM-120. AIM-120C5 is actually pretty bad, but the R-77-1 and AIM-120A/B are about on par.
AIM-120A and AIM-120B, they are basically the same in the game.
I think that’s the minimum range at which a missile can safely launch and still arm or track properly.
Figure WSEP 98-03:
Table WSEP 98-03:
Basically:
Why did i said falsely?
because there is a Pythagoras relation between the 3 following parameters:
AAGL - Altitude AGL (in feets, in both Table and Figure of WSEP 98-03 and WSEP98-06)
LSR - Launch Slant Range (in feets, from the Figure WSEP 98-03 and Table+Figure WSEP 98-06)
LGR - Launch Ground Range (in nm, from the Table WSEP 98-03)
So, thanks to Pythagoras theorem, we have:
So, using both AAGL (in feets) and LSR(in feets), we can found LGR (in feets):
Here is the whole table, including WSEP 98-03 and WSEP 98-06 (last of which gave directly the LSR in Feets, so we can compare):
Figure WSEP 98-03, edited with Day and Hammer Designations
Spoiler
So, based on mathematical simple and known tools, i’m proving that table WSEP 98-03 is wrongly set in Nautical miles instead of Feets (like the WSEP 98-06 Table)
and thanks to the previous statement,… i’m proving that source isn’t proving that AGM-65D ever done the 40km shot claimed by Thread Author. (and i’m dieing to know where is the bug-report on the AGM-65D range link is)
Post-Scriptum : it’s for Gunjob to know - that if a bug-report is based on said source, the Table of WSEP 98-03 should be read in feets instead of Nautical miles.
U.S. has objectively the worst or second worst top tier after this patch lol, the super hornet and golden eagle are outclassed in every aspect by these new planes, not that they weren’t outclassed already
4 Likes
R-77-1 makes any aim-120 look like a joke
2 Likes
You’re just trying to force it to fit. Especially when you said they confused nm with ft, that’s ridiculous. The fact that the AGM-65D’s maximum range is 39 km is not only in this document but also in other sources.
Do the math bro,… do the math
i’m an Engineer,… so i believe that i know how to do math,… but you doesn’t even questionned why WSEP98-03 and WSEP 98-06 doesn’t give the same informations,… neither if all they’ve written makes sense,…
23,000 NM maverick range guys.
The graph tells us so.
4 Likes
I don’t know why this dude still believes Seeker can see that far, lol.
Most likely they confused the comma with the period.
Still, the math doesn’t add up; it has to be in feet.
In a US government document the chances of some european coming in and mixing up commas and periods is low.
Someone just copy pasting the spreadsheet data numbers they had in feet to the column and not adjusting them to nm?
More plausible.
1 Like
Neither did any other western nation though, so its not just the US.
Im personally predicting Gen 5 IIR (ASRAAM, IRIS-T, etc etc) or Next gen ARH (METEOR, Aim-120D, PL-15, etc etc) within the next 6 months
Though the US will actually have some of the weaker missiles of either update which will be quite funny to watch the reaction too
2 Likes
So is the launch altitude 1 feet then?
1 Like
I mean he quite literally did the math with launch alt and slate range you can work back to ground range. And it clearly corresponds the the figures mislabelled as nm. Charts can be mislabelled it happens, @Cpt_Bel_V is right here.
3 Likes
i’m now willing to get those too
because i still don’t have the bug report link, you’re refering to
This is the original one.
yes, it’s the one i just fixed.
but i was asking for the bug reports and others sources he claims