Jump to content

AIM-120 AMRAAM: History, Performance & Discussion


spacenavy90
 Share

40 minutes ago, InterFleet said:

I don't think CxK contribute to manuverability as big as some other factors, for example maximum fin AoA and wing area multiplier 

for example Magic have fin AoA of 18 and it is very manuverable, versus 16.2 of the AIM9J

Since magic accelerate very quickly having a big fin AoA angle means it can pull some crazy manuvers (but also bleed a lot of speed)

 

According to your theory Red Top with a CxK of 3.8 should be a really manuverable missile in game :pogsnail:

but it clearly isn't the case as it struggles to maintain speed and it becomes a rock immediately after the motors run out

 

Tuning the PID value would probably affect how much the missile attempts to lead, and thus manuverability, but it is kind of complicated so using default values shouldn't matter too much

 

I never said that CxK was the only value that affected maneuverability... but it is one of the few that has a dramatic effect on it. Watch this Zetaris video to know more. Except the section on CxK as I already said why I think it is not simply the dragCx.

 

Edited by spacenavy90
  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, spacenavy90 said:

This doesn't make much sense. We already know that higher CxK values make a missile more manuverable, meanwhile the DragCx value matches drag coefficient values found in real life. @k_stepanovich's comment there seems too vague to imply anything specifically out of the CxK value. Until we hear something more specific from developers I'm sticking with the L/D ratio theory as it fits better and matches up with higher values equating to higher maneuverability.

 

We know that CxK is the in flight drag coefficient because update 1.97 significantly nerfed the range of air-to-air missiles by increasing their drag. In this update the value of CxK was increased for every missile, while DragCx remained unchanged.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Flame2512 said:

 

We know that CxK is the in flight drag coefficient because update 1.97 significantly nerfed the range of air-to-air missiles by increasing their drag. In this update the value of CxK was increased for every missile, while DragCx remained unchanged.

 

Do you have proof of this I can look at?

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 13/07/2022 at 12:01, spacenavy90 said:

 

Do you have proof of this I can look at?

 

Here's @gszabi99_HUN's datamine repository. If you look at the commit for 1.97.0.30 (the first 1.97 version) you can see that every air-to-air missile got CxK increased, while DragCx remained unchanged. Here are some examples:

Spoiler

cNbBBpp.png

qn0uavo.png

aZVyKjk.png

lTQKKU9.png

QWwj6Z4.png

RBuRfRN.png

 

As we know the drag of all air-to-air missiles was increased dramatically in 1.97 as a way to nerf their range (prior to 1.97 you could routinely get 15 km kills with the AIM-9D for example), and CxK is the only drag related values that changed for every missile, we can safely say that CxK is the drag value.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/06/2022 at 23:02, spacenavy90 said:

Warhead: WDU-33/B - 22.7kg annular blast fragmentation (198x projectiles)

Effective kill range: ~20 m

Fuze: FZU-49/B - Active radar proximity and impact

Radar proximity range: ~15 m

do you have any sources for this?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hobel said:

thank you so much i have been looking for this for months!!!

 

however, what reference indicates 15-20 metres is this document? do you have an exact line of text?

 

No, it is an estimation based on the damage study. This is denoted by the squiggly line ('~').

  • Thanks 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@spacenavy90I really recommend you double check your sources on the maneuvering limits and max ranges for the missiles. I have some sources that notes much higher ranges and less G load limit than what's first posted. Effective range is also different. 

Edited by DirectSupport
  • Confused 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, DirectSupport said:

@spacenavy90I really recommend you double check your sources on the maneuvering limits and max ranges for the missiles. I have some sources that notes much higher ranges and less G load limit than what's first posted. Effective range is also different. 

 

Then post them? Saying you have sources that say different is pretty vague and meaningless.

Also the true max ranges and G-loads are classified, anything you find publicly will not be completely accurate.

Edited by spacenavy90
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

Then post them? Saying you have sources that say different is pretty vague and meaningless.

Also the true max ranges and G-loads are classified, anything you find publicly will not be completely accurate.

But you should question your sources if the AIM-120C has the same ranges as the AIM-120A/B. You should also question your sources if the AIM-120A has more maneuverability than the AIM-120C, while AIM-120C remains having the same ranges. This would mean that the AIM-120C became worse. 

 

Also, 40km max range for these AIM-120 missiles is a very low range. 

 

Consider replacing all the numbers in the first post and include more details from this source: 

http://www.loneflyer.com/2015/05/19/hughes-aim-120-amraam-slammer/
(Make sure to open it in Google Chrome so you can use google translate)


This article is the culmination of publicly available sources. 

Edited by DirectSupport
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23/06/2022 at 14:12, Fireraid233 said:

When do you think we could see an early version of the AIM-120? perhaps not long after the AIM-7M is introduced?

There's still quite a list of Fox 1 missiles that still have yet to be added before we see AIM-120s/MICAs/ActiveRadar R-27s/PL-11s and etc. There's atleast 8 missiles that haven't been added and these are, R-27R, R-27ER, Super 530D, AIM-7M, AIM-7MH, AIM-7P, Skyflash TEMP, and Skyflash SuperTEMP. So hopefully not for a long while. 

Edited by DirectSupport
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2022 at 05:19, InterFleet said:

Supersonic jet with a AMRAAM is definitely a NO right now because they have the ability to accelerate really fast and lob the missile into thin air,

but something like Harrier FA2 and  BAe Hawks 200 are definitely on the table right now due to their over all worse flight performance.

 

Even with a subsonic jet, it's a bit much right now considering even the AIM-120A is a 28G missile with a 18.5km active radar range. The MICA EM, which is just a bit newer has an active radar range of about 25-30km. Harrier and Hawks should come with AIM-9L/M for sure, but fox 3 missiles are considerably more aerodynamic, maneuverable, and a lot harder to notch than current missiles in-game. The advantage is just too great. 

 

The AIM-120A specifications are: 

Range: (70km) similar to that of the AIM-7F. 
Active Radar Range: (18.5km) similar to that of the AIM-54

Manueverability: (28G) similar to that of the Super 530F
Aerodynamics: Slimmer than the AIM-7F while maintaining same range.

 

The AIM-120A as of right now does take the best of every top tier missile in-game and combines it as of right now. 

Edited by DirectSupport
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DirectSupport said:

But you should question your sources if the AIM-120C has the same ranges as the AIM-120A/B. You should also question your sources if the AIM-120A has more maneuverability than the AIM-120C, while AIM-120C remains having the same ranges. This would mean that the AIM-120C became worse. 

 

Also, 40km max range for these AIM-120 missiles is a very low range. 

 

Consider replacing all the numbers in the first post and include more details from this source: 

http://www.loneflyer.com/2015/05/19/hughes-aim-120-amraam-slammer/
(Make sure to open it in Google Chrome so you can use google translate)


This article is the culmination of publicly available sources. 

the aim-120c have the same range cuz nothing happened to the engine it got clipped for f-22 purpose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DirectSupport said:

But you should question your sources if the AIM-120C has the same ranges as the AIM-120A/B. You should also question your sources if the AIM-120A has more maneuverability than the AIM-120C, while AIM-120C remains having the same ranges. This would mean that the AIM-120C became worse.

Also, 40km max range for these AIM-120 missiles is a very low range. 

 

The AIM-120C with its clipped wings has reduced maneuverability compared to the A/B with larger area control surfaces. The C-5 also moved to a boost-only motor.

Range estimation is really not as simple as you make it seem. My estimates assume 10,000ft at mach 1.0 and may be conservative sure, but 40km at those parameters is within reason.

I've made it quite clear that these values are estimates only due to the classified nature of this information.

 

17 minutes ago, TimeFaker said:

the aim-120c have the same range cuz nothing happened to the engine it got clipped for f-22 purpose

 

Exactly. The C-5 variant is when the engine was changed to all-boost instead of a boost-sustain.

  • Like 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TimeFaker said:

the aim-120c have the same range cuz nothing happened to the engine it got clipped for f-22 purpose

There's multiple variants of AIM-120C, so that's partially incorrect. Also, one of the goals for the AIM-120C was an increase in range. Again, read this article here: http://www.loneflyer.com/2015/05/19/hughes-aim-120-amraam-slammer/

There's AIM-120C-2,3,4,5 and 6. Some did get a engine boost increase. 

 

1 hour ago, spacenavy90 said:

The AIM-120C with its clipped wings has reduced maneuverability compared to the A/B with larger area control surfaces.

Again, this is incorrect, and the article I linked you explained as much, 

 

Image

 

"The maneuvering capabilities do not decrease, because the deviation values of the controls have been changed." 

Edited by DirectSupport
  • Confused 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DirectSupport said:

There's multiple variants of AIM-120C, so that's partially incorrect. Also, one of the goals for the AIM-120C was an increase in range. Again, read this article here: http://www.loneflyer.com/2015/05/19/hughes-aim-120-amraam-slammer/

There's AIM-120C-2,3,4,5 and 6. Some did get a engine boost increase. 

 

Again, this is incorrect, and the article I linked you explained as much, 

 

Image

 

"The maneuvering capabilities do not decrease, because the deviation values of the controls have been changed." 

using one article as a third source is not reliable is not hard evidence also this not even a qualified source without other source baking it up u do need to provide other sources. making wings short and doesn't affect maneuverability is such an illogical statement as with speed loss the missile will find it harder to maneuver while 5 got all boost. however none of this mentioned any engine changes . also saying that something doesnt affect or do something is very vague

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DirectSupport said:

There's multiple variants of AIM-120C, so that's partially incorrect. Also, one of the goals for the AIM-120C was an increase in range. Again, read this article here: http://www.loneflyer.com/2015/05/19/hughes-aim-120-amraam-slammer/

There's AIM-120C-2,3,4,5 and 6. Some did get a engine boost increase. 

 

Again, this is incorrect, and the article I linked you explained as much, 

 

Image

 

"The maneuvering capabilities do not decrease, because the deviation values of the controls have been changed." 

 

I'll be blunt, your random Italian translated website source means very little to me. It barely makes sense after translation anyway.

Plenty of sources state that the clipped wings have a negative impact on maneuverability, no matter how small. Changing the flight control surfaces does that, it's basic aerodynamics.

  • Like 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TimeFaker said:

this not even a qualified source without other source baking it up u do need to provide other sources.

We're not creating bug reports. I'll worry about that once the AIM-120 has come into the game. 

 

9 hours ago, TimeFaker said:

making wings short and doesn't affect maneuverability is such an illogical statement as with speed loss the missile will find it harder to maneuver while 5 got all boost.

Yet how does it make sense that the the AIM-120A has the same range but more maneuverability, while the AIM-120C has the same range but less manueverability. Usually you are supposed to lose range if you gained some maneuverability. If the shorter wings automatically deduct maneuverability from a missile, then range should be greater, however we don't see that here. And again, the source provides the reason for why the maneuverability isn't decreased. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, spacenavy90 said:

I'll be blunt, your random Italian translated website source means very little to me. It barely makes sense after translation anyway.

This "random Italian website" has gotten every other missile in-game correctly. 

 

http://www.loneflyer.com/2015/04/18/matra-super-r-530/

http://www.loneflyer.com/2015/08/01/hughes-aim-54-phoenix/

http://www.loneflyer.com/2015/05/11/bae-dynamics-skyflash/

http://www.loneflyer.com/2015/04/14/selenia-aspide-1a/

http://www.loneflyer.com/2015/03/28/aim-7-sparrow/

All the information in these missiles are correlate directly to in-game missiles. 

The fact is, if this same source got all the other missiles correct, it likely has the AIM-120 correct as well. It's just up to us to use this source to guide us, and find sources that support what's written in there. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DirectSupport said:

Yet how does it make sense that the the AIM-120A has the same range but more maneuverability, while the AIM-120C has the same range but less manueverability. Usually you are supposed to lose range if you gained some maneuverability. If the shorter wings automatically deduct maneuverability from a missile, then range should be greater, however we don't see that here. And again, the source provides the reason for why the maneuverability isn't decreased.

it should have more range. simply due to less drag. during maneuvers AND well not during maneuvers.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
2 hours ago, Hobel said:

I am absolutely curious how the Aim120 will perform in comparison to the dcs aim120

 

If the AIM-54 is anything to go by, it will be extremely nerfed from the beginning and gradually improved back to what people expect from it. There is plenty of CFD testing done by DCS devs and made public, so Gaijin has little excuse imo. It may not be 1:1 accurate with real life (seeing as how actual information is highly classified) but we should be able to get close.

The real question in my mind is when can we see the AIM-120A/B and with what aircraft? 120A/B aren't pushovers by any means, but they aren't some ungodly weapon that can't be defeated either. My guess is that we may see it on a top-tier "low performance" aircraft that gets weapons to compensate. Such as the F-4F ICE or compatible Harrier variants.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, spacenavy90 said:

 

If the AIM-54 is anything to go by, it will be extremely nerfed from the beginning and gradually improved back to what people expect from it. There is plenty of CFD testing done by DCS devs and made public, so Gaijin has little excuse imo. It may not be 1:1 accurate with real life (seeing as how actual information is highly classified) but we should be able to get close.

The real question in my mind is when can we see the AIM-120A/B and with what aircraft? 120A/B aren't pushovers by any means, but they aren't some ungodly weapon that can't be defeated either. My guess is that we may see it on a top-tier "low performance" aircraft that gets weapons to compensate. Such as the F-4F ICE or compatible Harrier variants.

I'm not talking about the range, I think WT and DCS will be similar.

I'm talking more about tracking and the guidcene

 

things like that : https://streamable.com/scad96

also the proxy fuze is still at 7m, which makes for some interesting scenes...

 

The Aim120 has undergone a very interesting and difficult development over the last 3 years.

and I hope that we will have a final Aim120 by the end of 20 23 in DCS.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...