Viper1031 Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 Its just another AMRAAM, so, when will we see it as an option for the F-16?
Tholozor Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) "Just another AMRAAM" that entered service in the mid-2010s. Not going to happen for a c.2007 F-16. Edited January 9, 2023 by Tholozor 2 REAPER 51 | Tholozor VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/ Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/
Moonshine Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) let them provide at least one correctly functional Aim120 first... Edited January 9, 2023 by Moonshine
Default774 Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 3 hours ago, Midair said: And the AIM 120 C7? I'm not sure the C7 would offer much tangible improvement over our current C5. As far as I know, the C7(and the C8/D?) has the same motor as the C5 so kinematic improvements would have to come from guidance improvements. One area where the AIM-120 is not performing optimally at the moment is the lofting logic. From what I'm experiencing the missile does not loft high enough basically always, resulting in lost performance if you don't manually loft the missile. 1
Tholozor Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 The U.S. Air Force began receiving deliveries of C-7s around 2006. 1 REAPER 51 | Tholozor VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/ Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/
777coletrain Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 so it was a combination of Cx through C7 in 2007?
falcon_120 Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 I'm not sure the C7 would offer much tangible improvement over our current C5. As far as I know, the C7(and the C8/D?) has the same motor as the C5 so kinematic improvements would have to come from guidance improvements. One area where the AIM-120 is not performing optimally at the moment is the lofting logic. From what I'm experiencing the missile does not loft high enough basically always, resulting in lost performance if you don't manually loft the missile. very interesting results in your graph! What would you say is the perfect lofting angle (manually i mean) to get such performance. I usually pitch 15 to 20 degrees up if I'm not already defensive when launching.Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk 1
Tholozor Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 2 hours ago, 777coletrain said: so it was a combination of Cx through C7 in 2007? It depends. 2006 is when the USAF began receiving C-7s, but there's no way to know for sure exactly how many units were delivered and to which air wings/squadrons without procurement documents that break it down. Plus there's also the addition of upgrading the aircraft's computers to have the 120D as an option in the SMS to provide the appropriate DLZ cues. REAPER 51 | Tholozor VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/ Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/
Default774 Posted January 9, 2023 Posted January 9, 2023 1 hour ago, falcon_120 said: very interesting results in your graph! What would you say is the perfect lofting angle (manually i mean) to get such performance. I usually pitch 15 to 20 degrees up if I'm not already defensive when launching. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk 30 degrees, which is all the missile will do. Any more and it will pitch down to 30 degrees immediately.
Recommended Posts