AIM 120B\C differences
-
Nope, BMS models the C-5 since 4.33.
The basic C model is a B with shorter fins. Then they updated it with various stuff not necessarily relevant for a sim, the C-5 bringing a pure boost rocket engine that gave a little more legs to the missile.
The C-7 is reported as having more range but no mention on how they achieve that, considering the motor & shape is the same. My guess is on battery duration & improved flight profile for high-speed, high altitude launches.
C-7 is lighter though, which means better delta-v and range.
-
This post is deleted! -
In BMS they are identical from a DB perspective (IE: Guidance, tracking, damage)
With only some minor performance changes in the FM files. It looks like the B might actually perform a little better in several areas and has a longer burn time (.5s), but the C puts out more Impulse, so I would guess at first glance they perform VERY similarly. The C has a few aero advantages in AoA and a little less drag. Although it does appear that the C is considerably more responsive to guidance, assuming that’s what the “Guidance Delay” field is used for.
Thanks for that!
Since BMS has modeled the C-5, but both missiles are very close in relation to performance, something is a miss here. The B “approximate range = 25nm, WEZ estimated at 15nm”, while the C-5 “approximate range = 50nm, WEZ estimated at 25nm”. The C-7 “approximate range = 65nm, WEZ estimated at 35nm”. All values are estimates. Since there is no way to get actual data on classified info. However the estimates prove a point. The differences between them is not modeled. Since the B is no longer in production (and is not listed in inventories), and the C-5 and C-7 are also slated to end there service life (as of 2016), the D variant is now in full production. The D is far above the performance level of the B.
The D estimates are “approximate range = 80nm, WEZ estimated at 50nm”. So were are talking about BMS is set in the late 90’s, early 2000 era. I get that. But there should be measurable differences between the B and the C-5 in relation to performance. At least closer to what these estimates are. And, these estimates are on the low side -
Thanks for that!
Since BMS has modeled the C-5, but both missiles are very close in relation to performance, something is a miss here. The B “approximate range = 25nm, WEZ estimated at 15nm”, while the C-5 “approximate range = 50nm, WEZ estimated at 25nm”. The C-7 “approximate range = 65nm, WEZ estimated at 35nm”. All values are estimates. Since there is no way to get actual data on classified info. However the estimates prove a point. The differences between them is not modeled. Since the B is no longer in production (and is not listed in inventories), and the C-5 and C-7 are also slated to end there service life (as of 2016), the D variant is now in full production. The D is far above the performance level of the B.
The D estimates are “approximate range = 80nm, WEZ estimated at 50nm”. So were are talking about BMS is set in the late 90’s, early 2000 era. I get that. But there should be measurable differences between the B and the C-5 in relation to performance. At least closer to what these estimates are. And, these estimates are on the low sideA single range figure means nothing for an AA missile… what is the launcher altitude ? Target altitude and aspect ?
Not to mention those figures quoted above have no reliable source on them.
What we do know is that the rocket in the C-5 is a bit bigger, so has a bit more fuel, hence the impulse change - and it is a pure boost, meaning that the rocket output is near constant over time. But boost v boost sustain does not make that much of a difference, TBH, not when the total burn duration is low (as it is on the B -you can see that from early CLAWS test fire videos).
And there is a difference between them in terms of range in BMS… all you have to do is take both and look at the DLZ…
So yeah, sorry, but you are going to have to bring me better arguments before we make changes to those FM.
-
I wonder if shortened fins affects manouverability of the missile. Shorter fins = less drag (at least during straight flight), but they also give less control, at least in theory.
-
A single range figure means nothing for an AA missile… what is the launcher altitude ? Target altitude and aspect ?
Very true. Did not bring that up since I am discussing basic performance values for each weapon in BMS. The higher and faster you are, the greater ranges you can achieve.
Not to mention those figures quoted above have no reliable source on them.
… and BMS is accurate? With what data (classified)? Don’t think that you would have the actual Raytheon info to work with either. No one has. It is best gestimation only.
What we do know is that the rocket in the C-5 is a bit bigger, so has a bit more fuel, hence the impulse change - and it is a pure boost, meaning that the rocket output is near constant over time. But boost v boost sustain does not make that much of a difference, TBH, not when the total burn duration is low (as it is on the B -you can see that from early CLAWS test fire videos).
Yet the file that Mort has shown has the weapons equal in weight. That is not correct. The C-5 and C-7 are actually lighter in weight.
And there is a difference between them in terms of range in BMS… all you have to do is take both and look at the DLZ…
So yeah, sorry, but you are going to have to bring me better arguments before we make changes to those FM.
Not trying to argue here, but the performance data Mort posted does not indicate this specifically. As he mentioned, it appears the B has a bit more range than the C under certain conditions.
I’m not trying to get you guys to change anything. But if we have 2 slammers that are different from each other, range, weight, ect. then that should be something to look into.
-
This post is deleted! -
The DLZ is computed from the range table, which itself is from a battery of automated test launches in-game, so it matches in-game performance.
-
In BMS they are identical from a DB perspective (IE: Guidance, tracking, damage)
With only some minor performance changes in the FM files. It looks like the B might actually perform a little better in several areas and has a longer burn time (.5s), but the C puts out more Impulse, so I would guess at first glance they perform VERY similarly. The C has a few aero advantages in AoA and a little less drag. Although it does appear that the C is considerably more responsive to guidance, assuming that’s what the “Guidance Delay” field is used for.
Thank you MorteSil!! This was the information I was looking for. Im gratefully appreciative.
-
I choose to believe the DLZ, which means I will always take a C over a B. Would make most sense realism wise too. If Bs were better, everyone would still be using them…
Comparison shots:
-
This post is deleted! -
I choose to believe the DLZ, which means I will always take a C over a B. Would make most sense realism wise too. If Bs were better, everyone would still be using them…
Comparison shots:
Interesting Pictures! As I always Felt, C’s have a Slight Range advantage over the B’s in the same launch scenarios.
Going back to Wray’s question of differences and why his hitrate with the AIM-120B is better than the AIM-120C, Could it be a Small Placebo effect of having to get just a little closer to the target? Which in turn would theoretically leave both you and your target less time to react to a launch.
-
I choose to believe the DLZ, which means I will always take a C over a B. Would make most sense realism wise too. If Bs were better, everyone would still be using them…
Comparison shots:
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=34186&d=1511386874
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=34187&d=1511386884
Cant see any diference in HUD numbers, between both B and C shots
-
This post is deleted! -
Cant see any diference in HUD numbers, between both B and C shots
First one the B is almost at RPI, C has DMC 10.
Second one the B is at DMC 150, C is already RTR.