AIM 120B\C differences
-
So I am curious about the AIM missiles. Myself (as well as another MP pilot) have noticed that most of our AIM 120 misses occur with the 120C variant. Typically we carry 120Bx2 and 120Cx2 (eliminating the possibility of just using more B’s than C’s - we use them equally). From the manuals and forums I’ve drawn the conclusion that the 120B has a little better range over the 120C variant where as the 120C has slightly better speed over the 120B. Im curious if anyone else has noticed if their misses occur more with the 120C than the “B” variant. Im thinking that maybe this happens because of a loss of maneuverability due to the increase in speed of the “C” variant missile?
So with this question in mind im curious as to when best to employ each variant of the aim missile. And if the are equally effective and both employed in pretty much the same weapon envelope why carry both the B and the C version?
-
hey wray79, I like the B’s and set a full load of that, but I know someone who is great pilot who like’s the C’s and loads just that. Just what you get in tune with I suppose.
-
I guess what im trying to ask is ….is the AIM 120C easier to defeat than the AIM 120B?
-
This is all a little new to me. I’ve tried carrying both in the past, and after locking (STT) an opponent, I switch between, and I found that the C’s are closer to pitbull at launch than the B’s. And I might have read something about C’s having better RADAR/Performance on the forums.
Keep in mind that was a while ago (both the forum info i think i’ve read, and the tests), and that I’m not too sober right now. But in any case this challenges what I know so yeah I’d like to know more details if possible!
Cheers!
-
So I am curious about the AIM missiles. Myself (as well as another MP pilot) have noticed that most of our AIM 120 misses occur with the 120C variant. Typically we carry 120Bx2 and 120Cx2 (eliminating the possibility of just using more B’s than C’s - we use them equally). From the manuals and forums I’ve drawn the conclusion that the 120B has a little better range over the 120C variant where as the 120C has slightly better speed over the 120B. Im curious if anyone else has noticed if their misses occur more with the 120C than the “B” variant. Im thinking that maybe this happens because of a loss of maneuverability due to the increase in speed of the “C” variant missile?
So with this question in mind im curious as to when best to employ each variant of the aim missile. And if the are equally effective and both employed in pretty much the same weapon envelope why carry both the B and the C version?
In BMS4 the only real difference between them (as I know) their kinematics because of different total impluse and thrust charateristics.
-
I usually use C. They have single stage (pure boost) rocket motor. This means that they can get faster to target than B variant with dual stage (boost/sustain) motor.
B variant has in theory bigger range but practically it has lower effective range as it is slower and target has more time to do turn and run.
C usually have higher MAR than B, so this means that when you fire to kill and not to force enemy to run away C is better.Still waiting for D variant with increased range.
-
I think also another diference is that C has shorter fins so they can fit in F22s
-
I need some clarification here. Are we simply discussing BMS B and C slammers? If so, Molni is right. Not much difference in them. But IRL, there are many C variants. The C-7 is now the most common variant used. C-5 are still used, but not to a great extent. So, BMS C version is not accurate to the modern day standards. BMS models the C (alpha) or - 2 variant. So understand that the versions in BMS we are discussing have very little (if any) differences between them.
Also, I would like to add that this has been discussed before. I recommend doing a search.
-
I think also another diference is that C has shorter fins so they can fit in F22s
Correct, like the GBU-24 vs GBU-27 for the F-117.
-
I need some clarification here. Are we simply discussing BMS B and C slammers? If so, Molni is right. Not much difference in them. But IRL, there are many C variants. The C-7 is now the most common variant used. C-5 are still used, but not to a great extent. So, BMS C version is not accurate to the modern day standards. BMS models the C (alpha) or - 2 variant. So understand that the versions in BMS we are discussing have very little (if any) differences between them…
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.
-
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:
