are you trolling now? do you know what export names are?
4 Likes
It is, must have reduced smoke engine, way better by kinetics and seeker
That’s why I wrote it’s the same as “-” 😭🙏
all arhs are underperforming compared to irl, aam4 and pl12 are the worst offenders
1 Like
😭🙏how you can say that!😭🙏!!!
1 Like
Yes, thats fact.
The amraam ain’t under but over performing bro
compared to irl it is underperforming
XD
1 Like
I’ll just grab some popcorn while reading this heated discussion LMFAO
6 Likes
You brought the same missile into the conversation again… its the same missile. I mean literally an AIM-120 but in swedish naming structure. “The AIM-120, the MICA-EM, and the AIM-120 are better missiles than the AAM-4” is essentially what you said.
Kinda want to check his statcard and monthlys to make it more interesting lol
2 Likes
aim120 and rb99 are the same missile bro 😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏😭🙏
7 Likes
In your opinion? Maybe.
Theres already a lot of bugreports, that amraam must be better by kinetics and seeker, also reduced smoke
most modern american missiles and jets use reduced smoke motors/engines
1 Like
Well, air launched - looks like all, except of Aim-7
Even a Phoenix C from 80’s
1 Like
pheonix A had it aswell from what i remember
Yak-141 R77 when gaijching?
1 Like
Sidenote, i think its funny how when someone says the Abrams armor isnt modeled right, people say “its because the US isn’t good at building tanks, they have a doctrine focused on air” then when an air-air missile is performing well, “Theres no way the AIM-120 could be this good”
A didnt, theres MK60
C is, MK47 booster
Different manufacturers
That thing has 60 countermeasures. Do you really wanna fight in 13.7 lobbies with that?