Ofc it does, it’s a different missile philosophy, 50g and TVC no wonder it’s a good missile for min range engagements…
1 Like
And that’s something that won’t change until next gen IR missiles are introduced. Seeing that testing is effectively being done with those ground based platforms, I think we can expect them by the end of the yearly
The MICA IR and EM would end up having better performances at short range than all fox 3s, while having better long range performances than most fox1s, without excelling in any metric, which would make things a lot more fair in my opinion
1 Like
After playing for a couple of days now, I can confirm that the AIM-120C-5 doesn’t feel like an upgrade at all. You might bring one or two for BVR, but I’d honestly rather take six AIM-120Bs. They come off the rail faster and pull way harder than the AIM-120C-5 at short to medium ranges. Test it out.
The main issue seems to be the missile’s overly aggressive lofting and the fact it has the exact 1 to 1 seeker like the Aim120B. When you launch it under 20 km, at the same or even higher altitude than the target, it still goes into an unnecessarily steep loft, which severely limits its turning capability. There are very few situations in Air RB where the AIM-120C would be a better choice than the AIM-120A or B. If the AIM-120C-5 does manage to get a BVR kill, the AIM-120A/B would’ve likely hit as well at least in War Thunder. It usually comes down to the target not reacting to the incoming missile.
Even at 30 to 40 km engagement ranges, when the enemy isn’t defending properly, the difference in time to impact is maybe a second. I believe the missile underperforms primarily because the seeker is unchanged. If it had the improved seeker and ECM/Chaff resistance, it would likely be much much better in long-range engagements.
Summary of real-world performance characteristics according to the informations you can find outside gaming forums (Sources https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html | Home | Raytheon | https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA355385.pdf) :
Short-to-medium BVR (under 50 km)
The AIM-120B benefits from a lighter weight and faster initial acceleration, making it more agile in close-range engagements.
The C-5 performs similarly but may fall slightly behind due to its heavier frame and slower off-the-rail performance.
Long-range BVR (50 to 100 km)
The AIM-120C-5 has a clear advantage here with its extended motor burn, lofting trajectory, higher terminal energy, and broader no-escape zone (up to ~105 km).
The AIM-120B’s motor burns out earlier, and it loses energy faster, reducing its effectiveness at these ranges.
Contested or ECM-heavy environments
The C-5 is often cited as having improved ECCM, a higher-resolution seeker, and a shorter control section, which improves resistance to jamming. (The seeker is the important part)
The B model still offers reliable mid-course guidance but lacks more advanced counter-countermeasure capabilities.
High-altitude launches
At high speeds and altitudes, the C-5 takes better advantage of its lofting and extended burn, maintaining higher terminal energy.
The B model remains functional but loses energy more quickly once its motor burns out.
8 Likes
rn it’s debatable sidegrade
nope. if it lofted more - it would be better. but current values are not enough
2 Likes
I don’t understand why they decided to remove the seeker gate buff that it had in game (similar to the MICA)
Aside from that, while I agree with you, please don’t use AI, even if you source it you never know.
I think General Lee summarised the C5 pretty well. As you said the C5 is at best a side grade to the A/B and most of the time a straight up downgrade. I think War thunder’s environment just isn’t suited for it
5 Likes
Watch the video Vizender posted. At 4:31 you get a side by side comparison. Look at the amount of lofting the missile does in close range which is counter productive in a launch angle like that. Everything he says in that video is spot on.
Well, frankly, your or the “ai” sources are garbage, they’re either not primary/seconday and are just random websites, or they just don’t talk about the specifics about aim 120 that would make it change in war thunder.
Here’s primary/secondary data i got from discord, notice that it’s all non specific.
DoT&E FY04 Annual Report P.253
USAF Missile Procurement Budget FY06 P.53
IDK where people are getting that aim-120c5 will introduce better maneuverability, to me it just seems increased battery + range
obviously it has a better seeker. Can start tracking earlier, like the other missiles. 0,3 seconds of the rail instead of 0.6. Idk about the “dual plane 40G”
1 Like
Im still really mad that hte C5 still has the same seeker everyone else does. Even a slightly better notch gate would help so much for actually using it at longer ranges
1 Like
The AIM-9C has a guidance delay of 0.5. That’s less than the AMRAAM. Maybe Gaijin smoked something when coding the AMRAAM. Same for the R-3R
1 Like
welp whatever gajinn made the missile a straight up downgrade with not a singular use whatsoever and purposfully refuses proofs due to them not being classified, they know, they wont fix
If you spend your entire time at longer ranges it’s fine. I’m using them on the Typhoon and the LSZ (if accurate) are awesome. But otherwise yeah, they are niche
aim 9-c is also a sidewinder
The new AIM120-C5 is great, in fact all AIM120s are great, just learn how to use them
thats not the C5-
oh right
3 Likes
Thats A model LOL.
The joke he’s making is that there is no difference between the A and C5
4 Likes
I think you didn’t understand, right? If I can do this with 120A you can do it with 120C5, do you understand now?
means the motor is probably realistic in game, however they should work on the seeker and make it better
1 Like
the 120A is superior to the C-5 in most cases, no reason to take the C-5s really
1 Like