interesting i would have expected Stat shark to at least show if there was an improvement even if it is not perfect. do you mind if i use these to update the og post? i do not want to miss-lead people and this is good way to give people the right idea about the performance of the missile.
of course
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
i thought so but it actually has been improved just updated the og post check it out for details. still not a reason to buff the ckrackpot missile lol.
Nah it needs buffed. French win rates dipped 10 percent in the past month.
1 Like
where can you find changes done to aim120c/d? i thought it felt better on the dev server but i dont see anyone talking about it
1 Like
I completely agree, and this ends up screwing over every nation and modern addition that isn’t Russian or a Mig-29. It’s ridiculous when they ask for classified documents when there’s a good chance they’ve used Janes as a source at least once.
It’s happening to the Aim-120s and other performance aspects of NATO planes, but it’s also screwing over China hard because there’s so little info directly from the manufacturer that isn’t in a brochure.
4 Likes
look up Data mines on reddit or the WT Snail mines discord. but the change in question was moving the center of mass relative to the fins to 1.75 to match the a/b models.
2 Likes
AIM-120C here is the old 120C
120D is how it is in dev server
dev 120D vs B
1 Like
So still mid but not as abysmally garbage as the old aim12c5.
Quite nice
3 Likes
yeah, it went from the worst, to still the worst, just not by as much
I’ll probably start loading up all 120cs now, instead of taking mostly aim 120b now. Close enough to the 120 b in turning ability while still having better range.
1 Like
im not sure if I will do the same, it still hits slower for close to medium range shots giving them more time to notch
Considering you can joust the D’s at higher angles due to no gimbal limits they could be nice, ofc I’m not talking about launches at 90+ degrees off the nose, those would be wasted for sure.
I think I’ll go full on 12 Aim-120D on the GE, maybe a few A/B’s, but I usually keep my distance with this jet.
1 Like
well the deeper we go into classified part of the modern munitions/system/vehicle, the more gaijin can nerf/buff it as they see fit because there is no data to correct them
and in gaijin eyes, USA dump billions of dollars to make their weaponry worse and are incapable of making anything good :)
6 Likes
i will also be going all120D but with 2 9m’s
If it had 9X’s I’d take some IR missiles too, but the 9m performance is quite poor for the risk you take using them.
I can see them being useful when you get gaijined by the spotting system and you unlickily get sub 10km range with an opponent, but other than that I’d rather have full on ARH and try my best to keep people at distance.
1 Like
i bring them to deal with the multi pathers if they are stupid enough to fly below me lol
The AIM-120D is not meant to be a dogfight missile. It’s meant to be used at range, and how they achieve this is through more efficient turning. This means that the turning radius itself may suffer.
If they wanted to make it excel at these kinds of tasks, they would give it thrust vectoring like the AIM-9X.
It’s not meant to, buts it’s based off the 120C which already has better HOBS then the 120A/B. We aren’t asking to make it turn better then the MICA or R-77. I think it would be fair to revert the 120A nerf that happened a month after they were released, then improve the C in HOBS performance. by 15%/20%
1 Like