Aim120C a thread that proves; gajin dont cares that shes too weak

HighRiskNoReward · January 16, 2026, 7:55pm

At range, it was slower than the aim-120a. That first dev server made me actually imagine playing US top tier again, then they went the other way around and made it worse manouvering but some more range and I haven’t touched US jets.

I am spoiled with choice with top tier in 8 nations, if I want to play US jets I have better variants in other trees, some with different/better missiles.

MrBombastic8 · January 16, 2026, 7:58pm

i still get some consistence kills w f15e although not much
i feel like top tier US suck and really dry, given that other nations are much better in every terms

HighRiskNoReward · January 16, 2026, 7:58pm

The only thing the FA2 can do well is roll rate, and you can’t roll your way to a win so what does this “nimble” of yours even do? The jet has horrible energy retention, is slow and tuns bad. Very good missiles for 13.0 but few of them and paired with a slow platform makes them very easy to avoid even at short range.

HighRiskNoReward · January 16, 2026, 8:07pm

I never played the F-15E because I have the F-15I which is the same but with more CM’s, the only jet I would consider decent for the BR in the US tree is the F-16 ADF at 13.3, but since I have the MLU in china, is the same jet with more CM’s so also no reason to play it.

I don’t play anything over the F-16A and F-18A at 12.3 with US.

The only unique jet is the F-15C ge but it isn’t good. The 13.7 F-15C is also worse than the F-15J and the same as the israeli one.

F-16C is unique as a block50 but that doesn’t mean much, israeli F-16 block40s have derby which is nice to have and the FM is almost as good with more CM’s to boot.

MrBombastic8 · January 16, 2026, 8:10pm

yeah US jet really suck
i guess US is not getting anything half decent
EX would probably have 12 missiles, then is gonna be pressure to have 16
and its flight model would be a worse 15E
the missiles is still ass, 120D would fly like a 120C but with R-27ER range and AIM-7P manuverability
and would be stomp by R-37
US really not getting anything half decent until f22, i would imagine they gonna butcher it for sekret documents too

HighRiskNoReward · January 16, 2026, 8:16pm

The main problem that is and will keep US tree garbage, is that missiles are too easily notched. I don’t know if that is realistic but because of it, outranging the enemy doesn’t mean much.

Maybe newer missiles will have better seekers, but if they don’t, the F-22 won’t save US tree because it has a small loadout of aim-120 variants that will have very poor HOBS performance. The stealthy jets will probably be easily detected by aesa radars at 30km range anyway, so that also won’t make much of a difference.

HighRiskNoReward · January 16, 2026, 8:24pm

The F-22 experience will probably be similar to the F-14 introduction, where no one can contest you at BVR in the early match, and most people will just chill and wait for the missiles to come at low altitude while flying to the side and notch. Then the F-22s will still have a good positional advantage at high altitude but with a limited loadout it won’t carry them that well.

A jet that does this right now quite well minus the stealth part is the typhoon aesa, but with a loadout that can actually put pressure.

Circleati · January 16, 2026, 9:35pm

In terms of kills per match the f14s are all 21st best or above out of 114 planes so uhhh not quite the worst

Zannafrancy · January 16, 2026, 9:38pm

Stats are irrelevant

Circleati · January 16, 2026, 10:22pm

?

Why is how the vehicle performs irrelevant to a conversation about how the vehicle performs?

Yak_Norris1 · January 16, 2026, 10:57pm

Statistics are not irrelevant.
Gaijin is making changes based on vehicle statistics

Yak_Norris1 · January 16, 2026, 10:59pm

The Aim-120A/B and C urgently need better manoeuvrability. Manoeuvrability is particularly important at ranges of less than 15 km

Zannafrancy · January 17, 2026, 10:55am

Because it doesn’t say anything about the perfomance of said vehicle in a vacuum. Instead of using stats as a copout pray tell, what makes the f14b good.

Zannafrancy · January 17, 2026, 10:56am

Stop embarrassing yourself

Yak_Norris1 · January 17, 2026, 12:48pm

Stop complaining — you simply have a skill issue with the F-14. And besides, this is about the AIM-120, not the AIM-54

Zannafrancy · January 17, 2026, 12:52pm

when did you last play f14s lmao, also you got a 35% winrate in it i doubt you have much ground to stand on

Yak_Norris1 · January 17, 2026, 1:12pm

So what? The last time I played it, it was still top tier — that was over two years ago…

Necronomica · January 17, 2026, 1:12pm

He’s not entirely wrong. But he is also simplifying it a bit to much.

Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings

Battle Ratings

While we’re here, we’d like to give some additional context behind Battle Ratings and how they’re decided. Battle Ratings are decided based on how much a vehicle earns, but this is not purely economical. We use this metric because it’s all encompassing and considers every action a player makes with their vehicle, so this considers frags, assists, caps, and effectively every useful action a vehicle can perform all bundled into one universal metric.

This is the “Efficiency” of each vehicle and gives us a very well rounded perspective on all of its abilities and how it’s actually being used.

If a vehicle has high efficiency, it’s outperforming its contemporaries in multiple ways the majority of times it spawns on the map, and as a result may have to be increased in Battle Rating. Whereas a vehicle with low efficiency is not performing well across the board against what it fights, and may be moved down. However this is not purely a data driven process, we often consider additional factors such as the volume of players using a certain vehicle, its lineup, new features that may be altering performance in different ways etc — and this often leads us to delay a change we otherwise would have made to gather more information. Even though we do primarily go by this efficiency metric, we aren’t bound by it, and spend a lot of time each Battle Rating cycle to look over feedback for different perspectives and elements we may not have initially considered.

Ultimately, it’s very hard to balance a vehicle in a vacuum. On paper an aircraft might have incredible speed, or a tank might have great penetration for its Battle Rating, but this is cold data, in the sense that just because a vehicle on the surface has a very impressive asset, it doesn’t mean that asset guarantees high performance. It’s more about how a vehicle is actually functioning in the game, rather than weighing up its assets in isolation. So efficiency is good data to be informed by as it considers everything and everyone.

We’d like to note that when balancing aircraft before the introduction of separate Battle Ratings by mode, in the vast majority of cases the Battle Rating was set according to the performance for Air Battles, and not Ground Battles. We understand that many of you wanted a Battle Rating reduction for strike aircraft in Air Battles, so we have some additional answers for you on this below.

Yak_Norris1 · January 17, 2026, 1:15pm

Yeah, that’s true.

I simplified it a bit too much

Zannafrancy · January 17, 2026, 1:15pm

i know is not wrong insofar as how gaijin works, but that is not a good way to judge an aircraft’s capabilities.