Let’s be honest: the C-5 is absolutely horrendous. I’d genuinely rather use the B variant on the F-15 GE, which is already a sad story of its own. The C should at least have comparable short-range performance to the A/B but fine let’s say it doesn’t. Then you’d at least expect the BVR performance to be decent. But no.
Gaijin completely butchered this missile because it’s also present on the EF2K. Apparently, you can’t have the best plane and the best missile at the same time. The C should have never been added to the Eurofighter. I’ve got no clue what Gaijin was thinking. Yes, the radar might have been suboptimal, but that does not justify this level of nerfing. This was also fixed by them adding a eurofighter from the 2000s
In my opinion, planes that struggle at top tier-like the poor Hornet-should be compensated properly. The Hornet doesn’t have amazing flight characteristics, so it should make up for that with strong missiles and radar. Instead, those advantages were gutted.
The solution is simple:
Restrict C-5s to aircraft that actually need them (Hornets or other struggling top-tier jets),
Give the missile its real-life performance,
Remove C-5s from the best aircraft in the game.
Or alternatively, just add 17.0
P.S.
Id add that im not the greatest warthunder player but this is just my 2 cents
They could just add AIM-120C-7 strictly for all top tier US jets.
I mean F-16C, F/A-18E, F/A-18C, F-15E suffer a lot. Adding a better missile would atleast make them worth playing and get them any real advantage over EF2000
No? Otherwise why the hell is the R-77-1 and MICA EM so much better?
Then neither should have the F-15 then.
and?
I dont see the comaprison at all. C5s were the bare minimum the Typhoon needed to extend what little advantage it had over the Rafale.
Your argument is that good missiles get artifiically nerfed because they are put on good aircraft. But then why is the MICA EM not weaker than the Aim-54 because it was put on the Rafale? Why isnt R-77-1 equally nerfed because its on the Su-30SM2?
The argument just makes no sense. Using the same logic, is the reason the Aim-9M is so bad is because it was added to the F-16 first and if it had come to the Tonka first it would have been good?
though Im looking forward to F-22s only getting Aim-120Bs because it will have good flight performance right?
120C-5 in its current state being mostly a downgrade over the A/B could be used as a balancing tool. For example, the Thai F-16A OCU could recieve it and move down in br as it really struggles as its current BR and giving it an overall weaker ARH could help balance it more
But, I was curious about the ranges stated, it’s not really anything concrete but I found it interesting. It doesn’t state maximum range so it’s understandably not for a range where maximum launch conditions are used.
I used statshark to recreate a scenario where the AIM-120A does 35nm, and then see whether the AIM-120C-5 does 40nm in that same scenario, but the AIM-120C-5 blew past that extra 5nm by atleast 10%. But it might not be worth much since the AIM-120A is still not modeled correctly kinematically and may close the distance between the AIM-120A and AIM-120C unless developers also increase the range of the AIM-120C-5.
What’s also interesting is that according to HAF, the warhead for the AIM-120A is bigger than the AIM-120C, with the AIM-120C-5 reducing the warhead size.
Spoiler
However, in-game the explosive mass for the AIM-120C-5 increased over the AIM-120A.
im reading an article about it right now, and they do heavily imply that the AIM-120’s range is limited by software/battery life and not kinematics. kind of unrelated but it could mean the AIM-120 should be much much better kinematically
