GNSS means reduced IOG drift for air to air and air missiles when flying on their own. Nothing more, nothing less.
Theoretically it would also mean that you could fire a missile via DL (Link 16 for example) which gets its information from sensors of other planes like AWACS. It would just receive GNSS coordinates and vectors via its DL with regular updates.
Could should would. But it doesn’t and unless Gaijin adds AWACS and team wide datalink, it will continue to be flavor text.
Then adding 120D in current shape to current US top tier aviation will be biggest nothingburger of all time.
Did I miss them adding the AIM-120D in the last 20 hours
120D is in game files for like two months already? And its C5 copypaste but with longer guidance time and 360 launch capability.
Im just trying to place Sufa in terms of performance, because I cant really remember last time I faced it lol.
But lets say you could change something about F-16I to not make it suck at 14.0, what it would be?
Sure, but the C-5 and D are fundamentally different. For starters, their motors would/should behave differently as the D variant has like 5 inches worth of more propellant (the infamous “+5 motor”). Taking what’s currently in datamined files as fact when we know such things change whenever Gaijin wants is… an interesting choice of a hill to die on.
sounds pretty useless
Missiles currently wobble too much to account for the minor changes in target direction changes. This causes it to lose energy over time. If the target is essentially flying in a straight line, the GNSS stacked on top gives it super accuracy + the benefit of staying “lofted” higher rather than starting descent basically immediately. With these changes/additions, the missile should have a higher effective range + total/max range.
Take the way glide bombs work in super long range drops, and apply it to the AIM-120D or PL-12A. There you go.
1 Like
Move it to 13.7 as is or give it python 4s when new IR missiles get added and move it to 14.3
Not make it 14.0 or give it fictional/what if twin missile racks under wings. Pythons 4 would make everyone scream israeli bias or something, but at the same time, in statshark this missile is barely more maneuverable than AAM-3, while short guidance time + rather generic lock ranges doesn’t make it “BVR” missile either.
Something something “its dev server, it surely will change when going live… right? RIGHT?”
Then C5 already has all the range you possibly need, approaching or exceeding all US radars tracking ability when given good launch conditions. And this range doesn’t really matter when seeker is casually notch+chaffed. 120D doesn’t address short range maneuverability, so it will be a missile that doesn’t bring anything new to the table in actual War Thunder applications, bonus points for US not having any over the shoulder radars to even try using 360 launch capability.
I mean possibly but now you have F-16 with much better defensive suite and C5s (however marginal increase in capability they bring) at the same BR as standard F-16C, with only slightly weaker engine being the tradeoff.
I can see that.
Yes… the dev server. The place where things are infamously added in such a state that they’re basically either speed demons or indestructible. Sometimes they fix it before live release, most of the time not.
The 120D being in the files for this long changes nothing? It’s like writing something in your diary maybe 5-6 years ago and someone reads it today, assuming that’s your present reality. That “someone” is you, right now. For example, the MICA EM was datamined 10 months before it was released, and a further 9 months to implement its AD4A’s seeker actual performance that we all know and hate (on the receiving end, anyway).
120D does address that short range manoeuvrability…? It is obviously not going to turn the same as a MICA for obvious reasons, but it is widely cited as being capable of pulling up to 40 G. You keep saying things like “it doesn’t bring anything new to the table” meanwhile there’s a whole section ~900 replies up in the main post and posts made by Tech Mods and other people including myself specifically detailing them.
Thank you for your reply
I see
That’s an interesting phenomenon
1 Like
However
Im still getting confused about GNSS, it should only provide x,y coordinate information, but not the z-axis information.
That means 120D could still get deceived in a vertical way isnt it?
Im not trying to challenge you, I just couldn’t imagine how GNSS can be applied on AAM, easy for me to understand it as if on JDAMS though.
G overload limit at this point is marketing blurb. MICA, this famous danger baguette barely exceeds 30G as it turns on the spot when asked to pull all the AoA it can while withstanding its own motor acceleration during high speed, low alt (dense air) over the shoulder launch by abusing radar memory mode in Rafale.
C5 on very first iteration of its own dev server also had 7 (or 8?) degrees FoV, thats only difference MICA has over other ARH seekers, not counting Phoenixes. Is that “realistic AD4A seeker modelling”? Dunno.
And again, 120D is in likely functional state already. Gaijin can just release it, call it glorious success and move onto next stuff they have in the pipeline. Will they change missile flight properties? Remains to be seen
Missile wobble is caused by the game server, GNSS presence or absence has nothing to do with it. The same wobbly missile flies perfectly still when running game locally ie test flight.
Don’t worry about it too much. I still could be wrong, however guessing on how current GNSS is implemented for air-to-ground, it’s not too far-fetched to assume a similar implementation.
The way it’s implemented currently also includes z-axis. Else, I wouldn’t be able to fire KH-38ML’s at a random spot in the sky :P (mostly accidental, though)
See? Take note of how the KH-38ML stays “high” and only starts to come down after I turn on the laser. I expect a similar behaviour in GNSS-aided ARH missiles like AIM-120D.
(Give it a while if it’s not showing, 4K processing is apparently mandatory on YouTube 🙄)
1 Like
Why do you assume GNSS does not provide Z axis coordinates?
And do tell me, are these launches where the MICA rarely exceeds 30 G are done at extremely high speed or just on average Mach 1.2? Or do they launch at high speed at targets really close (~6 km) to launching aircraft? MICA has thrust vectoring… at relatively low speed it won’t need to physically pull hard when its thrusters does most of the work pointing the missile where it needs to go.
“Dunno” sums this up nicely, IMO. If you bothered to look you’d know such information about the AD4A is publicly available. Lastly, the only actionable seeker differences relevant for War Thunder between the A/B/C were all to do with ECCM.
How’s the view?
Yes, I’m aware of that wobble, not the constant wobble from the missile needlessly and constantly adjusting to intercept when the target isn’t anywhere near or changing direction enough to warrant it.
I see, i think i know what you mean by now
Im starting to be curious that if we locate the “target red box in the air”
Does it mean it was targeting at the end of the map, but with a given z-axis coordinate lmao