120C wont be any different from 120B apart from tracking times off the rail and it has a limited HOB capability.
MICA Was already the best missile on the best platform buffing close range performance essentially now France have IRIS-T on an aircraft.
You do know that 120C is purely tracking upgrade and a slight increase in range.
Unless it’s a 120C7 which I would doubt
The C-variant has been steadily upgraded since it was introduced. The AIM-120C has smaller “clipped” aerosurfaces to enable increased internal carriage on the [USAF] F-22 Raptor from four to six AMRAAMs. The AIM-120C-5 and above have an improved HOBs (High Off Bore-Sight) capability which improves its G overload and seekers field of view over the previous variants allowing the missile to be more manoeuvrable and be used at targets that are offset from the launching aircraft frontal view which allows for greater flexibility during air-to-air combat.
LOL, I want the rafale so bad holy fuck thats amazing LMFAO
Aim 120 was improved by the120C-5 standard (the version we got) for greater range, and high off boresight capacity.
Please give your thoughts on this topic, and re-share as well.
@DirectSupport sorry for pinging you, is this the same capability as the one you’ve shown? Looks like it to me, but the last launches didn’t track (most likely cause of the R-77 not being TVC)
I don’t support the C-5 either. But even with it, how does this justify it? (It doesn’t)
You should put a vote thing if you can no ?
…what? what does that comment mean? justify what?
most of your post in here are you, crying about the rafale, the mica and whatever else, take a break man.
It’s accurate to the missile, it keeps it ahead of a missile coming in that has much longer effective range (even assuming the range of MICA is fixed) and provided they update the G overload figure to the figures I’ve seen being passed around by yanks, it is incredibly justified to fix the short range flaws. Arguably we should push for both short range fixes and fixes for MICA’s range issues.
Yes, thanks for the reminder, poll is up now
Reading is hard :(
And why do you think that is? It’s not because the Rafale is performing as it should or underperforming.
You guys are high on cope if you think MICA and Rafale collectively will be threatened by anything in game.
A 120C will still be so easy to notch while you send buffed MICAs into anything that comes into 20km from you
cute.
I dont think anyone in here or at gaijin know how the Rafale should really perform, dude. Anyway, keep on hanging out in this thread and being mad at pixels, cheerio.
Incorrect, 120C will now have similar seeker width as the MICA EM that had it reduced. It is an improvement in seeker over the AIM-120A even if the seeker range is the same.
Gaijin haven’t said if that’s the case yet, we need data mine to confirm seeker parameters.
Irony
I confirmed it from datamine long ago. AIM-120A and most other fox 3s are 15 degrees. MICA EM is 7 degrees, AIM-120C-5 is 7.5 degrees.
So now the US mains with their F-15E spaceship will now have the longest ranged missile in the game alongside with a harder to chaff/notch missile to boot on par with MICA EM’s seeker. You could have argued that AIM-120A wasn’t that useful at longer ranges but now the AIM-120C-5 has the seeker to make longer range BVR useful.
Guy cope too much, like if other aircraft don’t get similiar treatment, then it’s Gaijin fault, not French Main’s fault, people need to know France aren’t really actually eating if we exclude Rafale and Mirage 2000 improvement.
No strike eagle is getting it as well
Maybe time to buff MICA (nvm they already did, all good now)