So close to potential buffs, yet so far T^T
Wait 10 years, maybe than we can use it xD
Does Britain get the amraam c8?
I mean, its really annoying/stupid that we cant use it at this point, the thing is publicly available and has been for a long time, but just not officially so we aren’t allowed to use the info that’s in it.
We could buff the EFT radar, the ACM modes, probably get some HUD and MFD fixes as well so easily, yet we arent allowed to use it…
I wonder if its possible to make a request to use only certain pages maybe @Gunjob ? Maybe they’d allow that despite not allowing the full manual…
We get AIM-120D
1 Like
Good luck asking the Italien/German/Spain/English MOD for permission
Oh, the Eurofighter GMBH likely also has to agree on it
Whats the difference between c8 and initial d variant?
Well, if you were to believe gaijin, the D is probably worse :p
Jokes aside, from what I can find, the C-8 is a downgraded version of the D-3 for “international” customers, idk the exact details of what is downgraded though, but I’d hazard a guess at probably a worse seeker, since the US likes to give allies versions of its radar with 1/3rd the processing power iirc. The D-3 is stated (on wiki, so take with grain of salt) to be an improvement in every way over the C-7, and has 50% greater range than the 120C-7, which itself is supposed to have more range than the 120C-5.
Basically, all this to say gaijins AMRAAM modelling is a bad joke.
Good thing to have in the middle so we can have a comparable MRAAM as they get more advanced without dropping the absolute hydrogen bomb that is METEOR onto unfortunate RU/US mains.
Also, unfortunately, many many bits of info are publically available but the gov will still be very very angry with you if you go about spreading it.
nah it isnt really a bomb…
it would be more comparable to a Metor impacting earth
1 Like
Also if i remember right track amount and weapon loadouts
Nope.
1 Like
In what way?
For the verifiable stuff:
- The 120C-5/7 being functionally worse than the 120A/B despite being major upgrades in every way irl
- 120C-5 and 120C-7 being copy pastes of each other despite major upgrades to the guidance section between the two
- 120A/B known to have an underperforming seeker (and by extension, 120C-5/7 significantly underperforming) 1 2
- 120A/B underperforming kinematically against both cooperative and non-cooperative targets (and by extension, 120C-5/7) 1 2
- No reduced smoke motor (problem for many fox 3’s in-game though, so not really an AMRAAM specific problem)
For non-explicitly stated, but either logical conclusions or usually stated points (take with grain of salt):
- All AMRAAMs share the same loft and energy management code despite every variant we have in-game having made improvements to the guidance section (almost guaranteed the loft and energy management profiles were optimized between variants)
- 120C-5/7 have inferior HOBS capabilities despite it being commonly stated that some of the improvements to the hardware/software of the guidance and control sections were explicitly made to improve HOBS capabilities despite the clipped wings.
14 Likes
That dosent necessary means that it is able to pull more Gs tho
It could be a specially programmed manouver it pulls with IOG to achieve that
I think seeker improvements can also be thrown in here
1 Like
I never specifically said it could pull more G’s, I said its commonly stated it has superior HOBS capabilities. That being said, smaller wings ALSO doesn’t mean that it cant pull more G’s. The smaller wings does mean that for the same input, a smaller force is applied, but improvements to the control section, such as stronger/faster/more accurate servo motors could allow the missile access to different inputs. This would lead to higher G’s being pulled. Changes to the PID controller could also improve the performance against HOBS or short ranged targets as well. Fin size isn’t everything in aerodynamic control.
Was sorta mentioned in verifiable stuff section, its outright known the 120C’s have improved/entirely new seekers, we just don’t have explicitly stated values for them.
2 Likes
to be fair i assume it hasnt been looked at because the bug report manager requested the og reporter to redo the test and no one did
Ah, Yeah, you are right. I missed that