Good morning all,
As the title states above, I want to make this topic so we can make the aim-120-c5 and possibly all aim 120s correct.
Let this be a place of discussion and sharing NON CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.
thanks guys!
9 Likes
@kitsune_qq @Blanchboi @Morvran @luque13
Saw you all talking about it and wanted to see if anyone could chime in.
3 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Bdn69n0zp3Ib
Here it is sitting at accepted, do not know when it will be implemented but let’s continue to gather information
@MrKrabsPattys thank you for posting this, if you could post the information you found about the aim 120 being smokeless that would be appreciated!
4 Likes
You can see the low smoke motor in the video above
As well as and I’ve provided several other documents that state pretty much the same thing (2 from the Navy and 2 from the Air Force)
Also this
Improved guidance unit. Again. Nothing to see in the game
Improved electronic attack aka “EA”. Better resistance from jamming and electronic countermeasures (chaff and other types of spoofing)
7 Likes
I’m 99% sure they know it’s wrong. Nearly all ARH AAMs are in a stagnant placeholder state for balance, and it will likely all change someday in the future.
8 Likes
Nothing wrong with actually trying to prove some points tho
5 Likes
True, but it’s probably wasted effort.
Possibly
What’s wrong with it? It has its accurate range.
People are claiming dual-plane maneuvering but that’s not a feature of War Thunder at this time so wishing for that buff to many missiles won’t change the fact we likely have to wait for the next game engine.
Lackluster seeker. Smoky motor. Pulls like an AIM-7 (I don’t expect anything huge but I guess it has a bit better maneuverability and seeker delay)
4 Likes
6 Likes
No it does not, really good off the rail compared to the Aim-120A/B ingame, much better at close ranges
3 Likes
The seeker changes until C-7 are mostly physical size of components and electrical efficiency.
Though C-7’s seeker differences IRL is far less than people expect.
Minor changes are listed and people think those minor changes are substantial.
“HOBS” is probably the War Thunder buzzword of mid 2025.
"It doesn’t act like a Magic 2, it’s unrealistic!’ When if you look at what the manufacturer meant by “HOBS” it’s a slightly lower delay, and maybe dual-plane maneuvering. That’s it, and people could’ve known this by watching DCS explanations.
“War Thunder isn’t DCS!” Both are limited to unclassified information and both inevitably will use the same exact documents for reference material for assets that both add to their respective games.
Meh. Wouldn’t say that. Pretty much identical.
I have never said that it should act like the Magic. Keeping the same seeker performance and guidance section since the A seems a bit unrealistic, don’t you think? Even if they are minor, changes are needed. Was about to forget, the R-3R has a guidance delay of .5 while the AMRAAM has a guidance delay of .6
1 Like
Not at all, go compare them ingame, it’s dramatically better. It has a better motor and better and faster turning off the rail, meaning that since it pulls a lot more and gains energy faster, it’s also dramatically harder to roll and dodge the missile like is viable with the sparrow.
Compared to the Aim-7, the Aim-120:
• Starts turning faster
• Turns harder
• Gains speed faster
• Pulls significantly more max Gs
• Reaches a target sooner
It can hit targets an Aim-7 can’t while reaching a target faster than it ever could, all while having a independent seeker and better range.
Ok. You remained at the AIM-7 comparasion. The AIM-120 is better than the Sparrow, but is the AIM-120C better than the A/B? That’s my question. For now, the AIM-120C-5 remains to be a sidegrade or a slight downgrade compared to the A/B
1 Like
Compared to the Aim-120A/B, it pulls harder off the rail and pulls tighter despite having smaller fins (it’s actually really good at close ranges and high angle shots). However, it has slower acceleration and unless we’re talking about really long ranges the Aim-120A/B will reach a target sooner. There’s practically no instance at long ranges in which an Aim-120C-5 will hit a shot the Aim-120A/B can’t, but there are plenty of instances at close ranges in which an Aim-120C-5 will hit shots an Aim-120A/B simply cannot.
Good video on it made by my friend here:
2 Likes
The video is proving your point wrong. The AIM-120C-5 is a bit better past 40 kms, but we all know that it has the same shitty seeker as the AIM-120A that can get notched without chaff
5 Likes
I pretty much said this:
It’s rare to find a scenario in which a Aim-120A/B just barely has too little energy to hit a target but an Aim-120C-5 will is what I was getting at. It’s possible, especially if you’re constantly going for BVR engagements, but still unlikely. At close ranges the C-5 will always be better though.
Yep, that would likely be a result of gaijin’s desire to keep them in a stagnant state of “balance”, as they don’t want to give ANY ARH AAMs smokeless/reduced smoke motors or give them different seeker stats (unless it’s a Michael lmao).
2 Likes