Then explain to me why I can’t make C-5s to work beyond 20kms at the same scenarios Ds seem to connect reliably.
Come on, lecture us, Einstein.
and there you have it
its not a missile issue its a plane issue
you are comparing Mscan radar DL to ESA radar DL
your energy retention difference is because your radar is giving constant very accurate DL updates, while the mechanical scan one updates much less frequently and gives inaccurate velocity vectors that tend to oscillate back and forth
so yeah, its not a difference in the missiles
lmao, the radar gap is clearly not the issue. It’s the missile gap.
what even is that supposed to show?
that you have a higher K/S in a plane without 120D than one with 120D?
if anything thats you showing that there isnt a difference or that 120C is better
you’re really making me turn on the game to sc my loadouts.
Act 1: I tell you the AIM-120Ds are stronger than C-5s, not necessarily better at everything than A/Bs
Act 2: You ramble on whatever argument is that C-5s are microscopically better than Ds at range due to their extra weight, I counterargue that they’re inconsistent at best.
Act 3: You say out of nowhere that C-5s are better anyway, in spite of showing my own experience with it alongside other jets with AIM-120Bs and AIM-120Ds.
What is the name of the play?
Ok?
and that brings me back to my point, of how is that relevant
you made a baseless claim about 120D being better than 120C
and then instead of accepting that your stat difference is due to the difference in radars between the planes you showed you just bring up a completely different plane?
just admit it that your baseless claim was wrong
lol no, C-5s are strictly inferior in overload and overall drift than Ds. I will never concede an argument which is fundamentally wrong.
Act 1: you spread misinformation
Act 2: you double down while ignoring evidence
Act 3: repeat
wtf, how can you even say anything this wrong
im just done replying at this point, because you are clearly just trolling
You better get off the theory and get good in practice. My claim was around BVR. Neither C-5 or Ds are intended by Gaijin to be used at short range HOBS anyway.
I’ve witnessed fairly more C-5s not pulling more Gs than a AIM-9Bs in a head on compared to AIM-120Ds going rigid. That is not a hallucination.
Imagine dismissing arguments on the rationale of trolling when you were literally the one who started being aggressive because I don’t support your own bias on the C-5.
from my own experience using the 2 the difference is too marginal to really call the aim120D much of an upgrade as GNSS really only changes the ins drift stat and nothing else, something that for the most part isnt an issue with the C-5 in the first place, id say its 2-5% more effective at most.
And the gap that I mention comes with that 2-5% of kinematic gap, it sounds marginal, but when you mix it with a currently anemic AOA fin, it’s lethal for its BVR performance at some demanding scenarios.
I may have to repeat myself on that last part, I’ve seen fairly more of my C-5s not connecting due to going rigid by lack of energy than AIM-120Ds.
that 2-5% is purely in reliability if you lose lock early due to the better ins kinetically the aim120D is very slightly worse as than the C-5 due to weight both missile have the exact same flight path in game rn so there no improvement in energy.
It should be noted that under that exact same exercise of losing lock early, the AIM-120C-5 loses way more energy than the D.
But anyway, There’s a chance that I may be overhating C-5s, but I literally haven’t made them work like ever, nor in the F-15E/I, EFs or any other jet.
While it just took me a couple games to understand 120Ds usage in regular games. I’ve found them fairly consistent even at range without going rigid at enemies maneuvering.
you def are over hating the c-5 a bit here ins drift is too low to have much of an effect on energy especially considering your never shooting at more that 50km range anyway, as someone who uses the Typhoon AESA and F-15GE they feel very hard to tell the difference between when im playing, i dont think iv ever had a shot where i thought to myself the 120D would of hit that instead.
now if they added proper 2-way datalink then the difference would be huge
As I’ve been mentioning, the difference that I’ve noticed is at the terminal phase, not necessarily at other flight phases.
Somehow I’ve ran loadouts w/8 C-5s on even the AESAphoon (plus the 14.3 EFT) and the F-15I and somehow everything misses because the target decides to turn subtly tighter than expected and the C-5 passes by like a stick lol. Those kind of misses are the ones the Ds have never been a thing on my experience.
i find both missiles tend to be trivial to avoid in the terminal phase
I don’t know what it is but the 120D is far superior to the 120C5 in taking down helis via TWS. I can reliably score kills from 8km or so out.
If it’s the GNSS or something else it just works. Maybe I’m just huffin snail fumes on this.
The most useful thing I notice from missiles with GNSS (120D and PL12A) is that they relock more often and more reliably when you are still tracking the target with your own radar. This translates in them being more annoying to notch because you can’t exit the notch when you successfully spoof the GNSS missiles as soon as you can with the other missiles, because it has a better chance to reacquire the target.
The other missiles feel like they ignore datalink more often and just go dumb.
I might be wrong, but this is what it feels like for me, apart from the supposed better energy retention from a more efficient interception flight
1 Like
Back to AIM-7 Sparrows?