5 Likes
and so gaijin give f15cge 12of them in return.
You can only simulate targets going straight, as soon as you make the target move the lower drag and longer burn of 120C makes a difference.
Also dont know why pointing out that you only care about one playstyle makes me “mad” as you say.
2 Likes
Seems like someone never used the AIM-120C
they dont, you are just gaslighting yourself into thinking the aim120c5 is good cause you want pl12a or pl15, trust me if the pl12a gets the same treatment as the aim120c5 you’d much rather have the pl12.
4 Likes
Gaslighting myself as I dont have over 500 kills on the Eurofighter, for sure buddy.
PL-12 Is better than any amraam currently
2 Likes
so suddenly its not about faster time to target at much shorter distances as you put it, its about lower drag and longer burn, things that arguably dont matter that much at shorter distances.
its kinda hard to follow.
Where did I even imply I care only about one playstyle?
By saying that C5s dont really offer that much at usual combat distances over 120Bs?
1 Like
this “lower drag” is straight up fantasy, the very marginal increase in range between the models is 90% caused by the slightly longer burn, if there was any relevant amount of drag decrease the gap would be larger. idk why him and others keep mentioning it
1 Like
Its not suddenly, its about you making a simulation of a plane going straight, which is not realistic in a single way as noone except some premium monkeys do that, it is about real scenario where the 120C does have a shorter time to target.
Also I dont get why are you so butthurt about the AMRAAM performance when I clearly said that PL-12 is a good missile on a bad airframe.
Why would you need that much more performance than 120B? the B is already a good missile, no need to overpower AMRAAM carriers
it is sufficient to show the time to target figure.
I provided at least some evidence that this isnt true. you might not agree with it, but its still evidence.
you are free to provide yours.
im not arguing about PL-12 tho? Im arguing why people insist on C5s being good when its niche missile, specialized at long range shots - something that wont be effective against player paying attention.
The only way to simulate the missiles turning is by changing the launch angle, while that would prove my point I think we can both agree that this doesnt really matter
The 120C is a very good missile, it is not on MICA level but honestly nothing currently is because the 77-1, AAM-4, 120B/C and PL-12 are on pretty much the same level, each being better in its way but worse in other metrics, the biggest difference is the vehicle that carries them - AMRAAMs are better on EF than on F-18s just because you can give them better launch parameters
1 Like
Pl-12a doesn’t have clipped fins though leading to less maneuverability. Only pl-15 has clipped fins which gaijin might take as less fin aoa.
correct me if im wrong but shooting at target going -200km/h would be like firing at Cessna 172.
Im free to test that in custom, launching 120B and 120C at target under exact same conditions and then just comparing the flightpath from replay.
no contest there.
my issue with your argument that C5 is better at short ranges than AIM120B due to better TtT, which comes from longer sustainer and less drag (which, from missile datamined spreadsheet, doesnt seem to be the case), is that by the time longer sustainer and lower drag come into play, both 120B and C5 will have already impacted.
With these launch parametres, it takes 9.3 seconds for 120B to impact, and 9.6 for C5 to impact.
Please take the following with grain for salt, its just to demonstrate a point.
120Bs reaches peak speed of 1011m/s at 7.02 second of flight and starts to deaccelerate there.
Just before impact, ie. some two seconds later, it lost rougly 121m/s of speed.
C5s reach peak speed of 1033m/s at 7.76 second of flight and starts to deaccelerate there.
Just before impact, ie. some two seconds later, it lost roughly 90m/s.
So C5 losses less speed and retains faster speed for longer; despite that it impacted later.
So whats there to conclude from this?
the sustainer and less drag did not help C5s TtT significantly at short range; 120B with weaker sustainer but stronger acceleration (by some 50m/s^2) perfomed the same if not technically better.
Also to add more “manuevering target”, i put both missiles at 90° top down launch angle.
split since picture limit
it took ridiculous amount of distance for the C5 sustainer and supposed lower drag to start coming into play.
3 Likes
It’s garbage
3 Likes
overstatement, r77 is garbage
The AIM‑120A has been continuously nerfed since it was first introduced, and even now, aircraft equipped with the AIM‑120 series find it very difficult to engage in close‑range combat.
They always get decent airframes, but their missiles are completely a mess.