the aim120d is supposed to be a long range fox 3 missile and yet it behaves like a glorified c-5 honestly just buff the missile and make it so the f15c ge can only hold 8 like it does in real life and the f18e can only carry 10. id rather have less missiles that are more effective rather than just be a missile bus that gets notched so easily its laughable. american top tier air is an absolute joke in this game.
4 Likes
The 120D we have in game has the exact same “+5” motor that the C-5 has, so no range improvement (actually IRL it technically does get a very slight improvement in rage but only from improvements to the autopilot and lofting). The 120D-3 is the one that gets an improved motor.
4 Likes
yeah the horrible energy retention and bad lofting mechanics was wha i meant be a glorified c-5 i should’ve been more specific about that but yeah as of right now the missile is dog
2 Likes
It’s the best long range Fox-3 in the game wdym by this lol
1 Like
and yet it gets notched so easily and its energy literally does bleed out so fast. even with gnss to make notching harder if i keep the target painted in my radar if theyre not flying straight at me its utterly useless. its only good for unaware players or ones that dont know how to properly notch.
It has some of the best energy retention out of all top tier Fox-3s
particularly due to GNSS which makes it waste less energy on corrections
Same seeker as every top tier Fox-3 besides MICA.
Not really harder to notch
DL does not make a missile unnotchable, firstly Fox-3s only revert back to IOG+DL when the target is slightly below them, if not, they revert back to just IOG.
Secondly if the enemy notches your radar once you can’t regain datalink, if your radar loses sight of a enemy even for a second you lose the datalink connection (shown by the little dash on top of the target in the radar screen)
crazy, long range Fox-3 sucks in a medium-close range meta
Aside from the phoenixes and mica, all fox-3s in game have the same seeker and are notched just as easily. The phoenix is easier to notch, and the mica is “harder” to notch (tldr is you just need to pop chaff more frequently compared to the rest)
The GNSS isn’t there to make notching harder, its to eliminate IOG drift
Maintaining a lock to keep datalink is only useful when a target is close to the ground. Up high, the missile will go for what its seeker sees, no matter what the datalink is telling it.
That’s how all fox-3s are. They are also good for up close shots where there is no time to enter the notch, since they cannot be easily flared like the IRCCM fox-2s are
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
You don’t need more chaff, you need to do more precise notching angles, but if you spam more chaff you might drop the chaff in the actual correct notch more often, so it helps in practice, but if you don’t hit the notch angle, you can chaff all you want, the missile still knows where it is.
1 Like
and where it isn’t
Does it? From what I’ve read upgrades were limited to electronics and software. The extra range was also from improved trajectory. Allegedly a massive increase though.
Without getting into performance specifics, “what I can tell you is that for what we’re seeing out of the threat analysis today, we have capability with the AMRAAM today with the D3 that counters that threat,” he said.
One improvement is extended range and time of flight. “It’s almost double in the range of what AMRAAM flew before,” Norman claimed.
“We didn’t change propulsion. We just changed the way it flies for long-range shots, so it has more kinetic energy when it hits the target at that range, and it’s able to fly that very effectively. … What that does is, it brings us back into parity [with] a lot of the capability of all the pacing threats worldwide. So it makes AMRAAM kind of ‘future-proof.’”
1 Like
I know this is not the best source but:
“Modern electronics” allowed Raytheon to make the guidance section on the D model as part of a Form, Fit, and Function Refresh (F3R) update. That “allowed us to have a little bit bigger engine from the propulsion side,” said Jon Norman, Raytheon vice president of requirements and capabilities.
Even then the motor increase is likely marginal. Only buffs the amraam could realistically get is the fin deflection stuff and reworked guidance. (or someone proves that the C-5 motor is underperforming to gaijin´s standarts )
2 Likes
No. The notch gate of the mica is identical to all other top tier fox-3s. The only difference is it has a smaller beamwidth (think of it like the seeker’s FOV), so the result is you just need to pop chaff more frequently in order for the seeker to be seeing enough chaff to keep it in IOG, or bite off on the chaff. Compared to something like an amraam where you need to chaff less frequently because a wider “fov” means more chaff is in view of the seeker at any given time. There is actually an accepted bug report to give the amraam the exact same buff.
since it has a smaller fov, below certain distance (around 2km iirc) it might not even see the chaff you are dropping.
1 Like
If that’s the case, more chaff would not make any difference because it would be out of FOV at that point.
And you can’t exactly try to position yourself into an angle for the missile to see the chaff again because it would mean you would get out of the notch angle, and it would filter the chaff regardless.
You can 1 chaff micas as long as you manage to avoid its IOG prediction path I think.
It is still effective. It is just less so, because while in the notch angle, the chaff stays in the seeker FOV for less time compared to something like an amraam, so if the angle gating is functioning, it stays in IOG for a shorter amount of time. You instead need to deploy chaff more often, so that there is always some chaff in the seeker’s FOV, which keeps the missile in IOG instead of tracking.
This video goes into a little bit more detail and explains it better than I can.
What are you talking about here? ARH missiles can see chaff at any angle. The only difference is when in the notch angle, the missile needs to turn off its PD filter, which makes it susceptible to chaff. Its just that when in the notch angle, the chaff stays in the seeker FOV for a shorter amount of time because it slows down fast. And this is what angle gating is able to do. When it locks onto the chaff since it has a much higher radar signature, the missile can tell that it is slowing down WAY too fast for a plane, and it disables the seeker and switches to IOG, pointing the seeker in the direction the plane should be if it maintained the course, and then shortly after re-enables the seeker. This is very similar to how tracking suspension works on missiles like the AIM-9M.
it’s because it is my man
yeah, its literally the same except for the GNSS guidance
a bit more than that,
but if it was significantly better than the C-8 it wouldn’t be called aim-120 anymore.
I was going along with your description here. If the receiver antenna “fov” doesn’t see chaff from being close up, chaff would have no effect at that point.
It’s essentially what I said. The missile “won’t see” chaff because it will be filtered out due to the difference in closure between the jet target and the chaff target