The AIM-120C-5 is more maneuverable and has better High-Off-Bore-Sight capabilities than the A/B IRL
If it doesn’t get those improvements ingame then it is pointless to add the missile in the first place, as it most likely is meant to make the Hornets more competitive.
You claimed that the Kh-38MT justifies the AIM-120C-5. The Kh-38MTs performance doesn’t matter at all in ARB, however the C-5s performance matters in both ARB and GRB.
Since the US and Israel are getting a more powerful weapon in ARB AND GRB this in turn would justify the addition of an even better weapon for the USSR in GRB.
If you don’t see how silly this kind of balancing approach is, then I don’t know what to tell you.
1 Like
in the files i can see they changed its fin AOAs to be higher which argues it could theoretically have better turn but I haven’t been able to see it used at close range, the change in AOA isn’t much. lemme check something
ok nevermind, them fin AOA has no good correlation to pull rate trying to compare missiles, the 27er1 has the same fin aoa and accel, so does the mica EM, it should theoretically be somewhere in the middle if we bring into account weight. My best guess comparing and contrasting would be a 40g missile.
1 Like
At the end of the day we will have to wait for the update to be released, but based on the real life upgrades for the AMRAAMs, the maneuverability of the missile should be better in-game as well.
I don’t know how the longer rocket motor of the C-5 affects the missiles acceleration and speed IRL, but based on the stats I have seen on the spreadsheet and the datamines suggests that the missile would indeed have a slower acceleration, but keep its speed for longer.
In theory AIM-120A/Bs were introduced with similar overload performance as 120C5s, if not identical.
It was with a later (and artifical) nerf on their AOA generation that completely screwed them for close ranges to behave 9J/P-like.
we will have to wait, that’s accurate its a 1 stage thruster rather then a 2 stage, but they seemingly modeled that the 120c doesn’t have its longer burn time, so it burns the same length just in different amounts
2 Likes
yep
My publication was focused solely and exclusively on Air RB, in which the most dominant nation and the one that breaks the game most frequently is the US, and I’ll give you some bizarre examples.
As in the danger zone update that the f14A was 11.3 and faces vehicles like j35D and migare III E, With this update, the US also received the Fox3 mechanics almost 2 years before everyone else.
f104A terrorizing down tier aircraft for years.
f5 and f16A with FM from ufu that were never touched.
People always talk about the dominance of the R27ER and ET but they forget that the F15A was smaller br than the SU27, Gripen and Mirage 4000. (he was 12.3 while the others were 12.7)
Do I need to remind you of the damage that F14A IRAF did to the game?
aim120’s complete meta dominance that lasted almost 8 months.
f18A and f16A in the same br as kunnas 2000, f4ej kai and jh7A.
The few times that other nations stood out in the air rb were very out of the curve points, practically rare occasions that this happened,I know how Rafael hasn’t been nerfed to the ground yet.
American planes ceased to be completely dominant with the arrival of the Eurocanards, two of which use the same armament as American planes, the only exception being the Rafale.
I play with several nations in the game, I grinded 5 minor nations before starting to grind the US and I guarantee you that in air rb the US bothers infinitely more than the Russians or any other nation.
3 Likes
well the main problem with your first comment is thinking the 120c-5 extended the range by much, to get any extra range out of it you need to be at 38,000 feet altitude which is still only giving it 12 more miles then the 120b
1 Like
yes and thats why i personally would say it is a kill on a F-15
As Russian mains who benefited from the KH38MT said “Muh skill issue just smoke or hide” i’d say too "Skill issue just stick to the ground or switch to Israel,US.
19 km more is a lot, It’s practically the distance a mica travels within the game, 5C travels the distance of an aim120ab + a mica
The key word there was at 38000 feet, on a target at 38000 feet, that isn’t maneuvering.
and if you want to go with that, ok.
Mica has more range then the 120c at 4000 ft altitude
to be specific it has 1.8 mile more range then the 120c
1 Like
If these values are insignificant for you, then why add a new missile?
thats what ive been wanting to know.
its essentially a situationally based 120.
if you carry 4120b 2 120c and 2 sidewinders, you climb to 30k fire 2 120c descend into the melee with the 120b and sidesinders, other then that, I don’t know why they added it.
its rare to see anyone over 30,000 so the actual gain of a 120c is only going to be at its 16,000-30,000 which is about 5 miles, 2 miles if the target is below you
which is precisely the perfect scenario for an f15/E.
This is already a big gain, compared to other nations, and remembering that we are still in the first Sever dev, there will probably be more modifications and possibly improvements in the 5C, gaijin wouldn’t bother to make a new missile for nothing
Wrong, those countries were too poor to have MiG 23s. They were fighting MiG 19s and 21s.
1 Like
Hey, having an even playing field is not how the US operates. They have to have complete dominance…or else.
2 Likes
2-5 miles on a non manuevering target quickly reduces in a real match as no one flys straight unless they are AFK. I hope they dont modify it to make it better, its a slightly upgraded and yet slight downgraded missile depending on how you use it.
1 Like