it is still 120a seeker
1 Like
b-but the extra range! US broken and getting buffs all the time! US mains are bad and are killing the game!!1!!!1!!one!!!
5 Likes
It’s funny because people don’t realize just how nerfed the US tree is, or they use gaijin logic as gospel and hide behind their lack of accepted information.
5 Likes
Most of the US stuff we have in the game is stuck in the 80s and 90s. Plus the existing stuff we have in the game is also gimped like aim9m, aim120 and AGM65 which many bug reports were passed over year too two years ago and still no fix. Just look at the US heli tree at top tier it’s absolutely useless gaijin is just letting it rot at this point because they refuse to add any f&f missiles which is a necessity at top tier which also applies to the other countries that have the Apaches. and for top tier the ground tree has been neglected for almost two years now with gaijin adding more premiums and copy paste Abrams that offer no improvements and refusing to implement any of the Abram bug reports. Sepv3 should have been added a year ago at this point. It’s only now that there adding something worth grinding the SLAMRAAM.
i would really like a more maneouvrable aim120c5, amraams after the maneovrability nerfs were bit dissapointing but workable. I wouldnt mind range buffs for it to be realistic as long as other arh missiles like aam4 r77/r77-1 and pl12 are fixed
1 Like
You know we’ve been in the same forums for a while. It makes putting money into this game kind of a lost cause, why would someone pay any more into a game that doesn’t reflect simple changes, accurate changes, or accurate munitions? People always reject newer F and F hellfire saying they would be OP, as if we already don’t have PARS, and vikhirs, rejected newer air munitions, because it would “make the US OP”, still people whine about the f15E getting its accurate 229 engines, etc. The vehicles that are in game, don’t have their realistic features on purpose, like you said 80s and 90s tech, while in this very update a tank with APS (T72) added, and not an existing tank in the game (SEPv2) that was added a few years ago. More planes with BOL pods and not the original aircraft that fielded them too. And the explanations as to why these decisions were made get more and more ridiculous as time goes on. People will inevitably complain about the SEPv3 when it comes out, but hey it’s been the crutch that Gaijin has leaned on for far too long, and with that tank, the armor problems cannot be ignored. As a customer to a business, it’s disappointing.
8 Likes
A “fixed” AAM-4 would have less maneuverability for the same range it currently has. Potentially a slightly better seeker, but that’s only if other ARHs get the MICA treatment
“Fixed” R-77/77-1 drag would only decrease their range, while making them more maneuverable. They currently are configured to meet their range targets with a static value. A dynamic value would have an increase in low speed drag and a slight decrease in high speed drag. But a majority of launch conditions in-game the missile will spend more of its time in the low speed band.
R77 series have stupidly high amounts of drag, probably somewhere near transonic region. It has considerably much less drag in supersonic regime where the missiles cruises after launch. While it would be still more than planar fins, it would still help its range a lot
It would not, because with most launches in-game it would spend most of its time in the “higher” drag band. Currently it gets to spend that time with a lower drag value than it should have.
Launches post mach 1 in early bvr joust would barely effect
Pretty sure aam4 have much less range in game,even less than aim120a/b doesn’t sound realistic to me. Idk where you are getting the less maneouvrability from
Better seekers would be on aam4b iirc, with the aesa seeker
idk where you got they got less range than an aim120, they got basically the same range in almost all conditions while being much more maneuverable.
2 Likes
Statshark
Yes the AAM-4B has the AESA, but the base AAM-4 should have one on par with the 120C-5, which should be improved compared to the 120A/B copy-paste currently.
Frankly I still don’t buy the idea that it’s anything other than an SD-10A. to the best of my knowledge both the SD-10A and PL-12 match it’s stated capabilities.
You are correct. They match their stated capabilities, to the best of your knowledge. It’s just that you know absolutely nothing.
Discussion cleaned. Please don’t turn it in a personal debate. Thanks
There’s no debate here. The missile is already a slight upgrade on the 120A. If anything, it’s mostly a complain thread of non AIM 120-C5 users.
You also forgot some personal posts to flag/remove above by the way.
Doesnt it have a 1 second delay to guidance? That sounds awful
it has the same 0.6 second delay as 120A/B (which is twice or more time as any other ARH)