the ones that are ingame dont exist already so no
he’s having a hard time understanding that the numbers don’t lie XD
1 Like
which numbers ?
I’m having a hard time understanding how a weapon being strong in one mode justifies the addition of a stronger weapon in another mode
I did all the math for the 120b vs 120c using the game files and posted them, here ill put them out again
- When at 5000 feet altitude (at mach 1.2) the 120b is both faster and has more range 5.6 miles more range infact
- When at 16000 the 120c is still slower but has 4.3 mile more range then the 120b
- the only notably larger range is at 33000 feet altitude which is 12.6 miles.
aim120-C5 will likely get the AIM-54 treatment
oh well if its like that it will probably be fine
if they dont change it, yea, its basically good for sim, sucks for rb, 120b will still be better in RB as everyone flys low and the numbers are for same altitude targets. the 120b likely in practice still has more range even from a 16000ft launch as most targets hover around 4000 feet
1 Like
They already do??
Why would they another one?
It’s not, because the missile is WIP.
1 Like
wip?
Work in progess/unfinished
oh well just have to see
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.
3 Likes
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