Again at this point I’d just like them to stop pretending they have objective realistic standards when it comes to additions that have recently entered service or that haven’t even seen service.
It would be far more acceptable for them to admit they don’t have any actual information, because usually western manufacturers aren’t screaming what their product is capable on specific sheets like some other nations do. Why would they ever reveal the actual capabilities of their equipment?
Arguably the Chinese playerbase has it worse as even basic specs are hard to find.
The AIM-120D being the exact same thing as an AIM-120C5 essentially just means that even down the line US top tier is absolutely cooked, the D will be the standard for the F15EX, F22 and all the F35s, so all of them will have to deal with the poor capabilities of the 120s.
Hence the famous dislike of BVVD by the chinese community.
tbh you guys could try to look at the exported aim 120d that are supposed to be sent to Australia for the f18 since the ordered the D-3
Not true. Its like aim9g to aim9h.
Aim7p is significant
Shouldn’t 120D have more HOBS capability than 120C? I did find a document that states so
It does technically have that, as with no launch limits it can now engage targets at any aspect provided that radar can track it
“expanded no escape envelope”
that is complete tecnicality, the missile can see but cannot engage.
if the amraam pulled like it should that statement would make sense. but again gaijin implementation only make sense if you assume they think american sources are just lying all the time.
Biggest issue we have is unlike Russia or China who publicly brag about what their systems can do.
The US always understates their capabilities to the public. We see this Patriots PAC 2 range…yet in a certain Eastern conflict it has proven to have a longer range.
120 is the same.
denied
What variant of d do we even get ?
Doesn’t imply its expanded forward, might be expanded sideways/backwards due to 360 launch.
Eh, even “AMRAAM C5 bad” still has no issues connecting with target coming in hot, with launch distance of 7-8km when fired at its own gimbal limit. Haven’t tested much 120D on dev yet, but 90 degree turn should be doable within 10-12km in the same scenario?
What source were used in bug report for 120D HOBS?
The US uses the same “improved HOB” line between aim9M and aim9X and clearly one is more maneuverable than the other. The difference is with the aim120 we don’t know exactly sure why that might be. I could be due to destabilizing it during launch and then stabilizing as it runs out of fuel. Maybe it has a stronger motor which in turn does help with close range engagements. Maybe it has more than 23° of fin aoa which gaijin added with no proof btw and refuses to change it unless there is hardcore undeniable proof. Or maybe it’s just how far the seeker can see off its own boresight. Which is probably the most likely because the aim120 IRL is more maneuverable than the sparrow yet ingame the aim7 whips the aim120 across the board. And the aim120 can be rolled though a lot harder than a sparrow.
Sorry for the wall of text everyone
With 9X you have clear and visible culprit for improved maneuverability. Good luck finding one for AMRAAM.
Tested the AIM-120D in the dev server. It’s capable of pulling maximum 20-25Gs and 17 degrees of AOA. Never in my tests, have i had it hit all the 35Gs or the full 23 degrees of AOA, even when it needed to do that in order to reach the target.
And then there’s the seeker delay, which is just bs for rail launched AMRAAMs. The R-3R has a lower delay than the AMRAAM
Neither MICA is capable of pulling more than 35-40G and 20ish AoA in spikes in games yet here we are
does it need to pull more tho? It has TVC. What’s important is hitting the target. If it reaches the target with 40G, so be it
