It has nothing to do about the D-3. It’s and obvious upgrade.
It is usual vaguetalk of most US public documents that emits a lot of words without substance, while activating neurons responsible for imagination.
what “improved HOBS” actually mean? Because if they would want to state “improved maneuverability” they would have said so. Even more so as most “improved HOBS” mentions pair it with battlefield wide datalink, so that would indicate ability to launch missiles outside of missile seeker gimbal limits, and there 360 launch fits.
2 Likes
Well the D3 is the version that gets better hobs
no its not
the only known thing on the D3 is that it gets a better motor and further software improvements
there are sources for better HOBS before D3 existed
2 Likes
Because a missile first fielded in 2015 is definitely going to have hard numbers describing it’s capabilities.
9 Likes
This is by the way, the top of the line variant of the AMRAAM. The public information we have about the D3 is more fuel, allegedly, again with nothing more specific than that it will be the same story as the AIM120B vs C5, just a tiny improvement to the deltaV but overall the same. There’s no mention of new seeker technology on the D vs D3 which means we will get the same thing again.
According to Gaijin, there has been little to no improvement in over two decades of AMRAAM development.
10 Likes
Just like the armor package in the Abrams hull lol.
16 Likes
It should be like aim-7c vs aim-7m but it’s like aim-7m vs aim-7p right now
2 Likes
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?
9 Likes
Arguably the Chinese playerbase has it worse as even basic specs are hard to find.
2 Likes
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.
7 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
denied
What variant of d do we even get ?