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
In scenarios where I’ve tested MICAs and R77s to pull their absolute best ie over the shoulder 180 turn missile with high speed, low alt (dense air to leverage fins) still failed to connect while also failing to live up to the statcard.
Also reminder, G overload isn’t indication of maneuverability, as its function of speed and turn radius. “8G turn” done by A6M and F-15 will look entirely different.
Still does not give G we have 50 we have other sources claiming 70+
So, everyone are equally incorrectly modeled.
And in currently ongoing medium to high alt meta, AMRAAMs are actually one of the better missiles you can have due to their energy retention, certainly I do miss over the shoulder radar capability more than AMRAAMs not pulling hard enough in my Superhorny.
gaijin straight out said it’s identical to the C5 when denying that bug report. which is wrong and I think a bit provocative.
The 120D should be better than C5 at this thing yet, it’s same ingame. An arbitrary whatever buff could’ve been acceptable, but iykyk
the only missiles the Amraam is clear-cut superior to in ranged combat is the first R-77 and the Derbies.
77-1 fall out of the sky the moment target is actively maneuvering, same applies to MICAs and pretty much everything else, having rather high air drag to their names.
this was mentioned before, it has same motor. It looks visually same from outside with both of those information the only “real” improvement in performance can be lower dry mass which would need sources. So what you’re getting more battery and more ballistic trajectory
gaijin just wants someone to leak the real capabilitys for the Russ…Hungarian government
Mica will hit the same targets maneuvering the exact same way in more than 70-80% of the cases bar edgecase 60-70km amraam c5 shots that’s basically pulling gacha. I fly Rafale a lot and do LARP BVR shots and a surprising amount of them manage to connect. It doesn’t loft though so you probably should point nose up before launch. Edit: What I mean by this is usually for Amraams (and other Fox3s) the non manuevering target making rapid closure is the ideal target and against these targets the mica is just as effective as the Aim120 while lacking in rear aspect or side aspect shots, but these shots already have a low probability of kill with the other Fox3s in WT)
From spectating Su-30SM2 streams by my squadmates, it seems to be similar to 120C in range but better in close but just might be again, people not maneuvering enough. But idk, seems SM2 is one of the top three planes this patch after Ralf and EF so I think I’m still right about this (not beyond reasonable doubt yet i guess)
From flying F-2, AAM4 seems perfectly usable at 120A ranges. P;l-12 from friends and squadmates again, similar to 120A in ranged perf.
Derby I found to be genuinely inferior in this aspect of 20km+ shots.
https://www.acc.af.mil/Portals/92/Docs/Fact%20Sheets%20-%202020%20Update/AIM-120_Formatted.pdf?ver=2020-06-23-093759-793 seems C7 and up should have extra 5 inches of propellent?
that motor is already on C-5
from Hazard classification for explosives
and in game:
"mass": 161.4789,
"massEnd": 110.223,
edit: vs earlier aim120 motor
and in game:
"mass": 147.87,
"massEnd1": 101.33,
ohh i see.
kinda off topic but I was curious about these two rockets, does the motor in the C/D WPU-16/b really have that little total thrust improvement compared to one in the A/B? ingame total delta v difference is like within margin of error (going by the missile data sheet)