doesnt actually have a sustainer, just a longer burning motor, it has a slightly higher total impulse but peak thrust is 33% lower than 120A hence 120A actually hitting before 120C at close to medium ranges
2 Likes
It only gets worse by the minute, its so joever
2 Likes
Yeah its more of a 120A+(ish) now. Though its pretty embarrassing seeing french mains complaining they might have competition now and that would somehow be unfair
3 Likes
I know I know, they thing their “best plane” can’t handle a ever so slightly better AMRAAM…
Rafale is just OP at this point, if he didn’t had all those stupid buff it got, especially engine power, I would have been fine with it getting a buffed MICA.
Not to mention MICA seeker got buffer because why not… never heard one of them complain about it
1 Like
I dont really wanna comment on the Rafale FM, since im pretty sure the current situation is more that competitor aircrafts are underperforming rather than the Rafale is overperforming, but the thread asking for pre-emptive buffs to a jet that in its current state should arguably be 2-3 BR steps higher than it currently is is just stupid.
As it currently stands, the 120C-5 is unlikely to change much at all most likely, seemingly being a very marginal improvement in performance of long range shots. I doubt the Rafales performance in-game is gonna be dented in any way by the introduction of the 120C-5 in its current state, and it will most likely actually perform even better following the update due to the buff to the MICA.
2 Likes
I agree. Here’s the difference between 120B (red) and 120C (green)
Interesting launch platform
5 Likes
Providing Aim-120C5 is actually modeled properly and not an Aim-120A+ then MICA, AAM-4, PL-12 and any others I’m forgetting could do with gaining their IRL performance. Though as it currently stands. MICA is probably still stronger than AIM-120C5
3 Likes
At what distance does 120C start to overtake 120A do you know?
i think it is at the start, because the 120C-5 has a stronger motor
like 15km traveled
so for ~20km shots or further
no its not
Okay so there may actually be a merit in taking both types, thankyou.
According to Statshark, from a 10km alt launch at M1.0 vs a co-alt, co-speed target at 60km. roughly around 15km, with the TTI being around 2s faster for the 120C-5.
At 5km alt M1.0 launched at 30km, it overtakes the 120A at around 10km, and its TTI is around 0.8s faster.
At 1km alt M1.0 vs a 15km target, it overtakes the 120A moments before impact, and the TTI is around 0.1s faster.
That being said, take that with a grain of salt, I was comparing in-game missile tests I’d performed to statshark numbers and it was wrong on both TTI and impact velocity, so somethings likely wrong with their simulation. Its probably close enough for comparison sake tho. The 120C-5 is likely to be ever so slightly better than the 120A in long range performance as it currently stands, to the point where its mostly a placebo.
Its also possible (tho I havent tested this, its just a hypothesis considering the nerfs they recently gave it) that the 120C-5 will actually be a worse missile in-game, as it improves marginally on long range performance, seemingly at the expense of short range performance, which is the biggest issue with the 120A in-game.
This whole thread was really making a mountain out of a molehill to try to justify more buffs for the already uncontested best plane in-game, surprise surprise.
Can’t wait for next updates dev thread when the french mains go for attempt number 3 🙄