As for the AIM120, since I don’t have an F-15C GE, I only have an F-15E. Therefore, I can’t share my experiences with the AIM120D. However, based on what I’ve seen in Chinese forums (as well as from my own combat experience), the maneuverability of the AIM120 family has been improved somewhat (test server data shows that the center of gravity and overload unlocking times have been adjusted). In fact, the F-15C GE performs quite well now. If you pay close attention to the kill reports, you’ll find plenty of information related to the GE model.
Just select the text as if you wanted to copy and option to quote should appear.
Then I got the wrong impression of thr extent of the supposed buff, my apologies.
Moreso it can be done today if gaijin wishes. Realistically best shot at this happening is summer BR changes. By then mote data on the J-15T ingame performance should be aviable so it would be eass to make a point.
Gaijin, whats there to tell. Israel and japan are left without true top tier aircrafts as well.
Lack of aviable public information I assume.
Sure, you personally might have no objections, but is that sentiment shares across entiriety of playerbase?
The playerbase cant reach consensus on more important stuff (see the “last stand of arb” thread, 3k votes on each question and theres still one question thats split 50:50).
Can you elaborate?
Which matters less in current meta than ability to pull.
Best performing top tier aircraft for several months straight was Rafale and MICAs have next to no ramge but best pull out of all ARHs.
When did that happen?
I think the problem with modern aircraft (and also tanks) in War Thunder is that much of the data is classified and not publicly accessible. At this point, it feels like the newest aircraft are half fiction and half reality.
The same applies to aircraft weaponry. The data we have in the game—for example regarding AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles—is not entirely realistic, because some of their parameters are classified, such as their speed or range. Different websites provide different figures, but I’m not sure what those values are based on. I also haven’t found such information on official government websites.
Let’s also take a closer look at ESA radars. In my opinion, they are not represented 100% realistically in the game.
Take a look at this video from Northrop Grumman showing how the AN/APG-81 works.
If Gaijin ever decides to improve ESA radars, some aspects will likely have to be made up as well due to the lack of access to certain information.
This means that Gaijin adopts very different approaches when dealing with vehicles from different countries, due to a lack of information. For example, when it comes to Russian vehicles, they tend to estimate the situation based on the most favorable scenarios. For vehicles from other countries, however, they assume the worst-case scenario. I’m not sure about other countries, but Chinese vehicles have often been subject to this “worst-case estimation” approach.
I don’t remember which version had the change made; someone in the Chinese community told me that. It might be false, but it’s also very easy to verify the accuracy of this information.
Although this may hurt the national pride of players from these two countries, I still have to say: These two nations don’t already possess a large number of advanced fighter jets, so there’s really nothing they can do about it in reality.
The more modern the era, the more common this becomes. It’s completely normal for Gaijin to make assumptions based on reality. After all, they can’t possibly use the J-10’s radar in the J-20, right? That would be ridiculous!
Yeah… Unfortunately true. That won’t change anytime soon though
Because the Rafale are too fast, unbelievably fast. In fact, even short-range missiles like MICA can hit targets from long distances. Now, it’s almost impossible for China’s top fighter jets to successfully hit a target within 30 kilometers, unless the enemy doesn’t evade at all.
No, even with the Rafales cracked high alt speed at the moment. A Typhoon and F15 with Aim-120Bs would still easily outrange them, with C5s, it’s even easier.
The reason the MICA is best is because it has the best seeker and the best short range performance.
Range is the least valuable attribute, it’s really rare to get a kill at any meaningful range if the player you fired at isn’t AFK.
WVR to short range BVR is the most valuable. Sub 15-20km. In that regime, PL-12 easily performs better than the AMRAAM at the moment, though not as good as MICA or R-77-1
Any verbal protests against this approach are ineffective. The Chinese community has proposed two solutions to this double standard: either let the situation worsen by allowing Russian vehicles to easily dominate over the other nine countries, leading to a mass exodus from the game; or continue to express anger through widespread negative reviews. The problem with the second approach is that most Chinese players have already left negative reviews, including me（ laugh). How can those reviews be refreshed again?
?
Either you are saying “me and Gaijin” or “me and you” and if it’s the latter, I’d say speak for yourself? You don’t even know me lol
Heat seeker? :P
Damn autocorrect,
Best*
The “advantages” of the PL-12A can only be fully realized with continuous radar guidance to ensure accuracy. However, this brings us back to the issue discussed in this post: improving the radar’s range of operation. It’s difficult to say whether MICA has better or worse anti-jamming capabilities than the PL-12A. In my opinion, MICA performs better without radar guidance, while the PL-12A is superior when radar guidance is available.
In theory, being GNSS guided, the PL-12A will be the superior in an unsupported shot. In other respects, I fail to understand why they would actually be any different.
Maybe it’s because of the difference between Chinese and English contexts? It could be a problem with the translator, or maybe I typed something wrong.
1 Like
But during actual gameplay, I noticed that the hit rate of the PL-12A significantly increased when radar guidance was used. I agree with your theory, but I’m also curious why the actual experience differs from what the theory predicts.
Apparently the PL-12/SD-10A (and PL-12A, obviously) should have a better motor and higher top speed of Mach 5. So maybe that’s it? IDK. The closer to modernity you go the more vague things get unless you literally attend every single weapons expo lol
Angle，not range。Fxxking translation.
all Fox-3s work way better if you can maintain track till impact
Nah not in my experience going from AIM-120C-5 to AIM-120D.
Sure, the C-5 still hits sometimes, but the AIM-120D retains energy better by not needlessly drifting because of IOG drift and then turning to correct course by a lot. I feel like it’s the same with PL-12/PL-12A.
I was purely talking about in-game. Not surprised at all that they are underperforming.
Back when fox-3s were in the rumour mill, a lot of speculation was about how they would handle PL-12s being more of a C5 equivalent than a A/B equivalent, though as it turned out, C5s weren’t all that they were hoped to be
Should C5s even be drifting in the first place with DL active. Doesn’t that defeat the point of the DL?
Though I have found a way higher hit rate with the AESA-Phoon maintaining DL till impact with the AESA than I ever did with the previous crap-Scan Typhoon where I was often forced to stop providing DL mid course