Well… they are both technically FGR4s, but even just looking at the M-Scan version, sure the radar is a pain in the ass to use, but everything else remains the same, I could usually make it work
making it work and it being good aren’t the same thing it fails in almost all aspects consistancy
No, it fails in a single aspect, the radar.
made my point. now go find a AESA form to comment on
Aim9M seeker would benefit to have some proper fixes. But I don’t think any Aim120 « overall » would change much. The missile just sucks because notching and multipathing a missile that is launched beyond 10km is very easy. This would need a full fox3/radar missile overall. Would make the jets with radars that can see to the side even more powerful as well.
Crashing out over this EFT and its radar 🤣 try using the N001 for 1000+ battles.
Respectfully, if we check your server replays…we are not going to see common top tier air mistakes right?
There is a report to make Aim-120 way harder to notch, and it is kinematically underperforming quite a bit.
If MICA is allowed a unique seeker. Then so should AMRAAM and the others
All missiles should be a whole lot harder to notch. That’s why I say it’s not an AIM120 specific « overhaul », but rather a full radar missiles rework.
And no, the MICA buff that the AIM120 is still waiting for doesn’t make it « harder to notch », just harder to chaff (which, in the end, is still strong, but for a different reason).
Same for the kinematics, many missiles are underperforming. I would even say that the AIM 120, if we go from the work and sources that were done for the DCS implementation, is not underperforming by as much as other missiles
1 Like