It should indeed perform better than AIM-9L/M, completely outclassing Sidewinder was the whole idea of the programme. The original design requirements for ASRAAM have been declassified and the minimum range values required are seemingly shorter than the minimum range of AIM-9L under similar conditions. So yes, CAMM currently appears to be under performing in game.
Perhaps not. But CAMM definitely seems to be under-performing in that video.
IIRC it was initially raytheon on its own, but there has been interest in it and similar missiles from USAF
do you think the proxy fuse delay of 1.8 seconds was carried over, or that it was made shorter to accommodate the shorter range?
It’s a completely new missile so I don’t see a fuze delay of 1.8 seconds being more likely than any other number. There’s no reason to suspect it would be retained.
Also of note is that ASRAAM is accurate enough that destruction is primarily obtained by direct impact with the target. The warhead / proxy fuse is apparently secondary.
Or amraam turn buff
9x with its drag reduction over 9m is actually pretty decent
a major buff to the aim120 would make the US viable again. Either revert fin aoa and maybe a little extra for the C-5 reduce drag by 10% across all aim120 variants or a 10% motor buff so it’s not down 10% on power compared to r77 and 8% when compared to the -1
That means EuroCanards will also get buffed and will get even stronger.
I want amraams tk be something between what they were and what they are rn, earlier the amraams pulled eay too crazily
thats a bad way to look at it, us fighters suffer more from the bad aim120 than eurocanards.
You have to convince Gaijin in this case.
EF is arguably worse than the rafale. buffing may be a good thing. the US suffers worse due to this fact though and once the meteor is ingame the EF guys would likely use it anyway so it wont hurt in the long run.
the aim120 is more maneuverable than the sparrow IRL. the sparrow beats the aim120 across all metrics in that regard ingame. imo it should be slightly less maneuverable than the pl12 for c-5 and the A/B slightly worse than the c-5
Yeah the missile is a very limiting factor for it, but on the new AESA ones evertything else is basically on par I’d say, aside from maybe energy retention in the high alt regimes.
C5 can also enjoy a slight total thrust buff since its slightly underperforming, the next motor upgrade would be in d3 anyways
I have still not seen anyone proving that the C5 actually turns better than the A and B. Aerodynamically, there’s no way it can be more manoeuvrable than the A and B due to its fin having smaller surface AOA (since they are clipped). The missile should only have better manoeuvrability in the sense that it turns sooner of the rails.
Even if it doesnt, A/B variants are also underperforming in turn
There are choices Gaijin could take right now. AIM-120D to F-18E would make it great and pretty much save US top tier.
Then, without needing to add the F-22, F-15EX with IRST and 16 AMRAAM would be great. It would literally be an F-15C GE but better at everything other than being just a little more sluggish. And it’s not like that matters because you already can’t dogfight anything in the F-15C GE.
Aim120d would do absolutely nothing over c5 (only gps and more battery life currently), unless we get awacs
More range(thus bigger NEZ and MAR), seeker on par if not better than MICA. These two alone would make the AIM-120D incredibly deadly. That on an excellent dogfighter like the F-18E.(You don’t need to go Mach 1.6 if you’re firing an AIM-120D against AIM-120Cs)