The more range comes from bigger battery life and hugher nez comes from more optimized trajectory, i doubt gaijin is gonna model better lofting, the motor is same as c5, so in wt ranges its not any better than c5 practically.
D3 has the newer motor so that would actually matter
according to some it should have higher fin AOA. but it likely comes from the fact a modern motor should produce more power which gets the missile upto speed faster which = increase of maneuverability. and its likely due to the extended motor section changing the COG. the extension causes the COG to be forward there for more unstable which generally leads to a more maneuverable design. and as the motor burns out it becomes more stable which is the principle of how the aim120 was designed
This is the one I was thinking about. And honestly, even a AIM-120 with the range of the C and MICA level seeker(or better) would be excellent already.
iirc the C-7 also saved some room but nothing official for a larger motor pretty sure that space was just used for GPS guidance seen in the D models
the C should already have a better seeker than mica, i think even A/B should be better too iirc
Yeah, I was about to say. Afaik, The C-7 has a newer motor compared to the C-5 so his original post isn’t correct. The D would get the motor of the C-7, not the C-5.
According to who?
C7 and 120D are already in game files, former is in active use even (SLAMRAAM) and both are copypaste of C5, 120D gets longer guidance time and 360 launch capability. Something US can’t make use of even with their radars.
the bug report
Would like to see it with actual sources not some third web party claims.
I’d be willing to bet the 120D datamined stats in the game files are placeholder.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QhYDPYj3LIRl
we cant see the source but the author can. it is a accepted issue
Report doesnt mention anything about having better seeker than MICA, only says current seekerhead on AMRAAM is not realistic and should be buffed.
Not to mention there a reports about MICA seekers indicates more buffs.
thats terrible logic lol. thats like saying the pl12 seeker should be nerfed because it doesnt mention the aim120. it just doesnt make sense. and sure if it can be buffed then maybe buff it. but as it stands according to the bug report it should have a slightly better seeker than the mica does rn
There’s a report for it to have a slightly smaller angle compared to MICA. But MICA is also supposed to be J band. Idk about the amraam tho
You cant just go around and claim X weapon system is better than Y system without direct comparison.
Thats not how it works buddy.
Actually its suppose to be K band.
Not k band as defined in game. It’s Ku in another standard, which corresponds to J band in game
Fair enough, in any cases current MICA still doesnt have its true capabilities yet which is understandable due to bein one of the best Fox-3 already.
i guess you lack reading comprehension or something. it is a direct comparison when you take two separate reports and use the data to make changes.