120D for US. Now could it actually save US?
Good missiles are the only thing that can save top tier air. So it really depends how good it is, but looking at the state of 120Cs I doubt it’ll be much better
We’ll have to see what the Aim-120Ds are actualy like, but I doubt it. They wont be a magic bullet and hopefully they’ll at least fix Aim-120A/B/C5s whilst they are at it, so the gap isnt too bad.
If they have the same multipathing height then they don’t really solve the underlying issue of BVR in the current state of the game.
Maybe if they have better HOBS than the previous models? But I’m not sure if they do and even less sure that Gaijin will actually care about that.
1 Like
I doubt it 120A/B/C would be buffed
Hopefully gaijin does not mess up 120D as well
Yeah…
Pretty clear they use bug reports as balancing mechanics anyway these days
1 Like
Well two months ago they asked for the whole document on the amraam performance charts, would be weird if they took those two months and did nothing about it.
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/FTINp3ILB1Ls?comment=ndKbZ6LLZUYmEU1FQR2uJujv
famous last words
4 Likes
Improbable.
They mess missiles that have a craptone of data by many sources.
Since they ^artificially^ balance things, they could have already tuned C-5 to be more accurate and there was no reason to bring 120D for now…
They skipped C-7 on the way…
And also 120D has variants. It’s not just D. The first D models were a…better C-7 to say it blantly. The problem is GJ models the changes absurdly bad in that department. For example, how many older models missiles have massacred and they are not even classified or sensitive…
Here we play with AIM-9M … M has 10 editions or something. So many planes could play the 9P variants… even for balance purposes.
My point is there is no ^hope^ because they mess things…intentionally. And that’s their worst enemy. The intention behind messing things up.
1 Like
It would be more wierd if they actually fixed it imo
2 Likes
Depends on how the missile ends up performing and with which new plane it’s added.
If they add an AESA F-16 or F/A-18E with AIM-120D US top tier will remain in a bad place, F-15EX with AIM-120D might be able to do some lifting.
Probably that’s what they will do.
I was doing some reading around WDS 2026 and the exhibits there.
There was F-15E and SA planes and there was 15EX simulator a well!!
And i think GJ people that have interest in warmachines , history and technology would go there for some ^shopping^ .
Is it true that PoBIT and 15EX can track and launch at jets behind it using sensors irl?
Not if it doesn’t come with revised mechanics in order to make proper use of the two way datalink.
Safest to assume that all it is, a C-5 with with MICA-EM’s “+/- 7 degrees” seeker bolted on. And so will do absolutely nothing due to the AMRAAMs lacking HOBS performance, and bad short range TTK delta. Not covering off the weakness of the Sidewinder (only 30G’s, non TVC) airframe.
The AIM-9X-1 would have been an option that would actually fix issues with the existing US top tiers (Sidewinder & AMRAAM are either the baseline offering or far outstripped by contemporary options at this BR)by actually providing a TVC capable option, and a proper improvement over the conventional finned Mk 36 motor AIM-9C/D, L/M due to the addition of the TVC control section.
Theoretically all you would need is an RWR ping, or HMD cue and some way to hand it off via a datalink to prompt the missile’s seeker to look in the correct direction.
1 Like
Well if they would have added any variant of 9X players would have been more upset and angry and would ask for other nations to get next gen IR as well just like they are asking for meteor and mica ng
Also 120D would be either added with 15EX, Pobit AND 18E/F block 3 out of which PoBIT might have best FM (IMO, Still it would only be carrying 6 missile which would not be good at top tier), However these 3 planes would still not be able to compete with Eurocanards and SU-30SM2 even with 120D (maybe with Eurofighter and Gripen E)
C7 is in game, even in “active service” in game on SLAMRAAM and NASAMS. Then it seems C5 has its “+5” motor modeled (extra 5kg propellant, single stage, single pulse, single speed burn), which then was carried over to C7 and D. All you could do there is to coerce snail into increasing thrust produced by increasing amount of thrust produced per 1kg of propellant, which seems to be oddly uniform around 2350N/kg for ARH missiles actually. Template/baseline of some propellant perhaps?
Going by AMRAAM topic, big reason for developing newer AMRAAMs was extending battery time, as A/B motor with battery time limitation lifted was already expected to approach 250km “effective range”, whatever that means
Quick test in statshark and 120B but with 600s guidance time, with great launch conditions (2200kmh TAS, 13km alt vs 1000kmh TAS and 10km alt target, 250km launch distance) actually will intercept and with usable speed at impact, around 1900kmh/1.8mach… assuming guidance doesn’t shit itself and missile flies past target.
That leaves unsucking maneuverability of C5 and newer missiles and maybe tampering with seeker (narrower FoV?) but good luck finding good enough sources on that.
2 Likes
4 Likes
Kizvy we all know Soviet RWRs run on hopes and prayers.
5 Likes
😭 they added this as pack
1 Like
No because other trees will throw a fit and get 120Ds, so we’ll be back in the same spot.