I still dont understand why this is justifcation for the Typhoon to remain artficially nerfed?
If they arent going to give us an R-77-1, MICA EM, Aim-120D or PL-12A level missile, the absolute bare minimum they can do is actually buff B/C5 AMRAAMs up to their IRL performance based upon the half dozen accepted bug reports, several of which date back to when Fox-3 were first added.
They can fix BOL to give us our full strength CM suite, rather than the massively nerfed version we have currently.
They can finish the FM and fix the instability issues we have at high alt
They can buff the radar up to IRL performance, rather than leaving it with its currently nerfed scan rate.
etc etc
Im fed up of this attitude of “well the typhoon is best so artifically nerf it, but buff the Rafale, Su-30SM2, F-15, etc etc because clearly they are suffering”
and since when was this ever an issue before?
When we had Tornado F3s vs F-16 and Mig-29s and they were struggling like hell what did htey do? They added IRCCM to only he F-16 and Mig-29s.
So this one sided attitude towards minor nations is driving me nuts.
Especially when the Rafale and Su-30SM2 are actually performing better than the Typhoon with the exception of the FGR4 AESA because its most often paired with the Rafale not against. Looking solely at K/D The German AESA Typhoon is actually the worst performing 14.7 of January 2026, even behind the Gripen E at 14.3 and barely ahead of the F-15C GE. So its not even entirely true either that the Typhoon is dominating. I just think its people not liking the Typhoon IRL and therefore hate that its not bottom of the barrel in-game
Because everything is artificially nerfed. If this weren’t the case we would have full-fledged team-wide datalink, modern IIR missiles, fly-by-wire, etc. But Gaijin has made (inconsistent) choices on what to implement and what not to – whether for balance or for lack of caring.
In the case of the AIM-120D, it’s for balancing.
I agree they should buff all of the AIM-120s to have proper fin AOA and pull.
But the answer as to why they aren’t buffing the Eurofighter is that it simply does not need a buff. It’s already extremely strong.
I 100% agree. All of these things should be done.
These have to do with attributes of the plane itself. These are different from giving it missiles for the sake of balancing.
It doesnt need much, just something to help bridge gap a little. Especially given everything else of late. Even if its stil weaker than the others, C5 is not a good missile and needs upgrading, has done ever since the MICA EM buffs and the intro of R-77-1
Dont you love losing a perfectly fine encounter just because your opponent could counter-attack from insane angle thanks to HOBS missile you dont have?
its an issue that they dont like the idea the Typhoon is doing as well as it is and want to see its performance nerfed. They’ve tried and failed to artifically nerf it in other ways like BOL and ECRS, but now they are just going to ensure everyone has better missiles.
The irony is that the AESA Typhoon isnt actually doing all that well, only reason the FGR4 AESA is, is because its almost always paired with the Rafale, the German AESA Typhoon though is actually doing worse than the Gripen E at the moment according to Jan Data
I’m still confused as to what the actual difference between AIM-120C-8 and AIM-120D is supposed to be.
For a while it seemed that a lot of publications suggested that AIM-120D was simply a redesignation of what had been in development as AIM-120C-8. Now it’s treated like AIM-120C-8 is an export version of AIM-120D. But numerous non-US F-35 customers are getting AIM-120D now.
Meanwhile AIM-120D-3 is supposed to have extended range.
I wonder, is the difference simply that AIM-120D is compatible with MADL datalinking from F-35, F-22 etc. where AIM-120C-8 is Link-16 only.
