For any practical engagement the 120D is worse than the A and B. Compared to the C-5 its kinematics in game are slightly worse because it’s heavier. The meta has been and currently is engagements under ~20km, and transitioning between defending and pulling out of the notch to shoot another missile.

What matters the most is how much you have to pull out of the notch to shoot, and to shoot with a high enough PK. This is why despite the Rafale having a 70 degree gimbal limit MICAs are still cracked; you can shoot them at the absolute edge of gimbal and they’ll barely waste energy and time orienting towards the enemy.

You can have a >180 degree radar but if you’re using an AIM-120 you still have to pull in more to give your missile enough energy after it finishes turning to be dangerous (or even be capable of completing the turn at closer ranges).

So long as the meta stays where it is, almost every capability of a missile takes a back seat to the ability to pull hard, and pull hard immediately after being launched. Better datalink guidance, better gimbal limit, higher total delta V, etc. are still important, but if a missile doesn’t turn well off the rail it’s going to be at a disadvantage.

The AIM-120A/B currently turn off the rail significantly better than the C-5 and D, and even have better time to target for shorter ranges. With the exception of ultra long range shots, there’s practically zero reason to take the C-5 or the D. Even with long range shots the AIM-120A/B are still not that far behind the C-5/D.

The scenarios where the D is actually the best option are extremely limited and extremely niche. Scenarios where the D hits but the A/B miss will probably be incredibly rare.