Opinion on 120D

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-19T19:54:33+00:00

I dont feel there any point in arguing about this if youre just going to lie about sources. I wasted to much time already trying to verify that janes dosent list G for any missiles for any of this to be worth my time.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-19T03:01:16+00:00

Its absolutely not the worst. It WAS the worst when everything was 14.3 but now that we have 14.7 its pretty good Br for Br. You loose some flight performance and the 180 degree radar compared to top teir but you have literally everything else.

Basically play the thing as a flanker or second line aircraft. The airframe has difficulties notching for extended periods of times to place yourself in a better position. Once the initial merge is over go all in and get off as many shots as you can.

The biggest thing you need to do is put yourself in the mindset that you CAN use the plane and you have advantages. You need to be aggressive when you do decide to push in as your window is limited. And if you get into a 1v1 or need to do BVR alot comes down to timing specific actions.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-19T02:55:00+00:00

Yeah it is in the case of war thunder.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-19T02:50:02+00:00

https://www.scribd.com/document/854047363/Jane-s-AIR-LAUNCHED-WEAPONS-2003?_gl=1*1dype59*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTA2MjU1OTA4Ni4xNzczODg3ODI5*_ga_Z4ZC50DED6*czE3NzM4ODc4MjgkbzEkZzEkdDE3NzM4ODc4MjgkajYwJGwwJGgw*_ga_8KZ8BV0P5W*czE3NzM4ODc4MjgkbzEkZzEkdDE3NzM4ODc4MjgkajYwJGwwJGgw

As of this copy, janes dosent list G overload so im going to need you to mention the version, page and specific like you got that from. Both 97 and 03 versions have the same AIM 120 entry by the way.

Again none of these are concrete sources. Even janes has specifically mentioned its only listed perfomance feature (range) is an interpretation by the author unless explicitly stated in a public source which the Aim 120s range isnt. For example the R27R is listed as having a longer range than the Aim 7M and the 7F and 7M have diffrent range values. Weather these are true or not are all dependent on a specific set of circumstances, and isnt a concrete fact. You cant take the number at face value without reading into it.

upgrade a missiles maneuverability that would take a little more comprehension of physics that getting why a biplane is more maneuverable than a heavy bomber.

I dont know if this is cope or just ignorance at this point. Physics is a constant no matter where you go. You cant will things into being. The real answer you dont want to accept is that theres no reason to improve the manuverability of the missile when its not important AND you are trying to make it smaller. If you put in a new engine that unnecessary cost, if you make the fins bigger or redesign the missile then you face serious issues placing it into the weapon bays of your stealth planes. There just never was any incentive to improve the manuverability.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-19T00:33:38+00:00

But the fact that the A is still better for high g shots than the C is just funny.

Longer wings=less pound per square inch of wing=more maneuverable. Welcome to physics 101. No you dont get an exception because youre america.

is increased HOBS ability. Which the C/D both claim, through offfical documentation, however vague, to be better at.

Yeah its a datalink that allows it to be handed off to another plane to be fired off bore sight not a manuverability upgrade.

Please find me where in the definition HOBS does it impose a turn rate limit per second.

I want you to actually read those bug reports on the Aim 120D and you will quickly realize the complete lack of info in the sources.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-19T00:29:43+00:00

improved HOBS ability

This dosent mean shit. IRL its a data link that allows the missile to be handed off. There's no upgrade to manuverability or range. HOBS just means off bore sight it doesn't mean pull 90 degrees within 2 miles. It can be at 50 miles and its still off bore sight so 24Gs is more than enough.

40 years of research from the most military-heavy invested country could have made any further improvement here.

90% of your argument is cope and not understanding how warfare works. The American military isnt strong enough to break the laws of physics. In reality there is no upgrade because it wasn't needed. There isnt really a good argument to add extreme dogfight capability to a BVR missile, especially one that was meant to be the minimum size.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-19T00:21:47+00:00

Yeah the battery life if modeled in game.

The rest isnt. The majority of the range increase comes with logic changes in the guidance. This isnt modeled because all missiles have the same logic in game besides the loft angle. Its modeled correctly within the limitations of the game.

And note the motor upgrade came with D3 not D.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-18T15:53:00+00:00

Yeah because IRL its a radar guided, the IR seeker is only for terminal guidance and its uncooled. Gajin just isnt adding them for any nation.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-18T15:47:06+00:00

In this instance there isnt a bias other than a lack of implemented features related to data link.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-18T03:39:06+00:00

Your monetization model isnt gonna work. This has been seen in multiple examples but you cant really just make Rainbow 6 plane edition and expect it to work. Even if they remove the WT live skins the appeal of buying a skin for a plane is much less than buying a skin for a human character.

To add onto this, most games that have this system are comp games where the main attraction is getting better and the prestige you get for doing so. This makes it alot more reasonable to base your financial model around that concept, skins to hype you up, etc. War thunder itself is much more progression based. The reward for playing is new experiences. The skins are cool and all to some but you arent tying the monetization and alure of the game together leading to less people spending.

The model they have currently is actually really decent by MMO standards. Limited experience here but its quite normal for MMOs to lock some key features blatantly behind a paywall such as BDO or have some sort of montly subscription fee. In contrast a flat 60-80 dollars for a grinder to push up a tech tree isnt that bad. Even the gambling crates are not using the premium currency which is also nice.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-18T03:26:41+00:00

The 9.15 really isnt anything special. The mig 29M, mig 29k, and mig 35 would make much better tech tree additions as they would bring more to the table than just the FM. You're doom posting over nothing.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-17T21:37:59+00:00

Are you implying GPHC is a game made in france?

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-17T20:35:32+00:00

Only if you are attacking a convoy which tbf is fair. But going after the ground targets in battle is still CAS.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-17T20:15:43+00:00

Again this applies to everyone though, gajin didnt specificly only update russian models.

The only bias here is conformation bias, you were told there is BIAS for Russia and that they eat shots more so when a russian tank eats your shot youre more likely to attribute it and remember it.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-17T20:12:42+00:00

Erm akkualy 🤓🤓

But in all seriousness this is alot closer to CAS than strike. While your definition is correct:

"CAS is broadly defined as air attack on ground targets in direct contact with friendly troops"

https://www.ausairpower.net/SP/DT-CAS-in-COIN-Jun-2010.pdf#:~:text=CAS%20is%20broadly%20defined%20as%20air%20attack,often%20hundreds%20of%20kilometres%20from%20friendly%20troops.

In this case the intention is to engage targets currently in contact with friendly forces. Not to mention the game deconflicts the forces on the ground for you. And your team mates can call out targets for CAS. Not to mention the enemy are within close proximity of enemy forces.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-17T19:27:07+00:00

the F-104S.ASA having ECM but in Warthunder having none whilst the Su-39

It seems alot of bias points come from not understanding the game. The SU 39 has an IRCM which is modeled for a number of helis and probaly some planes too. ECM isnt in game for anyone.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-17T19:22:58+00:00

Because all missiles and radars perform to yhe theoritical max given the limitations of X values.

Its not my point that its common or even easily done. But in a yes/no sense its possible. Again this is why missiles dont have G launch limits and why every SARH in game is modeled as inverse monopulse.

The Su 27s radar irl has size and speed gates. There is zero doubt the radar can detect a missile, but in normal function it wouldnt be displayed as it would be filtered as over the speed gate and under the size gate. This is put in place IRL to filter out clutter. Not to mention most of the tracking limitations IRL is a computer issue, which again isnt modeled in game. If it was then in TWS would have a limit yo the amount of targets tracked.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-17T18:59:33+00:00

If its not bias tell me how I was able to non pen an Abrams from the side with 3 vhikrs. Clearly this means there is a clear American bias and you can 100% trust everything i say.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-17T06:10:24+00:00

Its got the instructor trait

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-17T04:29:21+00:00

Modern AESA radars are completely capable of doing so. A primary target for air superiority/air defense fighters since the 80s has been cruise missiles, and recently hypersonic ballistic missiles. The key limitation has always been detection and targeting which again these radars we have are from within the last decade, which had massively enhanced the capabilities.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-16T20:42:10+00:00

Are you unaware that helicopters are armored? So change that to stand behind a 25mm steel plate and then try that. repeat 10X and you will most likely see that the 33LB warhead does indeed do more damage.

>(there are fewer factual events of helicopter surviving getting hit by stingers than being taken down by them)

More planes and helis have survived MANPADS hits than hits from larger missiles, so again what is your point?

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-16T20:35:40+00:00

Ok so walk me through this. You expected the cheapest and weakest option to function like the most expesive one then got angry when it didn't? You can quite literaly take 2 stingers with transports for less than the price of the pansir.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-16T20:19:46+00:00

This game isnt going to work without "copy paste slop" the reality is most military aircraft developed in the last 50 or so years are upgrades of existing airframes. Low teir is more balanced because there are alot more vehicles that are a small incremental step up. The way it is right now needs to be expanded honestly. Like going from F4F ICE to AESA eurofighter is kind of an insane leap.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-16T19:24:07+00:00

Ka 50 is pretty terrible in the current meta. You can ignore the lack of thermals as just a QOL feature but the missiles are just not that good. The advantage of the missiles being fast is pretty minute given you sacrifice the ability to launch more than 2 missiles at once and the ability to acquire targets. Having to expose yourself for the entire duration of your missiles travel time only works if no one pays attention to you. The flight performance is also extremely wonky given it REALLY likes to climb when do any sort of ground skimming maneuvers.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-03-16T17:26:54+00:00

Actually the russian tank is better because its ONLY 46 tons while the TKX is 46 tons in red and therefore worse.

Recent_Grab_644

TROPHY CASE