Aim-120 Overhaul needed

Dev Server General Discussion - Dev Server
,
1
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

With this coming update, we are about to see the third generation of AMRAAM added, the Aim-120D and yet, accepted reports for the previous generation of AMRAAM remain in an accepted state. The Aim-120D by all accounts still uses Aim-120B data as the foundation of its performance, the same as the Aim-120C5 and so buffs to the Aim-120B would directly affect both the C5 and the D.

It is time these old reports, some very old, finally saw action and the reports actually fixed for all AMRAAM variants.

Reduced Smoke

The First is the simplest, and often overlooked buff, the AMRAAM’s currently missing reduced smoke motor. AMRAAMs perform poorly in short range WVR encounters and favour being up high and fast, ideally firing with a bit range, removing the very obvious exhaust would reduce the warning that a target has that a missile has been fired and help avoid revealing the location of the aircraft, which pairs beautifully with the overhaul contrails we got only a few updates ago.

Aim-120 Reduced Smoke motor - Reproted 2 years
Aim-120C5 Missing Low Smoke Motor - Reported 9 months ago

Beamwidth Reduction

This next report is more complicated to explain the usefulness of, but would go a long way to making the AMRAAM harder to notch and chaff, that is reducing its beamwidth, Fireball did make an error with the report, and the reduction would only be relatively minor, around +/- 1.5° in FoV, but a buff is a buff nonetheless, which would help in making the missile more difficult to notch

AMRAAM Beamwidth Currently too large - Reported 2 years ago

Kinematic Performance

Whilst there is a lot that could be said about the current AMRAAM performance in this regard, a lot of it is hard to report, especially given the lack of sources available. So instead, this is just purely about the accepted issues submitted by Flame.

The first is fairly simple: The Aim-120B should be able to hit a lower flying aircraft, taking no meaningful defensive action at greater ranges than currently possible, showing that the missile is currently missing a notable chunk of available energy.

The next, and far more important, is that the Aim-120B should perform considerably better against manoeuvring targets, in the reports attached, all 3 test scenarios should have resulted in hits, instead, they all missed, changes made early on for the AMRAAM actually made the miss distance worse, not better. This is a particularly bad issue as it was reported on the beta test and still not yet fixed

Whilst the reports are for the Aim-120A/B, these should also directly affect both the C5 and D which are direct upgrades of the A/B. Failing that, it would still be a meaningful buff for the A/B for those aircraft dependent on them (and many still choose them over the C5)

120A & B - Max range against non-manoeuvring targets too low - Reported 2 years ago
AIM-120A & B - Performance against manoeuvring targets too poor (Original) - Reported 2 years ago
AIM-120A & B - Performance against manoeuvring targets too low (Updated) - Reported 2 years ago

Fixing these main reports would do a world of good for the AMRAAM and their carriers, whilst they will likely have some notable disadvantages compared to the competition, especially as War Thunder tends to favour shorter range engagements, they would actually be able to begin leveraging their performance at longer ranges, by making the AMRAAM harder to spot coming, harder to notch and harder to kinematically defeat.

There are some other more minor reports that wouldn’t have any immediate impact on balance or performance, but reported and accepted nonetheless and yet still fixed

AIM-120A - Seeker range too low - Reported 2 years ago
AIM-120A - Missing re-target option - Reported 2 years ago
AIM-120A - Missing Self-Destruct option - Reported 2 years ago

16 Likes
2

This really can take low priority honestly. I wouldn’t have even mentioned it. I didn’t mention it for the MICA in the MICA thread for example.

But it is unacceptable to me for developers to continue shoving more variants of missiles to solve things rather than implementing fixes as needed. It is really time for them to resolve reports. It’s fine if they want to conclude at the end whether or not it is a bug, but the priority is that these reports need to be RESOLVED. Whether by being implemented or rejected if it is insufficient for whatever reason. This goes for all missile reports. Missiles of next iteration should not be introduced until all open reports have been resolved.

If developers have enough resources and time on their hands to make new missiles, then they have the resources and time to resolve reports on current missiles.

2 Likes
3

The difference though, the MICA EM excels at short range, with or without isnt going to make a difference. Its rare to ever fire beyond short ranges

With AMRAAM though, you may actually risk a longer ranged shot, it is really obvious when an F-15 or Typhoon fires up high and it immediately reveals their location and that they have fired.

6 Likes
4

That’s true. But regardless yeah, all of these reports need to be resolved rather than shoving new planes/new missiles as the solution. I understand they’re incentivized to add new content since that can be monetized more than fixing current weaponry, but it’s not an excuse to ignore reports for years on end.

1 Like
5

honestly, the A and B are perfectly fine, as they’re already balanced at their respective br’s, any performance buff to these will be overkill and likely result in a br increase.

The C5 and C7 should be the sole targets of this post

1 Like
6

Sure, rework it if it means we can get MICA fixed up alongside it.

7

not really, they are still some of the worst ARH missiles at those BRs

8 Likes