yeah the whole “meteor much acceleration is slower than its peers” crowd doesnt quite understand that at the ranges were that would matter you would be completely unable to outrun the missile
ok
but given what the devs clearly think of the amraam I would expect meteor to be easily rollable when its added
and you know even harder to get fixed because more recent and classified
1 Like
Still can’t wait for the f22 to have worse stealth capabilities than the su57 because there aren’t sources on its actual rcs, only estimates.
12 Likes
So officially I have joined in the search today for sources on the AIM-120s, MICAs, IRIS-T, ASRAAM, AIM-9 series, and other assorted NATO weaponry.
I have successfully put in a request for 3 large primary NATO books produced in 1988, 1993, and 2000 and should have them arrive in a few weeks time atleast well before the May major update.
9 Likes
Do congressional hearings count as primary sources e.g Air Force/Navy fiscal year 19XX?
Yes, but it depends on what they say. If its not hard numbers being discussed Gaijin wont have it.
Since when could AMRAAM be rolled? This is news to me lol
Anyways, you can expect similar (if slightly worse) performance to AMRAAM (in close range, that is) so nothing ‘new’ there. Besides, people with Meteor will still have AIM-120B/C-5 or MICA EM to fall back on. So no worries 😎
Within 6km you dont even have to roll, you can just pull hard and dodge them sometimes. at least the c-5/d.
it can since the nerf
with 120C being even easier to roll
its very reliable against the ~4-5km low altitude launches
This applies to the R-77 too. Both missiles need speed to actually pull (in the AIM-120s case… “pull” is more of a suggestion), so no surprise there. Physics, ladies and gentlemen
There does also have to be a pretty significant difference in speed between the aircraft and missile for it to happen but it is possible, just not as reliable as aim7 rolling
The issue is really that the AIM-120C / -D don’t meet established AIM-120A / -B maneuverability metrics due to dev fiat.
because the fins are smaller.
Without any consideration of the fact that the Center of Gravity and static stability quantities changed due to the longer motor section and shifted moment arm of the redesigned Control Section.
6 Likes
I suppose that’s true. Still, if they fixed the aim120a/b it would be a start. I assume we don’t have any sources on the SCAS or VCAS for the aim120 do we? If we could prove they improved the actuators on the fins for more fin aoa, it should lead to better maneuverability. Then again if the missiles are modeled based on the way the devs feel they should be, i honestly don’t think any bug report would change their minds.
It’s really going to fuck over the F-22 & F-35 since they are strictly limited to -120C/D, or AIM-260.
2 Likes
I thought the f22 could carry aim120b on the external racks? was it simply never integrated due to c-5 being better irl?
We’ve gotten planes that aren’t exactly real (or at least, not in any noticeable quantity), do you think we’ll transition into project missiles?
Depends how paper we’re talking about imo
Theoretically it probably could, but why would it. Have you ever even seen an F-22 using external Missiles?
If it was likely we would have seen the AIM-95 turn up alongside the R-73 in place of the AIM-9M as a counterpart.
So at this point no. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the F-22 / F-35 ends up at 12.0 because they just don’t suite the meta at all (at least with the currently implemented mechanics; we’d need Link 16, and RWR / sensor missile guidance handoff via datalink to deal with the +/-60 degree radar gimbal of the APG-77 & -81).
Yes actually. Sometime in the early 2000’s there was a flight with them for some reason. This is a somewhat recent spotting as well.
Gaijin: ok but did it fire them?
flashbacks to F-15C with AMBER AMRAAM
2 Likes