I’ve been testing the 120s current peak overload, and what i found is simply the truth: 120s by its current setting are near unable to get over 20gs of pull in most if not all circumstances. I do have to remember y’all that said number is EVEN LESS than 7Ms. I had a particular game where i was able to do multiple launchs with slightly different profiles in quick succession, and i invite you to check it out, here’s the server replay + a youtube video
You can check that with even a decent profile + speed, missiles are literally unable to reach over 20gs, regardless of being notched, chaffed, or whatever.
Feel that i’m missing something with the youtube video? Go to the server replay, it’s literally the same.
I think most of AIM-120 users can agree that a significant nerf on its range can be applied, in exchange of some of its nerfed AOA back, as it was indeed an artificial nerf (there was no report on such low aoa capabilities on the AIM-120s).
And with this i’m not just simply talking about the F-15 or the F-16 platforms suffering due to the 120s underperforming, think about platforms like the F-4F ICE and the F.3 Late, which they don’t have many aces up their sleeves, they have to also compensate the missile’s precariousnesses, it’s non sense. Either fix the statcard with the current maximum overload, or just hand some of the AOA back, so it can at least reach some kinetically unavoidable overload.
In the video you show, there’s not a single AIM 120 that would have needed to pull more than 20G. I think you need to make more rigorous testing to prove that, for exemple making a repeatable test putting the missile to it’s limit
In fact, this testing was done here : https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/NlWtPQXvWlfP
As you can see, the G load of the AIM 120 right now is still reaching up to 30G, without going over Mach 2. It probably is able to reach 35G at its max speed. I do not know at what speed the AIM 120 is supposed to reach it’s stated 35G so I can’t comment on that report
r73 was not limited in it’s G load technically, but rather in it’s thrust vectoring AOA. That is common with all thrust vectoring missiles in game, ASRAAM, r73 and MICA, due to instability causing the missile to spin out, it is not a balancing factor
It’s an issue with the way all missiles in the game are coded. They are all assumed to have frontal maneuvering fins so missiles with their fins at the rear kinda have a rough time.
Also the way the wings (wing area) on missiles is modeled is pretty weird…
I could be mistaken but unless a developer working on missiles could clarify, this is the best explanation I can give.
Most of them lost track due to notch angles. Last one is probably due to the low altitude of the enemy target. None of them failed to hit because of lacking G overload
Says the one that provides a pretty abysmal video as evidence for whining about one of the best missile underperforming. At least the people that did the reports aren’t you and are able to provide repeatable tests to show their evidence
I insist. You’re the only one here so far that has been gatekeeping this discussion based merely on the impression that everyone needs to do a near perfect launch profile every time to reach not even 35Gs, but 30. While most of other ARH carriers like the French with MICAs or Soviets with their R-77s are able to reach their max. non-thrust vectoring overload pretty easily to keep their intercept trajectory. Not to mention you’ve never played a platform with AIM-120s once.
Use the AIM-120 with its current low AOA generation and then keep this point of yours.
I was only saying that in the case of the video, there has not been a single missile that would have needed to pull close to 30G to hit a target. Most of them lost lock with their targets from what can be seen.
Tomorrow I’m going to fire a missile at an enemy in my front cone barely maneuvering, see that it does just 15G max, and say that said missile can’t perform 30G and you’ll have to believe me
