Is it time to revert the AIM-120 fin AOA nerf?

[Benji_Big_Yahu]

• Yes
• No

Now that other nations have had a chance to receive better ARH missiles with better air-frames, I think it would only be fair to revert the AIM-120 fin AOA nerf to be around 30° again, and include this to the AIM-120C-5/D. Its clear that the USA top tier air is struggling with only AIM-120’s, which are the worst ARH missile by far. Even the AAM-4, which is bigger and heavier turns fare better then the AMRAAM.

The AIM-120D was added because Gaijin said it was a much needed addition to the current lackluster US missiles. However, its been anything but. With worse HOBS then the 120A/B, and less performance then the C-5(no matter how marginal it is)due to heavier weight, and no other improvements added(GNSS is useless of someone notches correctly). At the very minimum it should get an improved seeker that is harder to notch, just like the MICA-EM, otherwise right now there is zero reason to take the 120D over the A/B.

My current suggestion is to revert the fin AOA nerf that happened about a month in(with absolutely no sources btw), apply it to the 120C-5/D as well, along with giving the 120D an improved seeker to make it worth using. I believe doing that would give US air-frames a fighting chance to be somewhat balanced in the META right now.

And for some rebuttal thats coming my way, range is no way useful right now. Notching is too easy, chaff is too strong. Look at the MICA/R-77-1, they are good not because of their range but because of the HOBS capability. BVR is only viable if someone is AFK or does not know what they are doing, and increased range is not something that is needed for the AIM-120’s. how come the R-77-1(faster time to target at 40km then the 120D/A) gets to be one of the best long range missiles

and one of the best HOBS missiles, while the aim-120 is not good at either?

proof attached in the photos above.
here are som bug reports that have been “accepted”, but not acted on for months, some for years at this point.

Aim-120 Reduced Smoke motor - Reported 2 years

Aim-120C5 Missing Low Smoke Motor - Reported 9 months ago

AMRAAM Beamwidth Currently too large - Reported 2 years ago

AIM-120A & B - Performance against manoeuvring targets too low (Updated) - Reported 2 years ago

AIM-120A - Missing re-target option - Reported 2 years ago

120A & B - Max range against non-manoeuvring targets too low - Reported 2 years ago

As you can see, most of these have been accepted 2 YEARS AGO, and yet nothing has been done. Something needs to change Gaijin.

[Ruskie_Turtles]

All aim120 should at least have a 12 degree seeker fov. Its been reported. Not a massive difference but would help with chaff resistance a bit.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QhYDPYj3LIRl

[Benji_Big_Yahu]

Classic “accepted” graveyard bug report lol

[Ruskie_Turtles]

There are a lot for the aim120 specifically. We had this thread but it was for dev. We might wanna re-post the bug reports again here.

Aim-120 Overhaul needed

poll 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 var…

[Benji_Big_Yahu]

Yea, i even participated on the Dev one, but seeing as it’s all on the live server now i figured
a discussion here would be good as well. I can add those bug reports to my current post

[WolfTangoFoxtrot]

Are there sources attached to this that we just can’t see but the devs can? What is this based on

[Ruskie_Turtles]

Old reports on the Tornado adv and its Aim120b integration. Afaik. Its forbidden for us to see the source, its a Gajin change from a few years back now. You could ask the OP of the bug report and he may be willing to share but I don’t tend to bug people for such things.

[tokerstar]

Cope and dreams.
Having the US suck a fat one is kinda funny but iv played over a year now and they have never been anywhere near competitive at TT. Slow/ bus Fms with the worst fox 3. The f16s potentially would be great but 6 AA’s Pylons will never work.

Balance IMO has and never will exist in war thunder. impossible task in the name of realism

[Flanker_Thunder]

i basically don’t play with AMRAAM carriers, since i like more playing with Flankers (hell naw i have grinded almost the entire russian air TT), but since AMRAAMs are so undertiered, they deserve some buffs.

i like competition, not too much free kills.

[Macron-Spokesman]

Not sure how effective a poll asking for a specific change or revert a change is when that change requires a bug report in the first place.

@Benji_Big_Yahu

My current suggestion is to revert the fin AOA nerf that happened about a month in(with absolutely no sources btw),

There was a source. I’m not agreeing with said source, but there was a source that was used to nerf the AIM-120’s fin AoA to 15 degrees ±. Again to clarify for a second time, I’m disputing the specific claim that there were “absolutely no sources”.

[Benji_Big_Yahu]

Okay, so I looked into it more. It turns out the so called source is from a paper done by 3 students in Sout Korea, who estimate the fin AOA through computer analysis. Why would Gaijin accept that as a source?

Here is the source translated to English.
Source

They even state that the source they used is what they generated with a computer lmao

“ For this study, the AIM-120 model was chosen with the specifications and

performance shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. The nonlinear aerodynamic model of the

target system was obtained using Missile DATCOM, and the thrust model was

calculated through linear interpolation based on expected altitude conditions (6km) and

temperature (Figure 2).”

[Ruskie_Turtles]

AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

It’s no more accurate than this source on the 120. Its mere conjecture.

[Macron-Spokesman]

But there’s more negative implications using the DCS source than the Korean one.

[Macron-Spokesman]

@Benji_Big_Yahu

Why would Gaijin accept that as a source?

Because for better or worse, Gaijin relies a lot on documentation or any type of documentation available for modeling missiles in Warthunder. This has its positive and negative effects compared to DCS modeling things based on no documentation of their own and instead relying mainly or only on CFDs.

But this also means Warthunder uses “newer” and more “recent” documentation than DCS does.

[Ruskie_Turtles]

If Gaijin wants to use a source they themselves would deny as proof i guess no one can really stop them. Makes them look stupid tho.

[Macron-Spokesman]

Well, what they’re doing wouldn’t be such a bad thing in a perfect world.

1. Use any documentation for initial modeling, even if shoddy documentations are the only thing available, so that players have a chance to bug report it if there’s anything wrong with the equipment.

2. In a perfect world, someone would have sources that would provide a more accurate modeling, and would step forward and provide said sources.

3. Gaijin then implements said sources that supersede the initial shoddy sources that were used before.

But if they waited to find better documentations than shoddy ones then nearly 75% of things in-game wouldn’t be added.