Many missiles should be buffed!

missiles like the AIM120-C5 atleast should be able to pull the same as its predecessor and def should be way faster, nerfing it on purpose doesnt really make it fun to use specially that the golden eagle only gets the MRML racks for the C-5’s only(why?), micas should should have there range back and aam4s too, i think these missiles getting these would be great, gives people more fighting chances against these new AESA/PESA jets that have way better gimble limits that some jets that will be fighting these jets dont.

regards
a

13 Likes

I agree, it would be nice to see actual japanese top tier planes in a japanese tech tree.

it has smaller fins btw
like 50% smaller

1 Like

If you have the appropriate sources to prove your claim then you can bug report it here (just search a bit first so that you don’t report something that is already reported and known about): (Gaijin.net // Issues)

A guide on how to report bugs can be found here: ([Navigation] Technical Knowledge Base | War Thunder Wiki)

Note the kinds of sources required for issues of this kind.
image

1 Like

aswell as it has different center of mass.

1 Like

considering they randomly gave r77-1 more delta v than it has irl to compensate for the fact that they cant be bothered to model the drag. Sure. We definitely need something better than this. If they’d ever implement the gate width of the actual missile. That would make c-5 far harder to notch, a little harder than mica actually.

2 Likes

I agree, but people who say the mica needs more range usually have never played with micas before

Agree,The R-77-1 was once used as a compensation for the SU-30SM’s weak power. Since the SM-2 with better power has been added to the game, the missile performance of other Techtrees should be reconsidered.

10 Likes

i would also love if top tier japanese plane could carry more AAM4’s! it would be great, 8 or 6 for the jap eagle and 6 for the viper zero will be amazing

1 Like

It has been reported previously.

Although common sense may seem to give you some reason at first glance, the deep reality turns out to be different.

Fins length and overload performance are reasonably separated topics, as there’s other variables as fins delta (AKA different fin shapes), missile kinematics, AoA fin acceleration, etc.
That explains for instance how the AIM-7M Sparrows have better initial turn performance in game than even the AIM-120A/B, or even C5s, but worse than the R-27ER albeit having bigger fins to supposedly turn better.

yeah, in this, its just getting Gaijin to action accepted reports.

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Bdn69n0zp3Ib
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/FTINp3ILB1Ls
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QhYDPYj3LIRl
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/i0HIOTuiT0kl

Which they just dont seem to want to do for some reason

Missile turning performance at maximum energy potential is determined by fin aoa and fin max deflection while at lesser energy potentials, it is heavily dependent upon the flight computer which restricts aoa to conserve energy or choose when to use it etc etc. (Non exclusively)

1 Like