hello, I came upon this bugreport that was locked regarding 120D’s HOBS capability (Community Bug Reporting System). I’ve found multiple government acquisition material that mentions the High off bore target capabilities of the missile.
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Davis_04-08-14.pdf Page 16: AIM-120D AMRAAM
The AIM-120 AMRAAM is the Department of Defense’s premier beyond-visual-range missile
to counter existing and emerging air vehicle threats, operating at high or low altitude with
electronic attack capabilities. AMRAAM is a key enabler for gaining air superiority and air
dominance providing F-22, F-16, F-15, F/A-18, and eventually F-35 aircraft the ability to
achieve multiple kills per engagement. The latest evolution of AMRAAM is the AIM-120D,
which brings increased range and kinematics, improved high off-boresight targeting, and an
enhanced two-way data link for improved accuracy and lethality at range. AIM-120D is an
ACAT 1C joint program, with the Air Force as lead service in partnership with the Navy. The
AIM-120D Operational Test Readiness Review was successfully completed in May 2012 and the
program is currently in dedicated operational testing.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-07-31/pdf/2018-16310.pdf page 36899 top right section: 2. The AIM–120D AMRAAM
hardware, including the missile
guidance section, is classified
CONFIDENTIAL. State-of-the-art
technology is used in the missile to
provide it with unique beyond-visualrange capability. The increase in
capability from the AIM–120C–7 to
AIM–120D consists of a two-way data
link, a more accurate navigation unit,
improved High-Angle Off-Boresight
(HOBS) capability, and enhanced
aircraft-to-missile position handoff.
I really hope they can do something with this. We will never get actual data of what they mean by increased HOBS capability being a current in-service missile so for the being a game and already not realistic for balance I hope they slightly buff some of the performance because they clearly state a performance increase asking for numbers is ridiculous when talking about current day weapons.
@Smin1080p_WT
Could these be looked into? These reports are rather significant for the Germany prop tier line and one of them have been reported over and over for 3 years.
Its good to see that the air spawn speed are being reduced across the board and planes with crazy high spawn speeds are being brough back in line like the Su30sm2, surprised its not in the change log since its prob the biggest meta shakeup this update
what they can do well is ctrl c ctrl v never mind they give you a test server where you don’t have to waste time unlocking tanks that will be broken because you can’t test them if you don’t unlock everything by playing as always they don’t respond
Apologies but that just reads as bias does it not?
“Here’s a new SPAA system implemented in within the last few years with brand new modern missiles but we cannot add the AGM-88 (1979), AGM-84E (1991), or the SCALP (1994/2003) because they’re too advance.” By the time they’re added, they won’t be relevant or useful.
Thats either an admission of bias (on behalf of Gaijin, not you specifically) or a community manager admitting a sort of “Look, Russian tech isnt as good as US/Western tech so we have to pull more modern vehicles to ensure balance in our game”. Its one of those two.
Between the BMPT curbstomping since implementation, KH-38 having no equal, and now a second top tier SPAA (glossing over the very real fact that the last time a Pantsir was added, it dominated the SPAA game for like two years), there’s very little room to interpret a better, more modern Pantsir beyond just pure bias without Gaijin showing the data that the BUK is under performing. What is available to us as players shows its doing fine.
I want to say someone on Gaijin’s behalf has mention that balancing doesn’t just look at the vehicle in and of itself/in a vacuum but also how it fits into a line-up but that could just be wishful thinking. The fact is that Russia players will have two very powerful SPAA options as free vehicles, coupled with the best performing A2G missile while being protected by nearly invincible BMPTs, how else should players interpret that?
You guys are going to add it regardless so feedback-wise, I guess don’t? Or give us HARMs.
We’ve never added vehicles or technology purely on the basis of what year they came from. So its not clear what comparison you are trying to draw here.
Simply because two vehicles came out in the same year, does not mean their technical capabilities are the same from a game / gameplay perspective.
When we add the Leopard 2PL in 2021, it had been in service not even a full year. That didn’t mean every other nation got a 2020/21 tank at the same time as a result. So the same applies here.
SCALP for example is a 250km + Cruise Missile with a complex seeker and warhead. It has nothing to do with the age of the weapon or vehicle. But the capabilities they have.
Similarly Anti-Radiation missiles have nothing to do with that time period they were from. They are an entirely new type of weaponry that is not present in game yet. This is simply a new SPAA platform.
This has nothing to do with “bias”. We have had periods of the game where multiple different nations have had the most “modern” vehicle at the time in terms of age. I don’t recall you speaking up then in those cases. But suddenly now its Russian bias.
Multiple nations have effective top tier SAMs and SPAAs. This new one coming to Russia does not suddenly change the entirely landscape and require HARMS yesterday as a result. Vehicles from different ages have always been featured at top tier. Thats not exclusive or unique to Russia.
As ive already mentioned to you, we have already said anti-radiation missiles are within our plans for consideration in the future. BVV mentioned this within the Q&A. However they are not coming this update. This SPAA is not drastically different from those already featured in game in terms of performance, and does not directly mean Anti-radiation missiles are required exactly at the same time it joins the game. They were never conditional on being added with a single SAM system. Such a comparison is entirely out of proportion. They are an entirely new system and feature.
Hello, yes the bug report was initially passed to the devs but later changed to not a bug. While exact numbers won’t be possible for an in service weapon the documents I posted here mention that it has improved Hobs capability over the charlie model.
I posted to bring attention to this fact as the moderators commented in the bug report that 120c and d have same aerodynamics characteristics
@Smin1080p_WT Anything on whether the F15E will receive the AESA radar and GBU 53 as there is ample evidence that it has those? Or even possibly the AGM 187 of which there’s pictures of the plane with that missile on it. GBU 53 based on its capabilities could act in game exactly as the spice 250 and AGM 187 could act exactly like a brimstone. Thank you.
I’m sorry for bringing this report up again, but, since we are in the more direct communication phase with the devs… is there a way to have them even acknowledge the existence of this issue?
After 5 long years and several reports, I just don’t know what else we can possibly do to have this fixed.
I wouldn’t insist so much if it weren’t because it’s been such a long time… it’s so long overdue!
It really is a quite simple issue to fix, which even YouTubers have already done just to showcase it; therefore it is beginning to appear as if it was an intentional manipulation of the vehicle’s performance for whatever reason. It is difficult to believe such an issue would go unnoticed or remain unsolved for so many years and after so many reports.
Smin, can we pls never launch a Dev on a Monday again?
As most of the Mods who forward the report are at work or busy with other stuff, it looks like barely any reports are getting forwarded compared to a normal Dev Server on a weekend