Thoughts on the new ARH flight models?

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
1

This post is meant spark discussion/give a place for comment about the changes done to the modern ARH missiles (excluding the r-darter and derby as they have not been changed yet) i am going to include some poles for fun below!

Here are the changes:

  • AIM-120A, AIM-120B, AIM-120C-5, AIM-120D AAMs — missile Flight Model has been updated. Masses, air resistance and engine thrust values have been corrected. Source: FLS: Luft-Luft Lenkwaffe AMRAAM Teil 2 1986-1994.
  • AIM-120A, AIM-120B AAMs — explosive mass has been decreased from 7.67 kg to 6.67 kg. (Report).
  • AIM-120C (all variants), AIM-120D AAMs — explosive mass has been decreased from 8.62 kg to 7.17 kg. (Report).
  • AIM-120 (all variants), R-77, R-77-1, PL-12, PL-12A, AAM-4, MICA-EM AAMs — trim angles of attack have been significantly increased, available overload at low Mach numbers has been increased. The autopilot parameters have been adjusted and the frontal drag has been corrected. (Report, Report, Report, Report, Report, Report).
  • R-77, RVV-AE AAMs — missile mass has been decreased from 177 kg to 175 kg. (Report).
  • MICA-EM AAM — the motor type has been changed from two stage to single stage motor, the parameters of the rocket motor have been adjusted. (Report). The maximum launch range has been increased from 50 km to 80 km. (Report). Missile diameter has been decreased from 165 mm to 160 mm. (Report).

are the FM changes overall good or bad in your opinion?

  • Good
  • Bad
0 voters

Do you feel the aoa none TVR missiles are pulling right now is to much (r-77-1 at aprox 90 degrees)?

  • yes
  • no
0 voters

Do you think the devs should dail the manuverability back to a middle ground between this uptade and the last update while keeping the the relitive performace from this patch?

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

finally pls keep the discution civil.

2

Until they fix the bugs and the massive amount of instability with the new missile FMs (more than half my C5s I tried firing just randomly flipped out)

There is no point even having this discussion. I literally cant give an opinion or whether its a good change or not.

1 Like
3

There’s no way they’re staying like this.

4

I don’t know how the performance will change in the long run but I know damn well no matter what people are going to say this is a massive buff for R-77s and a massive nerf for AIM-120s

5

Mica needs to lose every seeker buff it has or every other missile needs to get it

1 Like
6

Why? Missiles should have realistic seekers just like how they have realistic flight models.

7

They just need to make sure every missile is still within the boundaries of realistic performance.

They should also make sure to rework thrust-vectoring and missile instability without compromising the maneuverability.

8

i mean there has been a report on the aim-120 for that for over a year and ECCM is not in the game so thing like the r-77-1 aim-120b/c/d and pl12a do not have good seekers as compares to irl at least.

9

Yeah they should. Only when that happens to all missiles. Unlike what happened with the mica

10

I think the report made by Fireball was very recently closed.

The seeker performance one I mean.

1 Like
11

Except they came back to reject the report with realistic sources and showed the images of the current AIM-120’s beamwidth in those documents. You can read it here: Community Bug Reporting System

12

Except both MICA and AIM-120s DO have their realistic beamwidth: Community Bug Reporting System

13

gajin did rocket science for this update…

2 Likes
14

problem is they do not have ECCM as they should so there seekers are not realistic same for the mica tbh but point being the mica is the only missile with any form of higher chaff resistance.

15

My guy, ECCM isn’t here and small beamwidth doesn’t qualify as ECCM afaik.

Also Fakour and AIM-54 have an even smaller realistic beamwidth than the MICA. I don’t see anyone complaining about that.

16

i never said it was eccm i said higher chaff resistance

17

Just because it got a more realistic beamwidth doesn’t mean anything else besides it has realistic beamwidth that comes with downsides and upsides.

I could argue that the mica having lower beamwidth also means it can fail to lock onto targets at longer ranges who relocated elsewhere on the battlefield.

18

I prefer not to guess performance but to go realistic.

Numbers please.

19

Its an improvement but it’s definitely overturned, which is a much healthier state than before. Although I’ve only had the change to test drive no matches yet

1 Like
20

AIM-120s also have angle-gating which gives it more chaff resistance over the AIM-54, should it be removed?