Top-Tier Jet Balance: AIM-120, PL-12, and the Current Meta

Since the introduction of the Rafale and the Eurofighter into the game, top-tier US jets have been on a continuous downward trend in terms of effectiveness. In the upcoming version, they are reaching their weakest and most frustrating state so far.
The core issue lies in the excessively poor manoeuvrability of the AIM-120 missile.

Compared to the AIM-120A, the AIM-120C-5 — despite being a second-batch missile added to the game (around the same time as the R-77-1) — shows virtually no real improvement. Its close-range manoeuvrability is even worse, its thrust-to-weight ratio is extremely poor, and its acceleration is very weak. All this is traded for only a minor reduction in drag. As a result, I believe that 99% of players would choose the AIM-120A/B over the AIM-120C-5 without hesitation.

Could we consider improving the AIM-120 series in order to restore a reasonable gameplay experience for US top-tier jets?
Below are my personal observations and experience:

When Fox-3 missiles were first introduced into War Thunder, the AIM-120A was indeed overpowered and severely disrupted game balance. That situation was unhealthy, and I fully supported the first nerf to the AIM-120, particularly the correction of its unrealistically low drag values.

However, the second nerf — specifically the reduction of tail control surface angle of attack — was, in my opinion, excessive. That said, given the 13.7 BR environment at the time, it was still acceptable and did not cause major issues.

The real problem emerged after the introduction of the Rafale, Eurofighter, and Su-30SM. At that point, the AIM-120 simply could not compete anymore. Chinese aircraft face a similar situation, but thanks to the strong performance of the PL-12, good carrier platforms, and BR placement, their gameplay experience remains relatively solid. They can still pose a threat to 14.3 aircraft through constant transitions between defence and offence.

US aircraft equipped with AIM-120 missiles, however, are in a completely different situation. Due to game mechanics, the AIM-120’s energy retention advantage cannot be properly utilised. Long-range launches almost never hit, while at close range the missile’s low tail AoA prevents it from posing a real threat to modern high-performance fighters.

Furthermore, the drag values assigned to the AIM-120C-5 are far too conservative. For comparison, the Soviet R-77-1 received a 0.05 reduction in drag coefficient (Cxk) without even undergoing a significant redesign, while the AIM-120C-5 only received a 0.025 improvement. This is difficult to justify. Additionally, the AIM-120C-5 suffers from questionable overload limits, lack of a smokeless motor, and an extremely poor thrust-to-weight ratio, all of which prevent it from adapting to the current game environment.

### My proposed improvements are as follows:

1. Increase the drag coefficient improvement of the AIM-120C-5 to reduce energy loss in flight.

2. Improve the overload capability of the AIM-120A/B/C-5. Despite the reduced wing area on the C-5, its altered wing layout and moment characteristics should not result in worse manoeuvrability than the A/B variants.

3. Consider giving the AIM-120C-5 a smokeless motor.

4. Consider improving the AIM-120C-5’s counter-countermeasure resistance (FOV, velocity gate, angle gate, etc.).

5. Increase the AIM-120C-5’s speed and acceleration; a thrust-to-weight ratio of 9.7 is simply too weak.

In my opinion, implementing any three of these changes would already significantly improve the AIM-120’s situation and allow it to compete with missiles such as the R-77-1 and MICA.
Applying four or more of these buffs would likely make the AIM-120 too strong and harm overall balance.

I do not want US aircraft to become overpowered. However, in the current state, the performance of top-tier US jets is simply unacceptable.

In comparison to aircraft such as the Su-30SM2, Rafale, and Eurofighter (AESA variants), the J-10C itself lacks the raw platform performance to compete on equal terms. Therefore, in order for the J-10C to remain viable in the top-tier environment, it should be equipped with more capable missiles — such as the PL-12A — to compensate for this inherent performance gap and adapt to the evolving top-tier meta.

18 Likes

Just stop playing US and move on to other nation or playing lower br such as 12.3 to 13.0. AMRAAMS might take forever to be fixed like most other stuff. That is what i am doing

@Smin1080p_WT

not a bug

3 Likes

Just wait till GJN in his wisdom implements new mechanic like real shatter on guns/cannons, to turn it all upside down.

1 Like

While I do think C-5s should be fixed because currently they are effectively useless, keep in mind that all of BLUFOR beside france and japan uses C-5s.

Ergo buff to C-5s will indirectly buff Eurofighter.

Not that I would complain but

I know,maybe gaijin can give usaf aim120c7 to keep balance,but i can’t see he wants to change

Strongly agree.The current air combat environment is extremely harsh. The gap between top-tier aircraft of the same weight class is as vast as that between humans and dogs. The Rafale fighter jet has been invincible for a year, and balance has yet to be achieved

There is no difference between c7 and c5 except that the battery is larger

C-7 has a 5 inch longer motor.

https://www.acc.af.mil/Portals/92/Docs/Fact%20Sheets%20-%202020%20Update/Facts%20Sheets%202022%20Final/AIM-120_final.pdf?ver=RWnAtEYmQ2B5EzHUKtk12A%3D%3D

In game its copy paste, but it shouldn’t be.

its fake, I don’t know who is spreading this news. The speed increment of C7 is much higher than that of C5.

Isn’t the drag between the two minimal because of the clipped fins anyway?

Doubt the maximum overload will be increased, fin AoA however…

Should be a no-brainer, it’s even been reported already

Aaaaaand right here is where you’ll meet the most resistance. One of the seeker improvements to the C-5 was just ECCM capabilities, nothing else like what you’re suggesting. It won’t be apparent yet until electronic countermeasures (and likewise, home-on jamming) are implemented.

Also? Your radar doesn’t see chaff, so maintain lock as long as you can before breaking off and you’ll find more success (if not more danger by staying hot longer).

A bold suggestion, however the C-5 already has a Mach 4.4 top speed and its acceleration is fine tuned for longer ranged shots ie it’s going to accelerate gradually instead of all at once and then coast like previous AIM-120 variants. Lastly, if you have evidence of it having a higher twr of 9.7 then do bug report it

1 Like

I’m not sure about the drag, however I’m pretty confident the C-5’s motor is true to real life. 15000-16000 N for 8ish seconds seems like the conclusion of most educated guesses i’ve seen. I believe the C-5 would be a perfectly balanced missile in current meta if it just had the same stats it had on the first dev server before it got nerfed. Guidance delay down to 0.3s like most other fox-3s from its current 0.6s (same as 120A/B), as well as increasing its fin AOA would greatly improve HOBS capability, allow it to pull its full 35 Gs and even outperform the 120A/B which it is supposed to in real life. Give it back its aggressive loft for greater speed at long range and 7 degree angle of half sensitivity like the MICA to make it what the C5 is intended to be; a long range poking stick with improved processing, ECCM, range and HOBS capability over the 120A/B. Obviously it would turn nowhere near as well as a 77-1 or MICA still giving it a disadvantage at close range, but it would make the C-5 much more competitive than the A/B in the <20km fox-3 joust every match turns into and make it feel more like a REAL upgrade rather than “yeah it’s kinda less shitty past 20km”. Not like it’s going to happen anytime soon but just my wishes if I could play god for a day.

the aim120c5 speed low then aim120a,the paper data is fake.The AIM120C5 is difficult to exceed a speed of 4.1 Mach. if your speed low than1.2 mach, the missle will let you know what is shit

And based on what information would prove the C-5 could get this?

It’s slower to accelerate, yes. But its end top speed is still higher than A/B. Most people use it at or under 20 km so it is very noticeable. Unless you are firing from F-15E or Eurofighter up high you won’t be able to get it up to that Mach 4.4 speed

1 to 4 yes. 5 I think is actually currently correct

Actually supposed to be ±6 degrees, not 7 like MICA but was originally 7 on the dev.

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

Im fairly certain AIm-120 should be able to do 35G, but in-game its capped to 32G. Not a major increase but its something

yeah its fake

they are 100% copy and paste in game, with the same battery life

This is a mistake. C-5 already adds 5 inch longer motor. C-7 apparently retains the same motor.