I would still expect meteor to maneuver worse than amraam just based off being heavier.
Like how r-67-1 maneuvers worse than standard r-77 because it’s heavier
Isn’t this a faulty assumption that the Meteor would be modeled as an AIM-120 variant and not its own new missile? AAM-4 is heavier than both AIM-120D and Meteor in-game yet is not modeled as being worse at maneuvering than the AIM-120s.
R-77-1 being a heavier version of R-77 makes sense.
AIM-120D being a heavier version of AIM-120A makes sense.
Meteor being a heavier version of AIM-120 doesn’t make any sense to me.
6 Likes
Honestly, not sure this is how it works. AMRAAM is a special case where it’s doomed by a document that stated it has 15 degree fin AoA.
That means so long as the Meteor is modeled with fairly standard “default” values, like the original AIM-120s, it can automatically outperform it from the start.
3 Likes
Different design on the Meteor, so I also sincerely expect a different, and remade, performance compared to the amraam.
2 Likes
multipath is already ingame that excuse doesnt run
meteor is a clean slate design, r-77-1 is an upgrade to an existing missile. i think its a bit of eh comparison personally
1 Like
Yeah uh, why is a gamble mechanic relevant here?
Multipath just puts you at a disadvantage…
1 Like
it allows for braindead gameplay, and it rewards it more often than not. sure its a gamble, a gamble with overly good odds
arb isnt a 1v1, multipath is bad in most 1v1 scenarios but in 16v16 it just allows people to play like crap and survive when they shouldnt
multipath is ez to do, but also easy to counter.
High missile counts promote stuff like MCM, which is just as easy to do yet significantly more devastating and annoying/hard to counter
2 Likes
you dont counter multipath though, you fly over them and hope your missiles connect or just try to close the gap(again dubious in 16v16) to get in range for a fox 2.
Meteor control surfaces are pretty much identical (compared to the rest of its body) to the AIM-120B’s fins, it’s only the clipped wing design for the F-35 that makes it appear smaller.
It also turns differently from most MRAMS. Over distance it doesn’t turn like AMRAAM/most missiles do currently, it turns more like a plane, to conserve energy and when it’s about to impact then it turns like “normal” to use as much overload as possible to ensure a hit. (Though to keep it simple, its turning performance is likely in between AIM-120B and C-5, so nothing crazy or unexpected)
The Meteor is limited to battery if I had to guess. 200 km is widely stated but it could easily do an additional ~50 km unpowered (it doesn’t have infinite fuel after all, even if it flew on an “endurance” setting it’ll run out eventually), so expect its stat card ingame to state between 200-250 km maximum range
It also shares ARH seeker based on the AD4A (MICA EM), so “notchable”, yes, but then you remember Eurofighter Captor E exists to maintain lock, something the Rafale can’t really do (and still, the MICA is difficult to evade at range).
Obviously anyone using the Meteor WVR is… special lol. It would be better/preferable to just use AIM-120B or MICA EM or any one of the busted IIR missiles.
EDIT: about its turn performance, there will probably be a massive guidance delay compared to AMRAAM to simulate that it in fact cannot turn on a dime off the rail
1 Like
Does maintaining a lock even do anything once missile goes into pitbull?
Whenever I fire AMRAAM and keep lock on the target under 19km and the player starts notching, my missile gets notched and keeping a lock does nothing, however 120D does sometime relock
1 Like
This is definetly the core thing to remember here. Meteor isnt great at WVR because it entered service more than a decade after missiles designed to dominate WVR
1 Like
It doesn’t hurt to maintain the lock, even if it’s gone active, it can sometimes help
it’s a bit iffy ingame rn but the general idea is the missile doesn’t stop receiving DL updates, at all.
Two way datalink baby.
(But also, it helps when the missile doesn’t drift off to narnia when it loses lock, so it’s probably 0 IOG drift (which the Meteor doesn’t or won’t have since it doesn’t have GPS) more than two way datalink)
Anyways, we’re drifting off the topic:
What will save America top tier is either:
- AIM-174B of which you can only carry 4; or
- AIM-260, of which we know next to nothing about except the dual pulse propulsion it’ll have
- At an extreme minimum, F-15EX with 12-16 AIM-120D-3 (move aside, Su-30SM/SM2, it’s USA’s turn to delete your entire missile load and still have missiles left over)
(Tbh, they’re doing ok even with just the F-15C GE. I just wish the weirdos stopped shooting down missiles in sim (and recently RB) )
This topic has drifted off topic alot of times now
How would 120D-3 help?
Yeah on the slow as hell fa18e which is useless
1 Like
Yep. and I think they were pre-Aim-120Ds as well.
Meta, no. But perfectly competitive. (though to most US mains, not being meta usually means that they think they are DOA)
1 Like
Honestly? No idea, but I’m hoping for something similar to R-77 → R-77-1
Going on starshark, giving AIM-120D AIM-120B thrust while keeping the 7.75 second (though really we have no idea what changed besides software or smaller electronics, FUUUU vague post Raytheon) and it has much better flight performance for BVR
Again, this is just me coping. It probably won’t happen and the best we can hope for is either a slightly higher impulse or slightly longer burn time
F-14A IRIAF is also slow and the Fakour can still whack people from 70 km away
I’d like to think RIM-174 based missile >>>> Hawk based missile
1 Like
Is the dual-pulse actually even known?