It seems to me that everyone has stopped caring about the AIM-120’s lack of within-visual-range performance. I understand that when these “nerfs” were originally implemented, they were fair at the time, the AIM-120 was vastly outperforming everything else in range and was carried by some of the most capable platforms in the game, mainly the F-15.
What I don’t understand is why, after the addition of the Eurofighter, Rafale, and Su-30 with the R-77-1, we still haven’t seen any improvements to the AIM-120’s WVR performance.
I believe the AIM-120 should be buffed for several reasons:
1. General Balance
Compared to the R-77-1 and MICA, the AIM-120 is noticeably weaker in WVR performance. The R-77-1 is only found on one aircraft in one nation each, and the MICA is found on two airframes and two nations. giving players with these airframes an unfair advantage over everyone else.
In contrast, the AMRAAM is the most common Fox-3 missile at top tier, being found in every country except Russia. Improving its WVR performance would make top-tier gameplay more fair for players who cannot spend the time or money to grind Russia, China or France.
2. Realism (Within Reason)
I also think the AIM-120 should be buffed because its current behavior does not appear to be very close to real-world performance. I’m putting this second because I understand that full realism would break the game, but pursuing reasonable realism that doesn’t break balance should be acceptable especially since the AMRAAM is underperforming in areas where it historically should be better.
3. Air RB Gameplay Dynamics
In Air RB, BVR is not a reliable tactic for getting kills. Whether this is due to the fact that Fox-3s are laughably easy to notch even more so than older Fox-1 missiles (especially ones with IOG and DL) or because of multipathing, long-range performance doesn’t matter much. This puts the AIM-120 at a disadvantage, because while the C-5 may be extremely strong at long range, it is the weakest Fox-3 in the game during WVR engagements. For this reason alone, I think it’s long overdue for the AIM-120 to receive improved close-range performance.
Addressing Counterarguments
1. “This would buff the Eurofighter too much.”
I understand this concern, but even with a buff, the Eurofighter would still be worse than the Rafale in WVR, as nothing is going to beat the MICA’s WVR performance.
Additionally, because the Eurofighter is present in three different nations, its buff would not create the same level of one-sidedness that, for example, buffing the Rafale for the thousandth time would. You’re very likely to see Eurofighters on both teams, so the impact would be far more balanced.
2. “Where’s the evidence for better WVR performance?”
While I cannot find definitive documentation about the exact fin AOA limits, there are multiple statements indicating that the AIM-120 is more maneuverable than the AIM-7M.
Currently, in the game the AIM-7M pulls harder off the rail than the AIM-120, which contradicts these statements. I also have a video showing an AMRAAM pulling immediately after leaving the rail, which at the very least supports reducing the current 0.6-second guidance delay back to 0.3 seconds matching other Fox-3s if not lowering it further.
3. “The seeker head isn’t upgraded.”
I’m not going to argue about the seeker head differences between B, C, and A variants. Gaijin has made their stance clear: they do not consider the B or C to have an upgraded radar seeker until ECCM is added. Because of that, I’m not including seeker performance in my argument.
pull vid 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgMMC6PxE2U 0:21
pull vid 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPV81wD3nwM 0:37
Article 1: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/weapons-platforms/aim-120/
Article 2: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196742/hughes-aim-120-amraam/#:~:text=The%20AIM-120%20Advanced%20Medium,operational%20effectiveness%20over%20the%20Sparrow
Article 3: https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/AMRAAM
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
