And? The missiles were still worse than the pre-nerf AMRAAM by a good margin
Prenerf amraam only existed for like a month or 2, it wasn’t that insane. And pl-12s since then have been much better
1 Like
In that time PL-12s have remained inferior at relevant ranges than MICA, and now R-77-1s
They’re good missiles but my point is that they’ve never been OP or exaggerated, and neither will the PL-15 by nature of Gaijin, thus disproving @mrkrabbypatty’s claim
1 Like
i think the point is that Gaijin will take more dubious sources for Russian and Chinese stuff, when for NATO you have to have overwhelming proof something is wrong.
6 Likes
i have recently found this news release stating that the AIM-120C-5 has high off-boresight capability through an upgraded software package.
3 Likes
Do the bug report
that means nothing to gaijin
1 Like
yeah it wont mean anything to them but its atleast 1 more source that says it has the capability
1 Like
Gaijin is the same company that refuses to use essm sources to bug report the amraam er, the same company which uses the limitations on the igla missile to keep stinger and mistal nerfed(without even modelling it’s bang bang guidance)
4 Likes
They wouldnt care unless there are specific values
2 Likes
If the aim-120-c5 has high off boresight capability doesn’t that mean the missile starts tracking BEFORE it leaves the rail?
Ahem,
- MICA will never be matched WVR by another ARH missile strictly because of its thrust vectoring (even if the seeker wasn’t fixed)
- MICA is widely known to have a better seeker than its counterparts (including most if not all AMRAAM variants), so the expectation that the less capable AMRAAM should have the same (or nearly the same) seeker performance with 0 proof is quite laughable
- It’s also equally hilarious that a missile with smaller fins somehow outmanoeuvres earlier variant(s) with bigger fins. That being said, A/B variants getting buffed (or reverting the out of nowhere nerf) in the fin AoA department would be welcome
Cough r-77 cough
3 Likes
R-77 needs to get up to speed before it can pull hard. MICA doesn’t need to “pull” hard as its thrusters just point the missile
Irl it doesn’t need to get up to speed. I already put in a bug report for that that’s been sitting on accepted for like a month now
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/t87egJpsGQUk
2 Likes
watch it fall into the box of its close enough after sitting as accepted for two months like the f15 flight model buff lol.
also
1 Like
more joking about the entire patent, to be fair they should use this to fix it even though I hate the R77-1 being better overall than the amraam them boosting it might mean with two strong missiles they will have to buff others such as the PL12’s and AMRAAMs
1 Like
From the AIM-120 thread, apparently the reason why the clipped wings on AIM-120C allowed higher agility is because the modified booster and rearranged internals allowed them to make the missile very unstable when fully fueled and more stable when empty. Which kinda makes sense, you’ll need less wing area to make an unstable missile point one way compared to a stable design. Gaijin, of course; does not care for this justification unless it’s spelled out for them on declassified docs (not coming until 2050, probably).
7 Likes
If you go by patents the AIM-120C has higher structural control due to the radome being integrated into the structure itself and the digital guidance of the WGU-44/b and allows for updating the software specifically for better seeker performance and terminal guidance. The B’s WGU-41/B allows this too. The A does not.
1 Like