Probably not much longer if MICA NG and Meteor are denied since they’re not in the same class as AIM-120D. That leaves only one alternative as a stopgap until next-gen radar missiles make their way into the game.
Typhoon could use Aim120D, may need software update. but no nation has chosen it over Meteor
MICA should have it’s range increased would change how the Rafale is played.
Well is AIM-120C-8 a D equivalent? I haven’t seen sources stating that. I’m curious what will happen with Eurofighter because it doesn’t actually have any next-gen missile besides Meteor. Rafale can get mica ng em and meteor, US can get aim-260 and aim-174b, Russia can get r-77m and r-37m, China can get PL-15 and PL-17, So this leaves me wondering how theyll approach the balancing aspect when taking Eurofighter into account.
That’s easy, the same approach they have taken over the past year or so when it comes to the many bug reports left pending, some quite major.
What Typhoon?
With current map sizes we are not ready for any of those mentioned missiles and you would argue the 120D and PL-12 already push that.
Perhaps they go down the route of IIR missiles for Typhoon and Rafale? Adding IRIS-T, 9X, MICA IR or ASRAAM would be possible. Although shorter ranges would make for very unfun gameplay for anyone of the receiving end of them.
Alternatively they will need to bodge something, because Typhoon and Rafale have never used a 120D.
Which means a massively diluted Meteor and MICA because with real world performance they would dominate.
I do hope they go down the route of next gen IIR missiles next. That’s the next decision that’s also the most fair to everyone
1 Like
I find it bewildering that they still botched the HUD
All but Russia who do not operate an IIR missile, with the R-74M not considered a true IIR missile.
Yeah… something as relatively minor and surely easy to fix has not yet been fixed, even after a second generation of the airframe was added.
Dont forget the UV filter too.
Larger issues such as those relating to FM, BOL or even larger aesthetic issues… I just have no hope in seeing fixed anytime soon. With them moving on to Aim-120Ds, I also have lost most of my hope of ever see B/C5s modeled in a half healthy state either.
1 Like
Unfortunately everyone will have their seekers nerfed down to Russia’s level with dual irccm instead.
1 Like
or… Dual-mode will inexplictly be better than IIR
Well we have “IIR” ingame already and they’re all already nerfed down to dual irccm unfortunately, including aim-9X, Python 5, iris-t, and etc.
But don’t be surprised if r-74m2 which has datalink ends up being more resistant to flares because of said datalink preventing it from seeing flares over western IIR missiles that lack datalink.
1 Like
Imagine if they added F-22 with HMD, 9M and 120D (as the plane they are talking about to add in next update) without it’s stealth and say stealth would be given to it when other 5th gen are added.
Again, by the same logic, there is no reason to research anything but the best plane / tank / ship in a single tree. It also means if we were to follow this logic, we cant add anything else to Germany, Italy or the UK at 14.3-14.7 because “they already have the Eurofighter”.
People want to have choice. The RAAF Superhornet was also a frequent request as soon as we added the other commonwealth Hornets. There was no reason to withhold a new variant of the aircraft from the game, when it had a perfect home.
If its not something that interests you, thats ok. But others do want this aircraft. Regardless of the Eurofighter.
8 Likes
Datalink for IR missiles works exactly the same way as for ARH - it only updates IOG of the missile, is ignored when seeker picks up anything in IOG indicated area.
“IIR” missiles also currently fly on very wide FoV (5 degrees, R60 kind) before they get a lock and switch to 0.25, which makes them extremely vulnerable to preflaring. At the same time, baseline lock range value is 9km for current IIRs, while IOG lets you do “BVR” with them.
For now yeah that’s how it works. For now
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/blfh9aGDg3GQ
“Accepted” only means bug report went through initial screening, doesn’t guarantee it will be actually acted upon.
Though it should be doable-ish by forcing seeker into IOG proper when angle gating (ARH) or tracking suspension (IR) engages, instead this random moment where angle gating sometimes switches to IOG proper, sometimes keeps track of chaff BUT missile continues to follow last known trajectory.
That wouldn’t be acceptable if they implemented it that way, it’s either trk+ dl or not. Datalink while tracking would allow the next-gen ir missile to both simultaneously ignore chaff and flares since dl does not see flares and ir seeker doesn’t see chaff, only way to defeat it theoretically would be notching the dl while also flaring.
And yet Gaijin went out of their way to develop and introduce combined tracking suspension and gatewidth for dual band and then IIR missiles, instead just dialing down “flare sensitivity” to zero. As if they are trying to maintain semblance of playability instead
These are all good arguments, but playing devil’s advocate, I can understand why some players might feel a degree of frustration with the SH’s capabilities compared to other aircraft at similar battle ratings, particularly given its lack of comparable ordnance options.
Granted the SH was never going to be an amazing Air-to-Air platform, but it would be a decent Air-to-Ground platform if it benefited from things like the SDB-II or the SLAM/SLAM-ER which would place it on par with the EFTs, Gripens and Su-30s in terms of ground capability which is where the Super Hornets should shine.
It’s just a shame to be stuck with AGM-65s when Brimstones, AASMs and KH-38s are falling out of the sky.