Dude. It’s getting the later missiles due to balancing.
Late Falcons are already near useless on the F-106
1 Like
The “lack of guns” mention in multiple places is suspicious.
3 Likes
that was not Gaijin’s statement. Gaijin is giving it the Super Falcons under their flawed idea that it could use them. Theres no evidence to say that it can. its not a balancing reason
2 Likes
It does have guns tho? Also I’m pretty sure it physically can’t have 6 AIM-4G/F
This is a misconception. It has nothing to do with balancing.
Here are some write-ups by other people in the F-102A/AIM-4 thread.
Can we stop pushing the “Super Falcon > Falcon” myth for once?
The AIM-4G/-4F is actually worse than the others, but nobody is bothering to do any educated research.
6 Likes
not hunting any bears with this bomber damage model (the missile in this video has more than double the TNT of the F-102’s all 6 missiles combined)
1 Like
This aircraft has a very pressing need for a missile that was actually designed for use on the aircraft, like, in a literal sense, the AIM-4G is designed for high speed platforms. The F-102 is not a high (enough) speed platform and will not be able to use them like it would the earlier versions of the AIM-4 (A, C, D)
2 Likes
This is imho a plain false propaganda narrative:
A short reminder of basic aviation knowledge: The Ju 287 (flown in 1944) was designed and built with the area rule already applied — Otto Frenzl’s 1943–44 work and patent at Junkers made that possible. The widely spaced engines were a direct result of managing the cross-section.
US engineers then spent years ignoring the captured German research, produced an F-102 that could not break the sound barrier in level flight, and only fixed it after Whitcomb “reinvented” what had already been patented and flight-tested in Nazi-Germany. Classic case of seized patents meeting slow learners.
2 Likes
I’m genuinely curious if the falcons are still effective against bombers with these revamped damage models because of the lack of proxy fuse. The tiny warhead in the aim-4 falcon was enough to take down a b-17 btw.
2 Likes
If it ends up not getting anything hope it gets a lower rating
Would be quite the quirky plane flying around super fast looking for noticeably slow targets
Nevermind the F-106A which looks incredibly similar, especially at range.
They are not
This B-29 took two and kept flying like nothing happened
1 Like
Well that just confirms the damage model is a bit overtuned/overpressure damage from bombs has a smaller radius than it should be (hole in the fuselage too small).
3 Likes
Oh damage models are way overtuned. Those test flight B-29s eat just about everything if it doesn’t hit the pilot basically.
The only weapon I have found to RELIABLY kill them is a Kh38MT, which has ~150kg HE and is contact fused lol
AGM-65G also works pretty well for me
I didn’t even try AGM65s since they guide so poorly lol
on the first dev i had a Do 217 eat 8 and still keep flying
it later crashed due to having too much drag to stay aloft
1 Like
had that issue as well when shooting directly rear aspect
since they are trying to hit some specific module in the bombers and then just miss
but when they hit they one shot the bombers in the test drive
i think the difference in damage between the Aim-54 and AGM-65 is due to the Maverick having a contact fuze
1 Like
Even so, the Phoenix doesn’t struggle at shooting anything else down (or any of the other missiles when getting a hit on such an easy target). These bombers’ structural strength is way overtuned.