Now waiting for 7P.
3 Likes
i don’t think they are coming, chief. At least with DL capability, IOG only at best
Sadly :(
I’ll wait for them to fix 54.
Enough with cherry picking. Or make more realistic 54s , or nerf 27s the same way. It can’t giving 35 G (dual plane value) for single plane R27 , but 17G for 54 “because 25 is dual plane” .At least the 54C version.
If anything 54A if they buff it to 25G , needs other nerfs (realistically) anyway.
So if they can’t figure it out, let it 17. Unrealistic , but with the realistic nerfs it would have as much as reduced effectiveness anyway.
4 Likes
AIM-54C should be a shoot down ALL ASPECT its use a digital computer.
And AIM-54C+ can shoot down allaspect too.
3 Likes
https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html
This about AIM-54C+
AIM-54C in game speed are uncorrecly too.
I think fixing guidance and speed by make it correct to Mach 5 are what they suppose to do now.
https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/12701
13 Likes
I mean yeah. Export restricted is still illegal to post on the internet, aka, export to literally the ENTIRE WORLD lol. I heard someone say it was already previously leaked elsewhere and findable via a google search though.
Theirs a lot of Export restricted stuff that’s posted on google that anyone can find
Spoiler
Oh yeah, I was just asking a silly question. I knew broski is gone for good.
I think perhaps it’s wiser to just specify it as AIM-7MH with IOG capability in a new bug report. At least it’s something different from the AIM-7M.
So the volunteers don’t skim and shut down any bug reports with “AIM-7P” in their title.
1 Like
Except that its literally AIM-7P programmed with AIM-7MH lofting and P’s baseline IOG capability.
2 Likes
This is how bug report managers often work. Look at Su-27 insufficient lift report. Every time Su-27 was brought up it was denied because source was about J-11 (which is just slightly heavier Su-27 for export). But once people made bug report about J-11 it was accepted and every Su-27 airframe was affected by it regardless of classification
But then you would have to prove AIM-7MH capability on F-14D aswell
This is the way. You either cope with it or get nothing. You have to play by gaijin rules if you want changes or not play at all
Waiting for tech tree 14D.
1 Like
I can not find any reliable sources that include the keyword “AIM-7MH.” However, the missile with the lofting and HoJ capabilities is referred to as the “AIM-7M (H-build),” according to this source:
The issue is, this source is a paper thesis by a student with a Master of Science Degree from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in May 1992. Obviously, this source won’t be accepted for the bug report. He graduated from the US Navy Fighter Weapons School, TOPGUN, in the 1980s. The source he cited is this.
Maybe we can also find something useful from this source, but it’s before the F-14D was accepted into operational service in 1992, so it may not be helpful for the F-14D.
2 Likes
and thats AIM-7MH
3 Likes
I know.
I’m just saying that it’s odd there are no other sources that refer to it by that designation.
Budget, transportation, and research documents consistently use the designation “AIM-7M H-build.” I have yet to come across any recently declassified flight manuals that refer to it as the “AIM-7MH.” They either simplified it to the “AIM-7M” or stated “AIM-7M (H-build).”