It’s not that much heavier after the burn out.
Plus, the weight is already taken into account by the game engine in terms of how many Gs it can actually pull aerodynamically at any given time. So there is no reason to impose additional G limitations in the guidance section. (In the game Phoenix guidance unit is limited to 17G while Fakour is limited to 15G, the same as MIM-23B)
Plus, faster doesn’t mean less Gs, it means it can pull more Gs …
No, source: common sense, which seems to be hard to come by these days …
common sense is flawed and easily tricked, thats why we need sources
And I gave you the source: New seeker and guidance section
There is no reason to think that the seeker and guidance section from 2010s would be worse than a seeker and guidance section from 60s …
thr guidance section Isn’t the problem, the Aerodynamic design of the phoenix is
No, in fact the guidance section is the problem, because we are not talking about how much it would be able to aerodynamically pull at any given time … The aerodynamic design is of course still the same as the Phoenix.
We are talking about the overload limitation that is imposed by the guidance section (which is set to 17G for the AIM-54 and 15G for Fakour in the game, and they took that 15G number from the MIM-23B which was limited to 15G IRL)
fxxk90 missile
After 5 seconds of boost, the speed reaches Mach 3.97
The rocket reached Mach 4.08 after the propellant was exhausted.
A terrifying missile
I think giving Fakour-90, 15G overload (which is the max load factor of the MIM-23B Hawk) instead of AIM-54’s 17G/25G is unwarranted.
Even Iranian Hawk SAM missiles (Shalamcheh) no longer use the guidance section of the original MIM-23B:
And other Iranian SAM missiles such as Taer-2 also use similarly “modern” seekers and guidance sections that are very different from MIM-23B:
For comparison, this is the original Hawk seeker:
So there is no reason to think that the Fakour-90 with a completely different and much more modern seeker and guidance section, would have the same overload limitation as the original MIM-23B …
Common sense would be that they would try to at least match AIM-54’s overload capability (or surpass it, if it’s supposed to be any use against more modern threats than what AIM-54 was intended for).
Also according to the statement on the IRIB (official broadcast agency) news channel “It’s significantly improved over the Phoenix”.
00:17 to 00:24 in this clip:
So how is it “significantly improved over the Phoenix” if it has worse max load factor than the Phoenix …
Also according to the statement on the IRIB (official broadcast agency) news channel the range and speed of the missile are “160km and Mach 5” respectively (from 00:25 to 00:30 in the clip). Rather than the “110km and Mach 4” values that are used in the game’s statcard.
I made a bug report here:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/7du9UXVUiPkJ
Вut only in energy terms. Turn performance, although not significantly, is worse than that of the 54A. 15G overload is the AIM-7C/D level. IMHO the F90 is an outstanding missile (based on what we see now), but the effectiveness of its use depends 80% on who is being attacked.
Thats my takeaway from it. You will likely catch even experienced players out with the TTT (which is very fast), but once people get used to it I doubt even the Tornado’s will struggle to dumpster it.
Not exactly. Due to its monstrous thrust, its available overload at the end is significantly higher than AIM-54 at BVR range.
In fact, the AIM-54 can only reach 17G overload under very harsh conditions.The AIM-54 is more maneuverable towards the end of the burn and at the beginning of the glide, but this is no longer the case after that.
Moreover, the high terminal speed (16km→0) can greatly shorten the time for notch.
60km 9000m m1.2 vs m1.2，
fakour90 M2.82
AIM-54C M2.04
AIM-120A M1.88
Your running into the same problem that’s stopped a bunch of Chinese planes from being accurate, they make up numbers and then request a bunch of classified documents if you want the missile/plane/tank to be accurate. Then if someone actually does submit the documents they say “we can’t use this cause it’s classified”
I’m sorry - but what is TTT? This is the first time I’ve heard/seen such an acronym. Is this some kind of “time to…”?
As for the speed and reduced reaction time - I agree. This will clearly be the main killer feature of the F90.
As for maneuverability… Well… I think we will simply find ourselves in a situation where it is harder to miss with a faster bullet. If the hit percentage does increase, then, as it seems to me, it will not be because of greater maneuverability, but because of greater speed. Simply because a faster object requires less lead.
Time To Target. Think Time To Impact gets more use so I’ll use that in the future.
Yeah, they say the official statement is just a “claim” and ask for the manual for a missile from Iran, as if that’s ever gonna be published.
And then their own number is based on basically nothing …
We often get very accurate data using 6 DOF modeling in my line of work. Given we know the engine, weights, and flight performance of the body, we can predictive model this missile with pretty good accuracy. We also know the performance enhancements of modern digital seekers. Given all of this, it is likely that the missile will underperform, (just like the Sparrows, Sidewinders, AMRAAM, and Phoenix) on the US side already do.
What we do know, from the past and how abysmally incorrect the US missiles are, this one will under perform as well. So you have that.
Active seeker with allegedly 50km range (most likely for SAM missiles, not necessarily Fakour)
Why is the amraam on that list? They nerfed the rest of the arh missiles down to be worse than it, it’s currently the best missile in the game.
Because the AMRAAM is also nerfed. It doesn’t perform nearly as well as it should, meanwhile they went with +150% performance on the R27ER.
The range appears to be mostly accurate now. They’ve gutted the turning performance compared to what it used to be though.
