That’s the worst comparison I’ve read all year. It shouldn’t need explanation that the F-35’s engine is far more efficient than the F-15’s… The other characteristics shaped by other factors do not directly correlate to missile booster propellant.
Newer propellants with higher energy density and efficiency should not be LESS efficient than already produced motors or they’d simply have reused that motor. If the specific impulse was that high, the AIM-54 would have been adapted to use it ASAP.
If I recall the F-35 can’t maintain mach for long durations making it effectively subsonic unlike the F-15 or F/A-18.
adding to your point
both the F-35 and the F-15 use the same fuel so the difference is made up by the F-15 being lighter and having more overall thrust despite having less powerful engines. the F-15 also has a much better airframe for going fast since it was designed from the ground up to be a fighter instead of a multirole aircraft
the main point being that there are other outside factors outside of how powerful the engine is that can majorly effect top speed
Y’all might be missing the point. The rocket motors are not comparable to the F-15 and development of the F-35 because rocket motors criteria for performance has never changed. Higher energy density is always sought provided shelf life and other factors meet criteria. It may have been possible for AP/Poly to do 300s impulse but it was never done in any real product because real life doesn’t work the exact same as “on paper”. The shelf life of those motors would probably have been terrible, or cost exorbitant.
In any case, the propellants of the time did not exceed 260s in the most optimal sea level conditions iirc.
Not F-14 cockpit, but rather upgraded F-5 (Kowsar)'s cockpit.
And as I said before, there are no public information on whether there was any upgrades to the F-14(AM)'s cockpit, but just just as side information on what would be possible for F-14AM (which might or might not have happened already and might or might not happen in the future):
Seems like the right side MFD of the rear cockpit in the 6th picture, and possibly the right side MFD of the front cockpit in the 4th picture, is showing something like an RWR display. Or it could be for navigation. Perhaps both.
Am I missing something here?
https://server.3rd-wing.net/public/Bureau_4thMEG/Procedures_communes/476TTP3-1.Threat_Guide-Public_Release.pdf Page 55
“The MIM-23B will accelerate to max speed (1200 KTAS) in approx. 5 seconds from launch with motor burnout occurring after 26
seconds. An unpowered non-manoeuvring MIM-23B will lose approx. 200 KTAS every 5 seconds.”
So according to this source, the acceleration is just shy of 12.6G or specificaly 123.466667 m/s^2.
The missile weighs 635 kg (584 kg was the 23A) so with these numbers, the booster thrust comes to 78401.3N.
Since it is the same motor and the Fakour weighs according to your sources 637.3 kg, and using the same formula, the thrust comes to 78685N…
So where does the 83900N come from?
Likewise, the 23B has a top speed of M2.5 or 1653,68 knots. Since it accelerates to 1200knots with the 5 second booster, the sustainer can only add around 450 knots. So with my calculations the 23B sustainer offers an acceleration of ~1.13G or specificaly 11.113886 m/s^2. I suppose that the booster fuel weight is 182kg (according to spreadsheet) for both the Fakour and the 23. So when the sustainer starts, the Hawk should weight 453kg and the Fakour 455,2973kg.
With these numbers the thrust for the Hawk 21 seconds sustainer comes to 5034,59N and to 5060,12N for the Fakour…
Now these calculations are pretty simple and dont factor a number of things like drag, gravity ect.
Despite that, the numbers, especialy for the sustainer vary by alot… What am I calculating wrong?
That acceleration is also attempting to overcome drag thus your values are lower than expected, same mistake I made in my initial point. It must also be said that the ramp-up and ramp-down in thrust means that some of that 5 seconds is actually not spent at peak acceleration.
Ah, whats the drag coefficient of the Fakour and do we know the drag coeffient of the Hawk as well ?
That’s not a source
That’s a DCS guide …
The spreadsheet number is made up by Gaijin, it has no source.
Obvious from the fact that they had gotten even the total propellant mass wrong and only corrected it after we bug reported it.
Not sure if no Fakour for the wing pylons is intended or WIP.
Because if anything, there’s no proof that the underbelly pylons can carry the Fakour (though one would assume given that it’s basically the same size and shape as AIM-54, and the ability to carry it on the underbelly pylons would basically be the main point of using the AIM-54 body instead of the MIM-23B Hawk body).
All the Fakour-90 (and AD-40A export variant/offering) test launch videos that exist have them mounted on the wing pylons.
Made a report here:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/tJKBcYkDfnCU
Sorry my bad. Its posted here as as source and I didnt double check to see if its legit or not…
Will Iran’s domestically improved aim 9 air-to-air missile “Fatter” be sent to Iran’s F14?
According to the information, the Fatter air-to-air missile has the ability to lock targets in all directions.
The model was datamined but I think Gaijin is trying to keep the iranian F-14 on par with the american A.
They’ll probably keep it as an option in case they need to rebalance it at an higher br.
I have a feeling that the BR is going to be bumped up sooner than later given how busted the F-90s are.
Easily dodgable missile = BUSTED. I’ve died maybe three times to a Fakour 90 in my 50 or so games so far. In the Iranian tomcat that is, with its useless RWR. If it goes up they’ll have to buff the Fakour 90 overload and AoA, plus give it a functioning RwR. I’ve died more to the R-27R than anything else so far.
The reason I say it’s busted is because it has acceleration like an ER while having the highest target impact speed and lowest time to target of any ARH missile. Unlike the AIM-54s the F-90 is also somewhat usable under 15km because it actually has the speed to hit targets.
I would be happy for it to be upgraded though, and it could also carry R-73s.
Still a 15G missile at the end. It kinda hard counters the Aim-54 and is usable under 15km like you said unlike the phoenix but that’s it. All the other close to mid range options for the IRIAF F-14 are mediocre, the fakour has to compensate. If they decide to nerf the Fakour and/or remove the R-27R because of a player bug report they’ll have to give either the R-73 or maybe the domestic “Fatter” which was found in the cdk.
What makes the R-73 so good is when it’s coupled with the HMD so I don’t think it will be that OP with the F-14A especially if limited to 2, 1 on each wingtip.
I think there is more evidence for R-27 than R-73.
If they decide to nerf the Fakour and/or remove the R-27R
As long as we have the F-16AJ in-game I doubt they’d remove the R-27R and especially when the integration failing is public information they would’ve had before adding it in-game (they gave it to the IRIAF F-14A whilst acknowledging this).
wait until you see the Ho-229 and R2Y2
