Su-27sm and su-30 both get the double racks of the su-35s, I don’t see why f-15 ex can’t also get the racks of the f-15c. OFC the only difference is that the racks on the f-15c weren’t functional, which is a pretty big thing for wt
Additionally, there is a single website source from Boeing stating 12 missiles but this was already confirmed by other officials as not being the upper limit - only the current cleared operational limit pending further testing.
3 Likes
Of course it COULD get it, but claiming that the EX has them is the issue here. Every F-15 in service could have double the AMRAAMs if someone paid for integration. I wouldn’t be upset if Gaijin decided to add them in some form.
1 Like
Which officials if you don’t mind me asking? And yeah, it COULD get more.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ivfZtB6B7Gy7
can yall boost this a bit. Might get the American closer to the Japanese one
Is there a dedicated thread for the AGM-65? Couldn’t find one, so as this one was used for it a bit in the past, I guess I’ll post it here for those interested.
Anyways, seems that the rumored AGM-65 fixes from the leaks was only limited to the tracking rate of the laser variants and FoVs of the IIR ones. Sadly nothing yet on drag and rocket engine. So I went tinkering a bit myself.
Calibrated using AGM-65G graphs from the AV-8B tactical manual and 3 datapoints for sealevel. Not a lot of tested points at this moment either, but it took quite a while anyway. Might update post with more datapoint to test against.
Performance according to manual calibrated against (all sealevel M0.9):
6.7km – 20s – ~282 m/s
9.15km – 30s – slightly over 244 m/s
13.1km – 50s - less than 213 m/s
Live performance:
6.7km – 23.1s (+15.5%) – 216.6 m/s (-13.2%)
9.15km – 36.0s (+20%) – 162.5 m/s (-33.4%)
13.1km – could not reach target, crashed at 11km
Tweaked performance:
6.7km – 19.9s (-0.5%) – 281.4 m/s (-0.2%), interestingly this one overshot the target slightly
9.15km – 28.8s (-4%) – 247.2 m/s (+1.3%, but it has to be a bit higher)
13.1km – 47.3s (-5.4%)-- 190.6 m/s (-10.5%, but it has to be lower)
Loft wasn’t touched, as at least visually it looked very similarly to what it is supposed to do as described in another weapon delivery manual. It gains ~700m in altitude at sealevel at long range launches and M0.9 speed, which corresponds to the manual as well.
Videoset of one such test:
(idk what happened regarding the audio, also don’t mind the damage, it was intentionally set to really low)
Spoiler
Original:
Tweaked:
TLDR: to get roughly within ~5% or so from manual graphs, with real engine performance inputted, drag needs to be additionally decreased by ~38% to 0.95, whilst wing area multiplier slightly decreases with ~18% (decreasing lift) to 1.25.
EDIT: I seem to have made one major mistake lmao. I accidently left thrust vectoring code in the file, so this is a thrust vectoring Maverick. However luckily it seemed to have made not a huge difference, pretty much same exact performance can be achieved now however with a drag coefficient of 0.98, so a ~36% less than live. This also means the chart for live performance isn’t correct, and it actually performs worse.
EDIT2: I tested it against some extra datapoints of the M0.5 and M0.7 curve, and it actually matches up still within ~5% error. I honestly didn’t think it could match so well. Sadly I don’t think Gaijin would accept this sort of method for bug reporting.
3 Likes
Nice. Gaijob doesn’t care unfortunately