It’s also funny how much time it takes for them to fix such things, maybe in 3 years when we get the raptor current 4th gen aircraft will be accurate
Yeah, some of the things they refuse the fix is downright idiotic too.
Best example is the AIM-54C’s missing low smoke motor imo. The low smoke motor didnt exist back when the bug report was put in, so it was understandable back then, but then the devs added the 9M and gave it and the AGM-65D’s low smoke motors, but skipped over the AIM-54C. Gunjob then confirmed the bug report was still open and didnt know why it didnt get the low smoke motor with the other 2. Now we have ANOTHER 2 missiles with low smoke motors in the AAM-3 and RB74 (M) (granted the RB74 (M) is a copy paste AIM-9M) and the 54C STILL hasnt been given its low smoke motor.
Russian mains complain the 54C would be “overpowered” if it got a low smoke motor as if they werent now flying around with 6 R-27ER’s which are better than the AIM-54C in every way in WT lmao, bunch of hypocrites
3 Likes
Like i said they are insisting on the russian blatantly bvr dominance X us ufo models, and why? I don’t know.
Their agenda is accuracy while following international & local laws.
@MythicPi
It hasn’t even been a week since the armor reports, which inherently take longer to go through than more simple reports.
They must be using Pierre Sprei as a source on US aircraft or something
2 Likes
What’s the point of adding a F15A with a worse radar than the F16C that cant keep a lock.
The F15A doesn’t even get TWS.
AIM7Ms are completly outclassed by everything a SU or MIG29 can mount.
The F15A can mount fewer 9Ms than the F16C.
The argument “…but the Su27 radar loses lock aswell…” is just downright nonsense in the context of the missiles these 2 planes carry.
→ Yes, the Su27 loses radar contact aswell. But the missiles it carries don’t self destruct if the radar loses lock.
So it doesnt really matter if you lose radar contact during the mid course phase.
The 7M literally self destructs or doesn’t track anymore if you lose lock for more then one second.
Try hitting something beyond 10Km with a sparrow. Good luck. Have fun.
All that whilst SU and MIGs start their missiles from 50Km away, turn off their radar , turn it back on when the missile is near the other side of the map and hit stuff with it.
Not to mention Russian radars combine TWS with their standard tracking so if they lose lock they’ll actually try to re-acquire the target for a bit.
But God forbid Sparrows get an inch of leniency
4 Likes
I can confirm this is accurate:
F-15 currently in the config shown in the manual performs ~23 deg/s sustained turn at 0.6-0.7mach.
As you can see from the charts …
It’s doing 20 deg/s at 0.9 mach… 4 deg/s more than it should be…
5 Likes
It’s a feature, not a bug
How can they make things wrong by such a large margin is beyond my comprehension
Simple, they rushed a fix (buffed turn rate to match charts at low speed), but it affected the aircraft at all speeds. Now a subsequent report must clarify and fix the error.
2 Likes
BTW can you take a look at the flanker later? i’m like 99.9% sure there’s something wrong with it
I will
1 Like
Tbh Pierre Sprey would at least make most NATO aircraft preform based upon western sources, instead of ruski ones.
Gaijin, eeeehhhh nope.
1 Like
Graph is with 97% engine trim, not 102%. Maybe that is part of the issue.
SAC also shows higher sustained but at a bit of a lower weight:
1 Like
That is for the TF-15A, which has a number of other changes. I’ll continue to pull from the foremost primary source (TO 1F-15A, 1986)
any news on AIM-7P?
The AIM7P is a Navalised sparrow, the F15 never fired the missiles and was used by the USN. The US army did not really use the 7P or the 7MH.
USAF u mean?
Yes.