“F-35 is too slow, 14.7”
No, I don’t have to. We know that the AIM-120C5 introduced the +5 rocket motor from every single other USAF and Raytheon source in existence. Stop spreading misinformation.
1 Like
not even gaijin, nearly every new US air launched weapon is set to be tested and/or operational on Super Hornets
3 Likes
“stop spreading misinformation” and it’s an ACC document dated 2022. Again, take it up with ACC, not me.
I wouldn’t call those ‘memories’. A lot of what you incorrectly stated is common knowledge or at least really easy to confirm if you searched for it just a bit.
A single document with a typo >>>> Every single other USAF and Raytheon document ever
Ragebait
so they made the C-5/6 heavier for fun? nice time to give em a nerf, and change their motor to 120A/B
You think everybody googles to confirm their own memories? Christ.
You should if you are arguing about technical specifications?
1 Like
Ladies and gentlemen, will we not believe WillKMJ’s memories over hard facts one can simply look up on the internet? Hell, more than half of what you need is here, on the forums!
2 Likes
Not what we’re talking about, we’re talking about a single misspeaking of AESA vs Mech EF2K. How about YOU should google to confirm that?
Big cheese I misspoke once. Crazy that pointing out the hard truth of the EX is getting this level of hate
By my count you’re approaching 10 in the last hour, including this
Sure. If you’re that confident, you won’t mind listing them, then.
Will a DOD FY1999 acquisition report be enough for you to not die on this hill?
I’m not dying on the hill, nor am I continuing to state that the document is correct? Simply that you’ll have to take up a typo in a document with ACC, not me?
you are saying that a single doc overrules the multiple other docs of similar if not more legitimacy, just because the C-7 did not get another +5 inch motor, and your argument would fall apart that the C-7 is modeled incorrectly ingame.
As @Macron-Spokesman has said the C-7 and C-5 would be identical no matter if aircraft launched or ground.
The only motor upgrades the AMRAAM series ever received were with the C-5 and D-3
I’m stating that the document is more recent and therefore should carry more evidential weight as a result of that. I did not at any point state that it overrules the other documents, nor did I even imply that.
You can put words into my mouth all you want, but I simply did not state that. I stated the document is newer, and that it is from ACC.
Even if what you are saying is true it would still carry over to the 120D and the 120D would still be better than the C-7 contrary to what you said
The C-7 would be an improvement over the C-5 for nations that did not receive the D variant is what I was getting at. Probably could’ve been clearer in that regard.