True but I think they’ll do right hopefully
1 Like
I believe that it was Mk. 47 mod that introduced low smoke motor due to new propellant.
And how does that relate to anything I said in my message?
Until they give the F-14D the AIM-7Ps and fix its upgraded radar system, I’m not going to take the jet seriously or even consider buying it.
3 Likes
When is the update dropping?
AIM-54C+ missing upgrades bug report
Currently it’s a copy-paste version of the AIM-54C and different only in name, let’s make sure it’s implemented correctly!
3 Likes
We wait! I believe they’ll do “something”.
They overthink things that are… easy. Very easy.
You keep 54A to 17G -because from what i understand they can’t still showcase it’s real drawbacks .
Get 54C and 54C+ realistic FM and speed and G overload. Change 54C+ radar to AMRAAM (it is wrong , but quickfix …it’s not that they model all those ARHs correctly so at least 54C and 54C+ have a difference) .
Then you can keep 14A as is at 12,7 .
Get 14B at 13.0 because even with the updates with 9M and a realistic 54C AWG-9 isn’t even modelled correctly and not even modelled with its own upgrades , so it can stay as is for the moment.
And get 14D at 13,3 but with valid and good enough armament to match the 13.3 premiums.
It still won’t be OP or something… just a bit niche with 54s range, but they will still lack in agility/closer range vs the more modern R77 and AMRAAMs and MICAs.
4 Likes
You are focusing on the wrong thing with this. Instead of asking for improvements to the C+ model we should be asking for improvements to the baseline C as it would translate to C+ aswell.
9 Likes
when will this thing be put at 13.0 in sim? Mig-29 which is almost worse than it and Grippen, which is comparable to it, are sitting at higher BR
That i don’t consider a “just a rename” an addition.
When they change things/stats do fixes (if they do and my concern is if they won’t do) , we can talk about addition.
So according to the dev server feedback thread the 54C+ will just essentially be a 54C with a different name. So that was us getting our hopes up too soon.
1 Like
You are missing the point. Buffing C+ would make it ahistorical in comparison to the regular C model as these two should indeed be identical in performance at the current state of the game. If ECM gets modelled that would be a different story since C+ should have improved resistance to jamming. However as of now such mechanics are not present in game hence why AIM-54C and AIM-54C+ should remain as exact copies of eachother.
AGAIN:
That being said they should receive buffs to their performance as they are not true to their potential capabilies.
3 Likes
The C+ has the AMRAAM’s TWT transmitter, they are not at all the same missile.
1 Like
it already got closed
No surprise there, oh well I tried. Clearly they’re the same missile!
2 Likes
I get that but that gives us nothing really. We have no clue if these changes improved onboard radar capabilities in any meaningful way. You are saying “[…]AIM-54C+ should receive improved range and tracking reliability compared to the standard AIM-54C.” but you also give no values or even clues as of how much (if even at all) these improved the missile in the ways you described.
It could very well be as much of a change as AIM-120A and AIM-120B or AIM-9G and AIM-9H but you dont know it. ECCM was the real deal and sure would be great to have it when ECM comes to the game but as of right now its not there so these listed changes are irrelevant.
3 Likes
AIM-54C+, Fakour-90 and Historical Plausibility
After reviewing the current missile parameters, I believe the issue is not that the Fakour-90 is too strong by itself, but rather that the upcoming AIM-54C+ may not be receiving enough improvements to justify its introduction as the top-tier Phoenix variant.
According to the current in-game values, the Fakour-90 has a substantial kinematic advantage over the AIM-54C, particularly in total ΔV, ballistic coefficient and terminal energy retention. This results in a significantly larger practical engagement envelope despite both missiles being descendants of the same Phoenix family.
If the intention is to keep the Fakour-90 unchanged, then the AIM-54C+ should receive improvements that reflect its advanced guidance package and modernization while remaining historically plausible.
Proposed Comparison
| Parameter | AIM-54C | AIM-54C+ (Proposed) | Fakour-90 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass (kg) | 463 | 463 | 637 |
| Total ΔV (m/s) | 1159 | 1350 | 1433 |
| Ballistic Coefficient | 2571 | 2900 | 3032 |
| Maximum Speed (Mach) | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.0 |
| Guidance Duration (s) | 160 | 180 | 150 |
| Inertial Drift (m/s) | 10 | 2 | 10 |
| Datalink | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Track Rate (°/s) | 20 | 30 | 20 |
| Gimbal Limit (°) | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| Maximum Fin Lateral Acceleration | 21 | 24 | 25 |
| Maximum G Load | 17 | 20 | 20 |
| ECCM Capability | Medium | Very High | Medium/High |
| Terminal Energy Retention | Good | Very Good | Excellent |
Rationale
The Fakour-90 is generally understood to be an indigenous modernization of the AIM-54 Phoenix rather than a completely new missile design.
Because of this, it is difficult to justify a situation where the Fakour-90 possesses a very large kinematic advantage while the AIM-54C+ remains only marginally better than the AIM-54C.
The proposed AIM-54C+ values would:
- Preserve the Fakour-90’s advantage in raw energy and range.
- Give the AIM-54C+ a meaningful performance increase over the AIM-54C.
- Better represent the advanced avionics, guidance and ECCM improvements expected from a late Phoenix variant.
- Create a more balanced and historically believable relationship between the three missiles.
Under this model:
- AIM-54C remains the baseline Phoenix.
- AIM-54C+ becomes a modernized and highly capable Phoenix.
- Fakour-90 retains a slight edge in pure kinematic performance.
6 Likes
Time to get the pitchforks out again 😂
AIM-54C already should have all-aspect shoot-down capabilities with PD instead of CW radar and we know that for a fact. These are the changes we should push for and not some assumptions or speculations about computer chips or singular components with unknown performance improvements.
5 Likes