Not better but still wrecked far more lobbied at the same br.
Sorry but the FM was piss compared to the F16, the ET also is flare hungry as hell always has been
The ETs advantage was VS folks that didnt know you were therr
1 Like
the FM is still usable in combat, its not a good dogfighter sure but the missiles on it + HMD help make up for it
Exactly it’s what enables the missile to cover long distances, not its high speed. It will always hit the target, even from 100 km away, if the target doesn’t move. The problem is that targets aren’t stationary
Yeah and they are easy to defend because of other factors, If you read the dedicated forumn to this they share all the same frustrations.
1 Like
It cant hit mach 5 at 40000 feet though, it has to be much higher, also the game doesnt model increases rocket performance with altitude, to my knowledge,
1 Like
Iran-Iraq war had plenty of dogfights…
3 Likes
The Fakour’s 90’s motor details are unclear, but the AIM-54 also uses a solid-propellant rocket motor. They are the same broad propulsion category, just not the same motor or the same performance.
I am not arguing that the AIM-54 should accelerate like the Fakour. The Fakour is clearly much more powerful in-game. My point is only that the AIM-54 should not necessarily have a perfectly flat constant-thrust motor. If the available thrust and impulse figures are interpreted as non-flat motor data, then a small early thrust peak or slightly stronger initial acceleration would be more believable than the current very smooth 14.35 kN × 30 s model.
So no, the AIM-54 should not get Fakour speed or Fakour acceleration. I am only saying its behavior could be adjusted a few percent toward a more realistic thrust curve, instead of starting so smoothly as some sources state a 30s acceleration. The problem is that it’s not something you can prove and since they did an arbitrarily implementation it’s already over on this side of the battle I would say as smooth curves like this are pretty rare.
Edit: Since it should climb when launched but doesn’t in game, this make even more sense .
3 Likes
They can reduce the receiver cone or improve sidelobe rejection.
No, but there’s less air resistance and your plane goes faster, so the missile accelerates more. Currently, in War Thunder, if you launch an AIM-54 into space from an altitude of 11,000 metres, it exceeds Mach 4.
The thing is, they’re not going to make the AIM-54 any better than the other FOX-3s; for now, we just have to wait for the FOX-3s to be reworked
of course, but they can make it better than what it is now by a few percents, which I think they will do.
1 Like
Nah, they’re just going to copy and paste the base AIM-54C into the best IOG and that’s that
I don’t care. Just not higher than the premium Su-30’s, which everything down to 12.0 already face. Again again, I have the premium RU Su-30 and absolutely stomp every F-14 I encounter, including the IRIAF Tomcat (which I also have.)
Accurate loudout > BR rating. Give ALL the Tomcats their appropriate munitions. Battle rating is secondary.
8 Likes
Nice for you
Yes , fuck how play 12.0
1 Like
He is good haha.
Lmao same, people wouldn’t react so mad to the F-14D if it weren’t for those two Su-30s.
4 Likes
You asked a question, I gave a reply. I say that I have the premium Su-30 to SUPPORT the F-14’s getting their appropriate loudouts. I’m not bragging or flexing, I’m giving my experiences which support giving the F-14’s everything that they could carry.
Yup, that’s why I keep posting friend. I play “both sides” of this debate, and I will absolutely state the truth that the premium Su-30’s stomp all the F-14’s as they are currently implemented. (And the other 13.0-13.3 RU planes make easy work of the F-14’s, which I also have.)
4 Likes
That can also dogfight if needed to
Yeah that too late for the game and if a aircraft did everything that other aircraft did it would be a amazing just look at f/a-18 for example
I pre ordered the F14D just to play the SU-30 and kill the F-14 enjoyers. Cooked.
3 Likes
Yes, but it wasn’t designed for that