except you are the only difference between C+ and regular C is a coolant difference and ECCM its not a performance difference that is your upgrade
3 Likes
then please explain how the Aim-54C+ has a higher delta/v with the exact same motor
3 Likes
Good catch. Unfortunately, identifying AI-written text doesn’t change ΔV, ballistic coefficients, or missile performance.
so you are doubeling down
then please show us your great surce for the delta v of the 54C+ which says it is higher for it even tho it uses the same missile body and motor as the normal 54C
i would rather see the F14D never come then it be premium honestly even with tech tree side grade
AIM-54C is already an improved Phoenix variant and we should really start from that. Currently its worse than AIM-54A in game when it shouldnt be obviously.
3 Likes
That’s a fair point. If the AIM-54C+ uses the same motor, fuel load, and airframe as the AIM-54C, then a significant ΔV increase wouldn’t make much sense.
My point wasn’t that the AIM-54C+ specifically needs a higher ΔV. My point is that if the Fakour-90 keeps a substantial kinematic advantage, then the AIM-54C+ should receive meaningful improvements elsewhere—guidance, inertial accuracy, ECCM, seeker performance, terminal tracking, etc.—otherwise it ends up performing much closer to the AIM-54C than to the missile it’s supposed to compete with.
So I agree with you on the propulsion side. The question is where the AIM-54C+ is supposed to gain its performance advantage.
1 Like
stop using AI
think for yourself and bring sources
1 Like
I agree, I forgot to mention that
Agreed. The progression should be AIM-54A → AIM-54C → AIM-54C+, not AIM-54A ≥ AIM-54C. If the C model is already underperforming, then any discussion about the C+ becomes much harder because the baseline itself is questionable.
I’ve already conceded the ΔV point and adjusted my position accordingly. If you have sources regarding the AIM-54C+, feel free to post them.
As for AI, whether a sentence was written by me, AI, or typed on a napkin doesn’t really matter. What matters is whether the argument is supported by evidence.
So let’s talk about the missile, not the keyboard.
1 Like
then show your evidence
2 Likes
I’m already using the same evidence available to everyone else: public sources, game files, and physics.
If you have additional public sources, post them.
If your standard of evidence is documentation that isn’t publicly available, then we’re no longer discussing open-source information—we’re discussing classified material, which isn’t something that belongs on this forum.
iam asking for the sources you used
not for a diversion
becasue as it stands you arent contributing in any usefull way to any disscussion
1 Like
Fair question.
The sources I used were:
- The missile parameters currently available in the game files.
- Publicly available information on the AIM-54A, AIM-54C, and Fakour-90.
- Basic engineering and physics principles when comparing missiles with similar airframes, propulsion systems, and masses.
The proposed AIM-54C+ values were not based on a specific document claiming those exact figures. They were an attempt to illustrate where I believe the missile would need to sit relative to the AIM-54C and Fakour-90 from a gameplay and progression standpoint.
As you correctly pointed out, increasing ΔV while keeping the same motor and airframe is difficult to justify. I accepted that criticism and revised my position accordingly.
So if you’re asking for a source that specifically states “AIM-54C+ has X ΔV,” I don’t have one. If such a document exists publicly, I’d be interested in reading it as well.
brother
i can talk to chatgpt myself
2 Likes
Why on earth are they still trying to keep it an equal to the F-14B?! (It has better radar, so already failed)
For God’s sakes Gaijin, you’re so good at copy-paste already. Just give it its proper weapons and their proper performance, balance it using THE BR SYSTEM YOU CAME UP WITH EXPLICITLY TO BALANCE HISTORICALLY ARMED VEHICLES, and make a TT clone in the F-14D(R) or change the prem F-14D to the (R).
6 Likes
At least we’re finally in agreement: anyone can use ChatGPT or other IA. The difficult part is still evaluating the information afterward. 😄
which you obviously arent
so either stop posting
or start thinking for yourself instead of copy pasting my responses into chatgpt
1 Like
I accepted the ΔV criticism and corrected my position. That’s how technical discussions are supposed to work.
If you want to discuss the AIM-54C+, I’m happy to do that. If you want to discuss me, I don’t think that’s particularly productive.