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
Believe me, I completely get it, but outside of finding an illegal document there is no info online. What we know is that it has the AMRAAM’s TWT transmitter and from that it doesn’t take a genius to know that its TWT emits far more powerful radar emissions that bounce back much clearer and more precisely. But this is a little ridiculous that they can’t infer such, given that there are plenty of examples in-game where Gaijin just guesstimated or fudged the numbers because there is no publicly available information, or things simply didn’t exist like an armed Yak-141 or the KH-38MT.
2 Likes
so now we are just using AI
1 Like
Well. I’ve committed to it. Check my user name! 😂
2 Likes
yes lets just artficially buff the premium if the AIM-54C+ gets 20G pull so should the normal C model
we love OP premium slop
this is why F14D is a premium this update people like you
3 Likes
We’re not using only AI. We’re using publicly available data, historical references, and the game’s own files. AI is simply helping organize and analyze that information, much like a calculator helps with math. Unless someone here has access to classified US Navy or Iranian Air Force missile reports, we’re all working from the same public sources.
brother it takes no genius to see that that message was written with AI
1 Like
The C+ has the same body and rocket motor as the C. It should receive tracking and range upgrades due to its AMRAAM TWT transmitter. Not a bunch of made up crap
That’s not really my point. If the AIM-54C+ is intended to represent an improved Phoenix variant, it should perform better than the AIM-54C. Otherwise there’s little reason for it to exist as a separate missile. I’m not arguing for premium bias, I’m arguing for internal consistency between variants.
1 Like
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
2 Likes
then please explain how the Aim-54C+ has a higher delta/v with the exact same motor
2 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.
2 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