@ItzMikeyzWRLD @Nike Ajax Please move to PM if yall want to have a personal argument. Please do not derail this thread.
2 Likes
The point was that if you were to go into sensor view in a replay, and look at high angle off-boresight shots I think you will find that an AIM-9L/-9M don’t actually pull the listed 30G’s, either.
One that doesn’t have a great RWR, or one that can’t pick up on TWS or IRST emissions, and so only detects the missile once it goes active?
My Video, wich one is mine?
2 Likes
DM me this as the mods said
edit: guy was not able to give me any counter arguments
It is a fleet defense interceptor, that is hardly surprising. The F-106 kept using Genies and Falcons until it was retired in the late 80s, as keeping the skies safe from fast nuclear bombers was an important but relatively easy task.
The AIM-120 wasn’t integrated because political red tape prevented it. It was a political move to retire the fighter early and nothing more. There is literally no further depth to that topic of discussion.
The AIM-54 was retired because they didn’t want to make more of them and the ones on the shelf were expiring, making more would mean the service life of the missile would have been longer than the service life of the platform that could use it.
2 Likes
The 20G figure for I-Hawk is for single plane.
The 25G figure for Phoenix is (allegedly) for dual plane.
1 Like
The I-HAWK documents also seem to make it clear that it is a maximum load limit as well, able to pull up to 20G in single or dual plane and uses either as needed to have the highest pK.
1 Like
Can you point me to the data that suggest the Fakour can pull 20G in single plane ?
Obviously there is no data for Fakour; And the limits are likely not exactly the same as AIM-54 nor I-Hawk, since the missile is heavily based on I-Hawk internally but uses AIM-54’s air frame design (The air frame is not exactly the same as AIM-54).
But Gaijin decided to apply the I-Hawk limits to it.
Strangely they didn’t apply those limits to the I-Hawk itself (Sedjeel) and gave it a bit worse fin AoA.
Have you made a report when it comes to the Fakour? There is little to no reason that it can pull that much if the phoenix cant
If anything, I would logically warrant an Aim-54 buff.
So you give them the data on the Hawk, and they put that on the Fakour for whatever reason and not the Sedjil which is the Hawk… I think that you shouldnt have mentioned the Fakour on that report at all lmao…
please make a report for the phoenix and just paste everything from the sedjil/fakour report XD…
If in the dev’s mind HAWK= Fakour then just tell them that Fakour= Phoenix and they will probably believe you
That is for the Hawk isnt it? What does the Hawk have to do with the Fakour and Phoenix ?
1 Like
The Hawk got buffed wayyy more than the Fakour.
1 Like
Both missiles have been shown to maneuver in combined plane after launch rather than rolling to “+” configuration. The Phoenix is stated by Northrop Grumman as capable of 25G whereas other documentation indicates a 17G limit.
Since Gaijin does not model dual plane they are using single plane limits whenever possible. Magic 2 is limited to the single plane 35G’s because there is insufficient proof that it always maneuvers in combined plane (I think there is, tbh).
The HAWK was shown to use a guidance system limiter to limit itself to 20G whether in single or combined plane. In theory the combined plane overload is higher, but since it has a 20G limit in single plane that is the number that is used for in-game. The Fakour-90 being heavily based on that missile but using the layout for the Phoenix - Gaijin took the liberty of applying the same limits instead of assuming it should be capable of only 17G. Obviously this choice is arbitrary.
TL;DR Gaijin made the Fakour 90 20G and left the Phoenix at 17G because they felt like it, and they could.
4 Likes
Fakour and Sedjeel both had 15G limit when they were added.
I.e. Fakour had the (incorrect) I-Hawk limits applied to it by the developers from the very beginning. (Because Fakour has much more in common with the I-Hawk than it does with the Phoenix, especially internally)
Hence why I used an I-Hawk document (found by @MiG_23M) to bug report both.
I took the liberty to read this thread from start to finish. (Including the entire old forum too)
Not only is it crazy that they’ve had completely valid and acknowledged bug reports about the Aim-54 that they’re just ignoring and have been ignoring for 2 years, but they’ve also kept it in a nerfed state even when superior missiles have been added (R-27ER, Fakour, All modern ARHs).
But we already know this.
The worst part is that they artificially created the “F-14 OP” movement without making the Tomcat/Phoenix combo ACTUALLY overpowered. The Aim-54 is still a trash missile.
Im so so tired of this BS. It doesn’t make sense. The F-16C got Aim-7Ms because modern ARHs were not a feature yet. So why can’t the Aim-54 get 25G overload as a placeholder until the devs decide to model dual-plane maneuvering? The Yak-141 got half of its avionics because “it was going to get it”. So why can’t the Aim-54C have ANY of the features WE KNOW it had? We have hours of footage, hundreds of docs, and bug reports dating back to almost 3 WHOLE YEARS proving this missile should be better.
Sorry for the rant. It’s just so frustrating because Gaijin takes liberties EVERYWHERE else. Eurofighter - Basically entirely classified, Rafale - Almost entirely classified. But they can’t spend 1 second to bring the F-14/Aim-54 up to a good place. (But the Iranian Fakour-90 which is entirely modeled off of Iranian media and 2 secondary sources is allowed to be great.) Complete BS.
If someone could show me how to correctly bug report stuff that’d be great. I’m tired of sitting around with these docs on my computer not doing anything with them. I’m going to force them to change the F-14/Aim-54, or at the bare minimum make them always have it fresh on their minds.
5 Likes
They listen to sudo_su so talk to him
2 Likes