Many aircraft have skins from differing block numbers and model inaccuracies. Devs stated it is based on the 1977 SAC. That’s all. Not a definitive block number, performance and weapons is based on that SAC.
(Relevant to thread)… AIM-54A is the sole Phoenix model available to the F-14A/(early) in war thunder for the reasons stated above.
So going by ur logic the F-14A should get Aim-9L
No, the AIM-9L is not in the 1977 SAC.
I don’t know how you came to that conclusion.
ok
GJ based it off that variation to keep the (early) in a moment in history where the Aim7F was available, but not the L, better sparrows and Aim54Cs.
I suspect when we do get the proper F-14A, it will be the definitive war thunder variant with all of the above capability. its Radar modelled, aim54 modelled and sparrows M buffed/modelled.
They will also most likely add the Premium version, the legendary Iranian tomcat to further maximize sales armed with basic aim54A, Aim9Ps, lesser sparrows. However, it’s main selling point will be the unique one of kind weapon system, two Raytheon MIM-23 HAWK surface to air missiles converted to air to air/AWG9 capability housed on the wing pylons stations.
A very fast missile off the rail from what I read the Iranians reported and being that it is really designed to be fired from stationary positions on the ground makes sense.
I think you vastly overestimate gaijin.
Quite frankly, i think you all vastly overestimate gaijins willingness to properly model things they already broke.
There is a very clear trend in more and more copy paste vehicles with more and more modelling issues requiring more and more bug reports as gaijin speedruns their way to modern vehicles with apparently no actual thought placed towards gameplay or balance.
Everyone keeps saying “oh just wait for x to happen, THEN gaijin will fix the AIM-54C/F-14/insert broken vehicle, sensor, weapon, etc… here” but meanehile the devs are caught arguing that they “dont believe” primary or secondary sources, major well documented bug reports are left to rot for months or years, and things that are extremely important for the proper functionality of certain things are left unmodelled for years for whatever reason, such as the lack of regenerative stearing DRASTICALLY reducing western MBT’s mobility advantage over russian ones, or the Puma IFV being so badly modelled, a dozen or so major bug reports about all facets of the vehicle have been open for a year+ and nothing short of a near total rework of the vehicle could fix it.
Vehicles that shouldve been added months or years ago are left unadded, while vehicles which should not have been added yet are added in a butchered state, argued to be that way for “balance” purposes (F-14B).
Yet we keep hearing the same damn song everytime anyone complains about the state of these things. “Dont worry, gaijin will get to it eventually, itll be fixed, idk why you’re complaining about this, just trust them!”, speaking of the company that needed to have their game review bombed into the ground to finally make some positive changes…
That or the comment gets flagged into the ground by the people who adore abusing the flagging feature of the new forums because there is literally no consequence for doing so.
Or
Lmao I want to see the original apg66 have more range than the mig 29s HPRF in a high alt look geometry.
all radars are capable or tracking a target at 70% of the max detection range of the target
This 30% figure comes from mig 29s manual. Before it was 20%. Mind you, that with this the max range shot of the F14A with the phoenix wouldn’t be possible. At all. The F14 detected the target at ~130NM and fired at 110NM. 130NM*.70= 91NM. Doesn’t add up.
iirc, applying nerfs to western equipment based on soviet equipment is also what lead to the A/FIM-92 stinger and Mistral getting their max g-limit dropped to a measly 10g’s to match the 9M39 Igla figures, and the devs recently borderline denied improving the stinger/mistrals max (key word being “max”) pull
Although they state they may FINALLY adjust something with these missiles so they aren’t so worthless, which may include the g pull, though considering the wording up until the last sentence, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Only took them like 4+ years, and multiple bug reports…
Unfortunately, like I previously mentioned, the devs dont seem to really care much about what western sources say anymore if it doesnt match up with what eastern sources say about completely different weapons or systems, or just what the devs believe to be true…
Even just to keep it on topic of the AIM-54, we’ve been arguing about dozens of different issues for months now, and seem to be no closer to any of them being fixed. Issues such as the 54C’s max G-pull, the smoke profile of the motor, the seekers capabilities, and more recently, the directional warhead and smart fuse for very low altitude intercepts.
I doesn’t help that many players here just hurl insults and doubts about any and all claims that may result in the AIM-54 being buffed/fixed or flag everything they don’t like though
Has this source in particular been Considered?
It is in the report for it so I guess so?
Likewise I don’t think the dev’s interpretation is correct. By design the Stinger constantly rolls (I gather at many revolutions per second) as it flies. Therefore manuals / reports specifying the g load as the maximum g load the missile can pull when the control surfaces are perfectly aligned with the target plane wouldn’t make much sense. The fins would never be aligned with the target plane for more than a tiny fraction of a second.
Also as you know that excerpt comes from the Jaguar Tactics manual, which is meant to brief pilots on the Stinger’s capabilities and how to counter it. If you are a pilot then you don’t care what the missile can pull for a tiny fraction of a second, you want to know how many g’s it can sustain while it’s chasing you down. So in my mind that supports 20g being the average acceleration.
As per the Redeye history document the Redeye that the Stinger is based off spins axially between 10~16 RPS (avg. 13Hz) before self destructing and with 2 sets of independent control surfaces they align with any given direction 64~40 times per second(16~10x4).
You’ll note that SA-14 is assessed as 10G, if they used the same assessment to get a 20G figure for Stinger then they would be reporting SA-14 as 20G as well. But they don’t because the Stinger isn’t an SA-14…
the MIM-23s werent able to be guided by the AWG-9 the concept was far more goofy in that the missiles would still be guided by ground radars they’d basically just be launched from the air to improve kinematics
I think peak 20g makes since with the idea it will always pull 20g’s but towards the end of the turn, I disagree with gaijans whole roll concept with the missiles but its fair to point out something with such tiny control surfaces would need a much higher velocity to pull a higher overload.
Considering for example the AIM-9D/G/H fins for example, from normal launch conditions the missile cannot pull more than 18g laterally and if launched at a high speed maybe 20g+ (theres that british manual that claims up to 23g) but despite the fact the AIM-9H has stronger actuators, it still has the same normal g overloading which implies its an aerodynamic limitation (of the fins) and these navy sidewinders could only pull 20g+ at very high speeds at the end of their burns.
Also it claims interception of a target pulling 7G’s is possible, and as a rule of thumb that is taken a 1/3rd the maximum limit so somewhere between 18~22G should be possible with further aligns with the Redeye history document (Capabilities are referenced PDF page#95, 157 ), and other excerpts.
The TY-90 control surfaces aren’t much bigger, if bigger at all compared to the size of the missile, yet it pulls 20g’s just fine. The Mistral is also gimped with similar control surface layout to the TY-90.
Stinger:
Mistral:
TY-90:
Correct and the TY-90 seems far too maneuverable right now for what it is, its more maneuverable than Magics at lowspeed which is dead wrong. maybe if it was meant to be a late TY-90 with double delta control surfaces it would be more logical, but the TY-90 is certainly overperforming right now with its current 3D model.
