Depends on how the missile ends up performing and with which new plane it’s added.
If they add an AESA F-16 or F/A-18E with AIM-120D US top tier will remain in a bad place, F-15EX with AIM-120D might be able to do some lifting.
Probably that’s what they will do.
I was doing some reading around WDS 2026 and the exhibits there.
There was F-15E and SA planes and there was 15EX simulator a well!!
And i think GJ people that have interest in warmachines , history and technology would go there for some ^shopping^ .
Is it true that PoBIT and 15EX can track and launch at jets behind it using sensors irl?
Not if it doesn’t come with revised mechanics in order to make proper use of the two way datalink.
Safest to assume that all it is, a C-5 with with MICA-EM’s “+/- 7 degrees” seeker bolted on. And so will do absolutely nothing due to the AMRAAMs lacking HOBS performance, and bad short range TTK delta. Not covering off the weakness of the Sidewinder (only 30G’s, non TVC) airframe.
The AIM-9X-1 would have been an option that would actually fix issues with the existing US top tiers (Sidewinder & AMRAAM are either the baseline offering or far outstripped by contemporary options at this BR)by actually providing a TVC capable option, and a proper improvement over the conventional finned Mk 36 motor AIM-9C/D, L/M due to the addition of the TVC control section.
Theoretically all you would need is an RWR ping, or HMD cue and some way to hand it off via a datalink to prompt the missile’s seeker to look in the correct direction.
1 Like
Well if they would have added any variant of 9X players would have been more upset and angry and would ask for other nations to get next gen IR as well just like they are asking for meteor and mica ng
Also 120D would be either added with 15EX, Pobit AND 18E/F block 3 out of which PoBIT might have best FM (IMO, Still it would only be carrying 6 missile which would not be good at top tier), However these 3 planes would still not be able to compete with Eurocanards and SU-30SM2 even with 120D (maybe with Eurofighter and Gripen E)
C7 is in game, even in “active service” in game on SLAMRAAM and NASAMS. Then it seems C5 has its “+5” motor modeled (extra 5kg propellant, single stage, single pulse, single speed burn), which then was carried over to C7 and D. All you could do there is to coerce snail into increasing thrust produced by increasing amount of thrust produced per 1kg of propellant, which seems to be oddly uniform around 2350N/kg for ARH missiles actually. Template/baseline of some propellant perhaps?
Going by AMRAAM topic, big reason for developing newer AMRAAMs was extending battery time, as A/B motor with battery time limitation lifted was already expected to approach 250km “effective range”, whatever that means
Quick test in statshark and 120B but with 600s guidance time, with great launch conditions (2200kmh TAS, 13km alt vs 1000kmh TAS and 10km alt target, 250km launch distance) actually will intercept and with usable speed at impact, around 1900kmh/1.8mach… assuming guidance doesn’t shit itself and missile flies past target.
That leaves unsucking maneuverability of C5 and newer missiles and maybe tampering with seeker (narrower FoV?) but good luck finding good enough sources on that.
2 Likes
4 Likes
Kizvy we all know Soviet RWRs run on hopes and prayers.
5 Likes
😭 they added this as pack
1 Like
No because other trees will throw a fit and get 120Ds, so we’ll be back in the same spot.
Fat
Nah I like its looks.
I meant dogfights like within visual range combat.
1 Like
F-15EX, YF-23, FB-22
1 Like
I still don’t understand how would F-15EX be any better in top tier?
Better engines radar RWR and possibly MAWS
1 Like
I understand the missiles not being 1:1 accurate in game with the RL counterparts.
You have sensitive/classified things , you don’t want to over do it, you have coding limits, balance etc… it’s a game.
But what the hell, you see ^improved guidance unit^ … which means better than 120B for example.
Make it … more effective.
It’s flightpath, resistance and sensitivity to changes/maneuvers,if anything it should be more difficult to be defeated kinimatecally.
Seeker FoV , give it 1-2 deg better not 5 for example. But try to picture the things that made the missile better than the previous model. It it wasn’t only better range.
We know that everything after a point is most likely approximate values and they don’t work like IRL.
For example , 120B yes ^according to data^ maybe faster to target at closer ranges, it shouldn’t be more accurate…C-5 might be faster/more accurate in correcting its course and therefore more resistant to be kinimatecally defeated because different flight pattern/model.
My example in what they do in WT is Fantasy 90. I don’t think ^valid sources^ and ^accurate data^ even exist on that. Supposed to be ^better^ than a 54A and that’s what they give, 54C though… not enough data…and it’s worse , when it should be better.
AIM-7F and M… almost identical. You can picture the changes in things like…a general upgrade in its probability Kill, like fly a bit more accurate and taking better approaches in how it intercepts the target.
Better ^guidance^ doesn’t only mean FoV, it’s how the computer calculates and decides what to do, how to solve the problem , what flight pattern , the apex of the corner in a turn not to lose as much energy…
They can do that, with coding…
FoV , they can bring 120D and justify MICA like FoV etc…ok. Shouldn’t C-5 be somewhere between B and D then? Because ^imrovements^?
It’s just… they don’t want to…not because of inaccuracy to sources,but to make you grind the next FOTM plane (vehicle in general) so they’ll keep you hooked.
1 Like
Gotcha. That makes more sense.
1 Like
IIRC US did not use MAWS with their 15EX and MAWS was given as an option for other countries. Hence i don’t think gaijin would give American F-15EX MAWS at release. Maybe in future.
And alot of missiles.
Iirc it was tested on a few…
Which, would mean gaijin can add it by their own rules.