From what I’ve heard it’s a thrust class similar to the PW-229s, so I’m sure it’ll be fast.
Someone in the RRU&D thread said that the engine and weight upgrades basically cancel each other with just a 0.05 higher TWR for the EX compared to the regular E.
However in game overall, even with the same TWR, heavier planes tend to perform worse than lighter planes, so I don’t see the EX doing all that well in that department. Especially since the load outs will be much heavier overall with the increased amount of missiles - which will be its main advantage with the AESA radar
You would need to be making like 3 times the thrust to go that much faster.
Drag quadruples as speed doubles.
How good would AIM-174B be for BVR if it was implemented realistically in game?
With or without two-way datalink?
With two-way datalink
And thats what playerbase voted yes with their wallets.
If you were to model conical scan seekers in game “correctly” you would have them essentially became glorified R3R or 9C, as it is ground clutter and chaff vulnerable. Inverse monopulse debuting on 7M wouldn’t be buffed, it would stay as is.
Isn’t Fakkyu 90 just MIM23 mated with Phoenix seeker?
Missile doesn’t have crystal ball to guess what target will do. Gaijin can fiddle with PID settings, but my brief fiddling with that in statshark gives… mixed results. In some scenarios C5+MICA PID outpulls 120B, sometimes it doesn’t. But stock C5 seems to prioritize energy retention by taking lower G turns, which would be part of “optimizing trajectory”. But quite often it doesn’t work, as harder turn + straight line of 120B tends to work just as good
Unless you make seeker unnotchable or chaff immune, it will be effectively the same as existing AMRAAMs ie flight model kinda doesn’t matter when seeker casually holds onto chaff. Then given revelation of most of 120D range comes from extending battery time, not missile flight model improvements, odds are No Escape Zone of 174 would be surprisingly short as well, even more so as it is one chungus of a missile that likely won’t like any evasive maneuvers done by the target.
And how about meteor/mica ng?
I guess the same story. Gaijin seemingly went out of their way to standardize notch window on all post Phoenix ARH missiles, from AMRAAM, through MICA and ending with BUK. You have different seeker FoV on MICA and newest SAM ARH, which handles chaff rejection against notching targets flying fast enough to keep triggering angle gating, but doesn’t/shouldn’t affect notch window.
More like an updated (?) Phoenix body with MIM23 engine… however speculations and wikipedia level sources (or even worse) are not describing how the missile actually behaves. Seeker , in game AIM-54A/C and F90 , i think they got the same. RL i can’t even find what F90 uses , there are…no data or name. Others say it may be a 54s seeker upgrade (54As that is) others say it may have an improved /bastardized HAWK seeker. Even about the specifications you’ll find…claims. ^Trust me bro^ sources .
Ofc not, they rely on their data . However their computer ^tries^ to pick the optimum path to intercept analyzing the data. Even a better proccessor can make differencies.
Now in the game …many times you’ll see missiles picking the crappiest path to do their job.
All of missiles are artificially nerfed and they are not even close to their RL specs, but in some cases they don’t even try.
Yes, but i don’t see the problem… they need to be different. That’s the point of different version.
Is still missing it’s range & and range rate filters that it should have.
The AIM-7E’s issue with ground clutter is Proximity fuse related not seeker related (seeker is good down to 500ft, and even then is rated for attacking surface targets).
No. Chaff fails a coherent return check and so will not be tracked(will still have an effect on guidance if within the seeker’s IFoV), see “Para. 16” of the following excerpt.
Can’t disagree here, as a professional F-35 hater I gotta acknowledge the F-35’s belly is just perfection
1 Like
The speed isn’t doubling. Since pylons drag isn’t modeled it could probably do 1.7+ on full AB with weapons
You missed the point.
and whats the point? mach 1.5 is pretty slow for a very fast plane. maybe with all 3 drop tanks and CFT
Btw, instead of putting ^^ around your words, you can put one star * around words to italize them, or 2 ** to bold them. You can also put 2 ~~ to cross
The wildcards need to be right at the beginning and at the end of a word to work. You can do it on multiple words at a time
1 Like
It’s only very fast clean
Can hardly brake Mach 2 with only 8 missiles and nothing else.
Putting 2 big fat CFT on it plus its weapons it’s going even slower. Much slower so far as the F-15 manual is concerned.
1 Like
fair enough, 1.5 with CFT and a full a2a load is reasonable. i thought you were talking about no CFT since thats what most people will run in WT
No no but I understand your confusion now.
With no CFT and 8 missiles it’s still over performing considerably however.
Is should only be capable of 1.95 Mach using 102% war power irl.
In game it will go 2.26 its 27% the speed of sound faster meaning it has way too much excess power.
It’s also too fast at all altitudes.
1 Like
it lines up with the std-10 graph.
is there a way to check temperature ingame?