nighthawk2174

Ok but they never saw mass production?

The F-4E at 50% gas and no weapons is at 1.0 T/W and the bis at 50% gas is close to .95 T/W. Although that obviously will be different if we say make it for 5min of AB at SL. This would almost certainly favor the F4 As the emergency burner in the bis really eats gas so you'd need more of it in the bis for this setup. I would agree although it would be more along the lines of early F-15C's as it was introduced the same year, 1976. Although lets keep in mind both aircraft would be in low numbers for a few more years. One factor to consider in the F4's favor though would be jammer pods, and my current understanding is that the saphir series of radars would have rather poor CCM performance. These pods were quite common on the US side but as far as i'm aware jamming equipment was not as common on the soviet side. There is a Russian forum thread that went in depth into this discussion we could just go and pull their conclusions and user made graphs out as they did have quite a few documents regarding performance of all the jets mentioned. Example:

What kind of production numbers did this variant see?

I'm not familar with the 9.15 mig-29 how does it differ from the A/S models we have in game.

It was an issue identified in the past I don't know if its been fixed or if its still an issue. The issue was above 50k feet the atmospheric density was way off and I think the error reduced as you went below that altitude.

I'm not aware of any Russian missiles that are relatively smokeless unless the 77-1 is. Also i'd be shocked if the meteor is smokey.

You have to develop the software, test it, get it qualified by the FAA and various other agencies before even putting it on the jet, then the actual users of the jets will need to test the upgrade, then you need to actually set up the program to ship out the upgrades and install them (providing technical support) all of which costs money, and then you need to support that upgrade and provide fixes and updates over time. Ohhh and you need to pay all of the people involved which considering this is an aerospace venture peoples paychecks are expensive. So I can totally see how the costs would balloon up especially if there are delays or issues that need fixed which seems to be the case as indicated by the article.

По данным HB. Некоторые проблемы связаны с тем, что драг не уменьшается при включенном ракетном двигателе. А для одного или двух вариантов Phoenix был испорчен лофт, что сильно влияет на дальность полета. Я уверен, что это будет исправлено в следующем патче. Отслеживание проблем, степень серьезности которых мне в настоящее время неизвестна, но это будет еще одна проблема, затрагивающая phoenix, хотя это была бы не первая ракета, у которой возникли такие проблемы.

One of the things that ESA's fix. But yeah, although as I understand it were not talking about a massive increase in miss distance, maybe just enough that the warhead going off won't be immediately catastrophic. Also is this really a big problem for monopulse I'm just not seeing it introduce more than single digit percentage increases in miss distance. Especially if the target isn't maneuvering.

Not quite, the monopulse radar on the 120 is also a PD radar, they are not mutually exclusive.

Is motor drag reduction simulated now?

It wouldn't be an issue if proximity fuzzes worked properly which they don't in game right now. We gotta wait for ED to rebuild the system to actually work.

Its not all about wing loading, the variant AIM-9 from the paper can produce substantially more G and for a longer period of time despite having smaller fins. Especially as altitude goes up.

Every other patch it seems the warehouse system gets broken, its up to the mission maker to fix it as far as I'm aware.

Excellent work The features for IR missiles have not been built yet only radar missiles and a few other specialty missiles such as the SCUD and HARM.

I don't think they did. All I've seen is that they said they found some leads that may point in that direction. Not that they actually will do it. I know the post your referring too but, a few pages latter did clarify that it will in fact get a command inertial system where the missile is able to go active on its own iirc it was a pretty unambiguous statement to this.

Yeah... not enough information out there on the C7, a shame but that is the situation with the missile.

Aren't we waiting for HB to decide whether the C should have AMRAAM-like guidance? They've already said it will be changing to have command inertial like the amraam.

As far as i'm aware were just still waiting for the 54 to make it onto the new missile API.

Also could be that the speed on the chart is speed above initial launch speed, which may not be 0. Without exact start conditions hard to say.

Original posts meant to say 1600kph like in your original image that was a mistake on my end. And that's the number I was working with when writing up my posts. I accidently just wrote 1100kph sorry about that. From the standard atmosphere table air density for standard day at 3000ft is ~1.1226 kg/m^3. Also fair some value between 25 and 30G is probably accurate for M1.3 for the chart. However when brought down to 3000ft from 10000ft 30-35g is probably accurate and is why I said 30-33G in my last post. I probably should have clarified that. I'm not saying its completely valid but rather that it is a rough indication that the amraam's performance in game is not impossible. That's always what I meant by the use of the charts essentially just to say hey we have a rough analog here and it can reach nearly to the loading values seen in game at roughly the same speeds, when the fact the chart is for 10,000ft is considered. There are additional factors, which I'll mention below, that can make up the difference if any. Something else to consider is iirc the 120's fins can deflect more than the sidewinders but don't quote me on that. I want to say in game its 25deg, I could ofc be very wrong. But if I am correct this would allow the missile to pull higher aoa and as such a get a higher Cl. Tail control instead of nose control also would help getting to higher aoa's as well iirc. Something else for the chart as well is that as far as I can tell this is for 0deg of roll. And that for this paper 0deg roll means that if you were to look from the rear of the missile the fins would look like a + where if they were X in orientation you would get additional lift from the missile increasing the Gload further.

The "variant" line is going to be more along the lines of an amraam due to being more similar in shape and at M1.3 its about 30-33G at M1.3. Also the chart is for 10k feet or just over 3km.

Right, and Iisted a bunch of technologies and various qualities of PD radars and monopulse systems that are specifically able (if not outright developed) to counter notching to make it borderline impossible to happen. Again not impossible just a 1 in a million chance. One of the sources I posted is a literal Raytheon patent from the early 80's. You have yet to post anything more than your opinion. There have been a bunch of tacviews and tracks posted, and flying competitive it is more than a common sight to see people just notching amraams left right and center. Hec examples are posted in the first post of this thread. Now as a disclaimer I haven't played the latest patch so it may be better. But as of the last time I played it was pure child play to notch amraams so I have no clue what your seeing. Especially in MP. When I tested with friends before making this thread it was nearly a 100% success rate with notching so long as I wasn't an idiot and completely botched the maneuver. I watched your tacviews and here's my notes. In the first one you did notch the missile at ~25sec and it began reducing G slowly (new AP lets of G slowly) but then it reacquired at 28sec. Which is a dice roll if it happens it doesn't happen often. So you did infact notch the missile the moment you reduced closure below 100kts. You can tell as the G suddenly spikes from ~2G to 4.5G and stays high for the rest of the intercept. For the second you just got unlucky, you did notch the missile at ~29 sec. And it started to fly straight it may have been flying on datalink hard to tell, G reduced to nearly 1G and it was flying straight for about 7sec. However you flew so level in straight it was essentially going to hit you ballistically. Now when it got closer to you it seems to have reaquired for just the briefest of moments at 38sec and that gave it just enough time to pull onto you. So for this one I think you just got unlucky due to flying so straight and level that you flew right into the PIP. For the last two the moment you got below 100kts of closure they were immediately notched. And did not require and were not in a position to essentially hit you ballistically. Proving exactly what was posted in my original post I might add. Which based off of all the documents we have is not how it should work.

This is without the motor btw.

Reaching up to 35G at that speed is probably not unreasonable we have gloading charts available for an AIM-9 with an AIM-120 style nose cone and much smaller fins and it was fully capable of reaching its structural G-limit of 40G at speeds as low as 1100kph.