Badger1-1 Posted August 28, 2023 Posted August 28, 2023 Like the topic says: Are there any newer versions in the oven? or looked at? 120D for example Thanks Badger
Gunfreak Posted August 28, 2023 Posted August 28, 2023 I'm guessing no, none of the aircraft models in dcs uses the D, not sure they even used the C7. Maybe the 2010 version of the strike eagle that razbam eventually will make used the C7 version. It would also be the only module that has any use for it. F18 and 16 both have a radar that locks a target at around 45nm, which is also the max range of the C model we have in game. The SE with a radar that can lock up at 80nm could have use for the C7 which has a range of 60-70nm 2 i7 13700k @5.2ghz, GTX 3090, 64Gig ram 4800mhz DDR5, M2 drive.
ACS_Dev Posted August 28, 2023 Posted August 28, 2023 We should get the C-7 at least. The capabilities of these weapons are classified, their procurement process is generally not. The DOD was buying C-7s in 2002 for the USAF and by 2006 they were receiving and/or buying AIM-120Ds. Some might question the idea of F-16s being allocated stocks of the C-7 but as arguably the best variant of the F-16 available at the time and also a key SEAD asset, I think a block 50 being deployed to a near-peer conflict would definitely be getting them. Remember this was many years before the F-35 actually became a thing operationally for the USAF. https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY02/AFD-070223-114.pdf?ver=2016-08-19-124943-483 Refer to page 85. The main benefit of the upgrade is listed as improved electronic protection. What that means for us may be up for debate. I don't believe the same can be said for whether the AIM-120C-7 actually existed at the time. If ED is in fact modeling a 2007 USAF block 50, ANG or not, they should be adding the AIM-120C-7. We don't exactly know how much better it would be than the C-5 but at the same time I doubt ED knew everything about the C-5 either. What we do know is that the DOD thought the upgrade was worth the money. We also know that ED's ECM model is extremely basic and full of guesswork already so a C-5 that is harder to jam and maybe has slightly better guidance logic would be acceptable in my book. I think the majority of the community would agree. The fact that it has no contemporary true redfor opponents to shoot at is not relevant to the conversation. "Got a source for that claim?" Too busy learning the F-16 to fly it, Too busy making missions to play them Callsign: "NoGo" "Because he's always working in the editor/coding something and he never actually flies" - frustrated buddy Main PC: Ryzen 5 5600X, Radeon 6900XT, 32GB DDR4-3000, All the SSDs. Server PC: Dell Optiplex 5070, I7 9700T 3.5GHz, 32GB DDR4-2133. Oculus Quest 3.
Njinsa Posted September 13, 2023 Posted September 13, 2023 This... "We don't exactly know how much better it would be than the C-5 but at the same time I doubt ED knew everything about the C-5 either. " ...is exactly why this C-5 vs C-7 story is worthless with respect to expectations. If they (ED) wanted, they could copy C-5's model and guidance logic into C-7 years ago and claim that under certain conditions, missile will perform better, not disclosing details or providing use cases. Wags was very, very clear on what could be done with publicly available data and what stuff is not worth of putting business at risk. No legally obtainable docs, no model. End of story.
bies Posted September 13, 2023 Posted September 13, 2023 (edited) Making some modern totally classified weapon, with zero data, in completely unrealistic way, would be pointless. But that's just my opinion. And right now late 1990s AIM-120C-5 in DCS still lacks some of its real life capabilities. Edited September 13, 2023 by bies
Recommended Posts