my point was kinda that israel doesnt have any AGM’s except on the Kurnass 2000
2 Likes
The GBU-15/AGM-130s block AIM-9 (pre 9X) and AIM-120A/B (unless equipped with the 120C short wings) use until after the bomb is dropped (can be carried). 120C and 9X have no such restriction.
Also regarding that pic, SDB+BRU-61 on the wing pylons isnt a permitted load. Hence why the limit is 20. Not 28. The bombs drop fine, but the BRU can’t be jettisoned. So outside of display (where alot of unapproved loadouts get shown) and testing, it wont really happen. Safety trumps all.
Exact reason hard stand pics are not good references.
Would be pretty funny if they implemented the BRUs on wings, and the realistic end result of them likely hitting your wing or tail when jettisoned.
We get a bunch of tested and theoretically possible loadouts, there’s also a significant number of permutations / configurations of ordnance that are completely omitted, let alone being entirely inconstant about it for example;
- How many GPU-5/As did the USN purchase for the A-7E, let alone when exactly the Navy was supposed to have fit tested them, or why the F-5E / F-20A has access to it, when it was never done operationally?
- What about other airframes like the;
- F-15A / -15E (Former was rejected due to only footage being of the F-15B Strike eagle prototype, even though no modification was needed to mount it to the MAU-12 bomb rack)
- F-16A-10 (Still waiting on the report being actioned, was reported when the F-16 was on the dev server)
- A-4E (rejected due to being unable to determine if it was an A-4E (w/ hump) or A-4F even though they are practically similar, though likely was an A-4F).
- What about other airframes like the;
- How many F-4E’s carried the AGM-62A?
- A2G ordnance for the F-16A-15ADF?
- Where is the GBU-15(V)2/B for US airframes apart from the F-111F, and further what about alternate configurations or the eventual addition of the prototype submunition warhead (SUU-54)?
- M151 / M282 warheads for 2.75" rockets that aren’t the APKWS II?
- Assorted HE warheads for HVAR / ATAR & 5" rocket.
- BLU-109 / BLU-118 warhead for the JDAM?
- A-4E able to mount Sidewinders on the outboard wing-station.
- F8U-2 w/ Rocket tray not sealed, which occurred with the F8U-1E(F-8B) variant.
- F-4’s with a CL Fuel tank(s) can fire the rear submerged AIM-7s without needing to jettison the tank first.
I could go on but it really is consistently inconstant about so much, ignoring jettison requirements really isn’t new.
1 Like
I wish gaijin put real effort into actually making things somewhat realistic. Exceptions are fine in the right scenario, and I don’t expect DCS level anything… but at least realistic loadouts would be nice.
They use realism as a justification to not do work, but never the opposite.
thats the porblem gaijin do before thinking if you ask any sesnsible persone they would have seen this backlash coming forom a mile away
It is absolutely dumb af for the I to get 229s and not the E. If they really don’t want the mudhen to outshine the albinos, make CFTs not optional for the E or I. Boom, balanced.
The 120B we have in game features the short wings, that is the only actual difference it has in game over the A, otherwise they are identical.
Completely irrelevant to war thunder, otherwise a number of aircraft would not be able to carry weapons at all, or the weapons they were designed for.
Ditto from above.
War Thunder’s boon that it has over DCS or Falcon BMS is that gaijin is at least receptive to allowing tested or not formally adopted items into the game so that people can experience them as they would be if they were.
The HSTV-L being in game is 100% ahistorical, the Yak-141 being more than an airshow piece is impossible, yet, both are fun additions to the game.
The F-15E can carry SBDs on the wing pylons, is it authorized, no, but so is flying without a navigation pod which gaijin has said they will not add as navigation pods have no use in game.
There is no reason, within the confines of the standards of how other vehicles are treated in War Thunder, that these SBDs should be missing.
5 Likes
I feel like that is a dev server-ism. Specifically because of how they worded it in the devblog.
“the F-15E is just as capable of a dogfighter as the dedicated fighter variants, especially thanks to its access to the more advanced AIM-120B missile.”
Doesn’t negate my fact, or mean I agree with how gaijin handles things. But I digress.
The B has been a A copy stat wise since it got added back with the Tornado, it has yet to change other than the clipped wings.
They added it solely because the Tornado cant carry 120s without clipped wings.
Its a bit ironic since the dev blog states that the B should be an improvement but, well, its identical.
1 Like
Sure, but doesn’t mean it won’t/can’t change. We’ll just have to wait and see.
I could totally see them making the 15E B and Tornado B different. Just because gaijin… or buffing the B as a whole, and increasing the tornado BR to match (Or just not bother moving it. Rarely see it anyways)
1 Like
Oh I am aware, but the clipped wing part will stay since its still on the Tornado and that cant change currently, so the issue of ordnance carriage impedance due to the wings should not be an issue on the F-15s.
1 Like
it cant carry those. hear me out, give it its domestic AGM’s
4 Likes
God… I hope we get a statement soon on this. The community outpour is massive. We’re likely going to have 1,000 votes this week.
8 Likes
popeye is cool but delilah hehehe (S1 go BOOM!)
3 Likes
Works for me too, i havent had the time to look at the f-15Is specs, i only know the american ones, so give the israelis their equivelent to the agm65
Now we just wait for gaijin to think if we deserve such engines that are already in game, on the same aircraft but in a diffrent tt
1 Like
Sir you have broken the forums
any replies yet?
It didn’t have a cockpit in the 1st dev?
It did not
1 Like