that would mean the entire pylon group is non-removable which i find strange considering every other one can be taken off
CM-102 is a side/downgrade of the AGM-88 at best,
PL-12 is unlikely to get changed ngl it has been 3 months almost
J-16 is gonna be a side/ slight upgrade to the 15T
also funfact the JH-7A should have everything the A2 has (HMD is not even confirmed lmao)
A2 adds some munitions not even ingame
1 Like
Engine type doesn’t not dictate year of service.
The F-15C GE is using weapon systems accepted for service as of 2025, and deliveries made allegedly late-2025 & all of 2026 according to the document used.
That and F-15C GE itself is from the mid 2010s.
Either way, you accidentally typed 18 instead of 15; and China is just one of 9 other tech trees also under the same standards.
Iran’s F-14A is using the wrong RWR allegedly.
Good thing that does not occur. Subtractions occur after historical reports. Additions occur after internal research/historical reports.
Nerfs/buffs are bug/historical reports internal/external.
All from just looking from the outside.
@genises1o
And according to quick research, the YJ-91A is an anti-ship missile, which is why I talked about the CM-102.
It can be “worse” than AGM-88, but that won’t change the peak capabilities of CAS.
You’re not bringing in JH-7A2 because of anti-rad, you’re bringing it in cause of KD-88As & 2 AMRAAMs as air-defense.
it does, but whatever makes you sleep at night.
3 Likes
YJ-91A is kinda a made up name as they are all called YJ-91 in service, i could go into more depth with the naming.
and ngl you would be bringing the KH-29T´s instead of the KD-88A´s as the 29T´s have better TTI .
Btw the PL-12 nerf will be literally be very unlikely to be changed as the acted upon a bugreport (2 or 4 years old) of the PL-12 wobbeling too much, ive asked smin repeatedly if there is anything to report about the change and there is nothing.
2 Likes
so we are just making stuff up, where is it claimed that it is due to the manual
ontop of that they actually buffed the J-10A by increasing its lift boundary
The bug report used said manual also wanna point i am psure it has the wrong G rip limits the 10C if we go by this brochure, but idk.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QWQbQD3b7H3e
nah 10C limits are fine just checked
only instructor changed idk what that does tbh
it didnt
the only time the word “manual” is used is in the comments of that report
because the changes are already live
i was refering to the brochure if read further (sorry for the word mix up) and most likley was he too as there is no offical J-10 manual
statshark version comparison
as i was concerned about this line
)Make thread about Chinese mistreatment
)Somehow make it about Rafale in the same thread
I thought I was in a thread about China expecting to read about Chinese stuff.
It looks like they never promised it would happen, just that they were looking into it as a possibility, I suppose they never found proof this was applicable to the airframe.
What sources do you have? I plan to create a report based on a video from the exhibition and two books
there are no sources afaik literally cause if you look at pics of YJ-91´s mounted on planes they are all just called YJ-91 or XF-91 on the missile itself
Also cant really apply that picture as CM400AKG isnt a service weapon as far as i am aware so it shouldnt have a inservice designation.
if you have more info feel free to share
This video from export products.
If YJ-91 this video YJ-91E, and not YJ-91AE, so domestic version - YJ-91
well the video only shows CM-400AKG or what they also call YJ-91E, so its not applicable.
Not the first time this has happened
there are multiple occasions of export names also corresponding with other stuff or being completely unrelated such as the
ZTZ99AE = VT-4
JH-7A = JH-7E
eg
chinas naming for export stuff is very weird and should not be forced upon via the logic of E = export automatically
It’s possible; I don’t rule out that option either.
You probably have this book
Spoiler
I’ve forgotten the name of the second source, and it’s lying somewhere among the files
Sometimes they do make mistakes and aren’t very keen on fixing them for one reason or another.
For example on the BTR-3E1 they accepted and “fixed” a bug report that used sources for the BTR-3E instead of the E1 we have in game. This is reported but not fixed.
Or the Tan-SAM Kai that historically uses split ARH and EO/IR missile loadouts but can only take one at a time in game, even when the mechanics to add both exist since the Pantsir SM-SV was added. Or on the same vehicle the missing IOG+DL for the OE/IR missiles which was even in the same update added to other SAM. Both are reported and accepted, but possibly just not important enough to them.
They also, especially for modern vehicles, use guesswork. This by itself is no surprise and makes a lot of sense, but they also only change it based on sources. So in many cases even if there is proof their guesses are wrong, this can’t be changed unless there is specific sources about how it should be instead, so it’s impossible to just get more accurate guesswork and once something is only an outdated estimation it will stay as that until sources are public.
I’m not saying there’s a clear solution to all of this, sometimes there is just certain development priorities and the time isn’t there to do fixes even when they know that a mistake has been made, and fixing things based on updated guesswork is to them just an effort they know is likely to need changing again in the future, but I don’t think that with all of this it’s right to say the game is always historical or realistic. It’s trying to be, and reports can be made, but that doesn’t mean that it is.
1 Like
shocking news ppl are getting chat banned if they insult others
seems like you are an expert in that
2 Likes