To be fair, the Tornado GR.1 also is the only one to have the older Mk101 engines
Dunno about the CLDP pod, but I’m pretty sure the TIALD pod is also worse than the LITENING II pod
The best attack aircraft premium pack
AV-8B Night Attack (USMC) and AV-8B+ (USMC & Marina Militare) lack GBU-32(V)2/B JDAM 1,000 lb (450 kg) & GBU-54/B LJDAM 500 lb (230 kg)
My ADHD brain really enjoys that we likely only have to wait 2-4 weeks for devblogs for the new update after this one gets released.
Do you mean it lacks them in WT and needs to get them or lacks them irl and so likely won’t get them in WT?
Was more referring to the 10 → 4 JDAM situation but would love to see bigger/different JDAMs on it too.
2 Likes
It’s the former, it should have access to them via the D-ITER (BRU-70)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IBcaw9Ue88xM
Considering that the F-14B was mentioned as planned to receive JDAMs in this update and the only size they used is the 1000lb GBU-32, having multiple variants added is likely for most airframes that are planned. Though I wouldn’t at this point be able to say with any amount of certainty that the loadouts will be correct, as most airframes have unique station adapters(e.g. F-16 w/ BRU-57, AV-8B with BRU-70) or otherwise non-standard carriage rules, since JDAMs require the mounting station to be MIL-STD-1760 compatible.
1 Like
Thanks!
That gives me hope that even if we get only 4, we might still get the 1000lbs ones.
Do you have any knowledge ff the D-ITER allows for reprogramming of the 2-3 JDAMS hanging on it’s rack in flight as opposed to just pre-flight programming only?
tripod2008 say this
I think F-14B mounted GBU-31(V)2/B JDAM only but after F-14B (upgrade). Actually F-14B can’t armed JDAM
Rename F-14B from USA tech tree to F-14B(U), change new HUD by Sparrowhawk HUD
4 Likes
Another F-14B, yeah that would be cool.
Does reduce the chance of a 1000lbs JDAM for this patch unfortunately.
Very curious to see what the AV8BNA blog will say!
It has full JDAM capability, they can be reprogramed in fight as the AV-8B shares many components with the F/A-18 and F-14B(U) / -14D so integrating was well sorted by the time it was being done for the AV-8B’s OFP.
The lack of re-programmability is specific to certain airframe configurations and comes in tiers
The Ukrainian MiG-29’s for example, because it was a crash program to achieve capability a lot of the nice to haves were not included initially for expediency and also due to a lack of relevant targeting sensors and integration, inflight Re-targeting wasn’t really ever going to be an option since they weren’t in permissive airspace.
For example the initial F-14B(U) / F-14D, wasn’t capable of automatic handoff though targets could still be manually updated, the process just wasn’t entirely automatic. (Where the Aircraft could use its radar / TGP and generate coordinates and those be uploaded from memory at the press of a button.) initially Co-Ordinates would need to be generated, read-back, noted, then re-entered in the proper location then uploaded to the JDAM for reprograming the target. But since it was only a slight software change it didn’t take too long after feedback was gathered.
3 Likes
Behold! The next battlepass reward!
6 Likes
That wouldn’t be bad actually. BP vehicles should only include vehicles that would not really fit well into the game or that, when added, don’t take away famous vehicles from a tech tree.
A P-51K or a P-51D from the RNLAF wouldn’t be a bad BP vehicle, as both of their P-51 models are almost exactly in game already, and can be played in other tech trees. The Dutch skin would be the most important change, but wouldn’t take anything away from the ‘main game’, like ex.g. the EBR’s did when they became BP instead of Tech tree.
1 Like
Thats not a harrier:
Do you have proper documentation of this (reprogrammability on the racks and not individual pylons) and has that aspect of it been highlighted for the devs to see it?
If it’s among the large bookworks passed to them I’d imagine they’d skim over it and miss it.
Sort of, not explicitly for the AV-8B / DITER specifically, but MIL-STD-1760, JDAMs and similar internal components.
Technically if you wanted to go further there is also the UAI briefing, that supports functional commonality. (this is attached to one of the open reports in question as supporting evidence )
https://www.iqpc.com/media/6729/4428.pdf
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IBcaw9Ue88xM
2 Likes
I hope that’ll be enough for them then!
Still not clear why it was removed. If it were a balance reason then it’s up to them I suppose. Just like it getting 9L’s instead of 9M’s (a decision I’m fine with btw to put it at a better Br)
1 Like
Where is my Harrier II Pre-order Gaijin?
]:(
2 Likes
I really hope this means the Revenge class will come soon, they are Super Dreadnoughts based on a lighter Queen Elizabeth class
What probably happened was that either a decision was made for balancing purposes to remove them.
or
They looked up what connectors were available for the TER-9/A (Basic TER) or BRU-42/A (Improved TER), and noticed the lack of MIL-STD-1760 compatibility. Without realizing that the BRU-70/A (Digital ITER) existed, since that provided the capability, though the D-ITER is fairly recent having been deployed operationally in 2016 it is somewhat understandable. So there won’t be many available references to them in documentation.
3 Likes