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
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.
Behold! The next battlepass reward!
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.
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
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)
Where is my Harrier II Pre-order Gaijin?
]:(
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.
Whatever it is, I hope it gets corrected
Now you jinxed it. Hahahahahah but still I love the battlepasses. This one had the PBM-5A which is a lovely addition.
hey @Smin1080p_WT is there any particilar reason you guys chose Barham in her jutland configuration?
because no offense but this right here was a conscious decision HMS Barham like most of her sister was extensively refit later in her life. She could have been added in her 1941 configuration and this right here wouldnt even be an issue.
The event is themed around Barhams participation in Jutland.
Other versions of the QE class remain possible in the future. As the first version to join the game, it’s appropriate it’s an early configuration as it’s also an event vehicle.
Well, I didn’t include them on the list based on Smin’s statement that each nation would get a Rank VI vehicle over the next two updates. If we assume that includes Dance of Dragons which isn’t out yet, then Tennessee is what the US is getting.
It had nothing to do with whether or not the US needs something to compete, which I would agree they do.
It is worth noting that the US BBs lack of survivability is identified as a bug (the barbette armor just stops working), so hopefully that will get fixed soon.
So it seems after this we got 1 more event then it’s the “Dreams Come True” event on the 31st.
Then it should be either 1 or 2 more before the classic Winter event.
So in theory the next event is aircraft based.
