So do we have an explanation for why Amagi is both coming, and is carrying a floatplane and catapult that did not exist at the same time as the Amagi hull?
Looks like an E4N, which didn’t make its first flight until 1930 (and also apparently isn’t useable in-game either despite being modeled on Ise). Amagi had been scrapped several years before that. Plus the catapult, I don’t think that one needs to be said.
Then of course, why Amagi and not just Nagato instead? They clearly wanted a ship more powerful than Mutsu… for some reason… and also wanted it to carry floatplanes. Well there’s only one ship in the IJN that fits that criteria and it isn’t Amagi.
In addition, question for @Smin1080p_WT
does this pair of sentences imply that the tech tree is going to be rearranged so that it doesn’t look like it was designed by an AI?
Currently Mutsu (Battleship, no relation to Kongo) is placed behind Kongo (Battlecruiser, no relation to Mutsu) seemingly just because both ships have 4 turrets and look kinda similar. This is the equivalent of placing the MiG-27 behind the MiG-23, or the F-15 after the F-14, or the T-90 after the T-80.
Alaskas guns were pretty nuts as well for the time being on par with if not flat out better than older 14 inch guns.
Given that the Russians were wanting a 12 inch gun that fired shells similar in weight to the Alaskas but at a velocity similar to that of the Scharnhorsts 11" guns its not that surprising they ended would have ended up with that kind of performance.
Barrel life is basically non-existent though but thats a tradeoff you make when going with such high velocities.
Ersatz Yorck or Mackensen would both fit and truly should have been picked as Hood contemporaries rather than the disgustingly OP ship that is Scharnhorst.
Wish more that germany would get a few planes with torpedos or a Do217 with Hs 293 would probably be good aswell instead of another top rank ship. That’s whats really missing the most
That is to say, are we finally on the road to EFT/Rafale/F-2/etc?
I know at least with the F-2 they called it an Gen 4++ but I don’t understand the categorization between the two. Either way, it makes December seem more exciting.
Base J-10A is not really gen 4+, but its built around the era of gen 4+s. The J-10C would breach the gen 4++ gates, mainly through new avionics and ERAAM, but this can indeed be said about a few other Chinese designs who were upgraded over time as well, namely J-11BS, J-16D, JF-17 Block 3 etc.
According to some list both the J-10B/C and the JF-17 are recognized as 4.5th gen fighters, but I don’t think that is saying much. Neither the J-10, nor the JF-17 are groundbreaking.
If anything I’d expect the Hornets, maybe some early F-2 variant and an early Su-30, but knowing Gaijin, no Eurofighter or Rafale
Unironically SARH missiles with AESA would be stronger than ARH missiles and AESA. So if anything I’d imagine the mid production version with AAM-3 and AAM-4, with the bonus of CAS in the form of sniper targeting pod and L-JDAMs.
Regardless, I feel the time for early F-2 has passed. It’s a shame they never went the XF-2A route either as they could avoid AESA.
The J-10 is more significant about breaking the import-only problem. If you think about it, thats how it would be in war thunder as well, being the first indegnious gen4 fighter in the Chinese TT. It is one of the four projects that were insisted to continue and assured by the highest government authorities, alongside with one thing we already see here, the ZTZ99 project.
Technically speaking; we discorvered that the J/ARG-1 transmitter is required for AAM-4s Datalink guidance, meaning even an early F-2 can still use AAM-4s but only via “Hardlock” (or however that looks like on AESA), just like AV-8B+ for example. Thanks to the GBU-38 and the NAVFLIR, Japan would also have at least a moderate CAS against SAM or stationary targets. We are also trying to find out what kind of seeker the ASM-2 has and how it works, it may be possible to target ground units with it as well; practically a speudo Kh-29TD / Kh-38MT if possible.
