Agreed. I think FA-18C is a prime candidate to receive C5 as it comparatively REALLY slow
1 Like
How is calculating numbers the same as blind speculation
Gentle men i stole this of r/warthunder
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1he10vh/another_phrase_that_will_go_down_in_history_as/
19 Likes
Gaijin “German don’t have PIRATE IRST due to historical”
meanwhile abomination name F-16AJ and YaK 141 exist in the game
best joke i ever see
German euro with IRST are even more real than entire existence of both i’ve mentioned
6 Likes
Gaijin seem to forget that noone in the world put marketing lie for their weapons more than their glorious Russia
SU-57 the raptor killer they said yet rcs of F-18.
1 Like
its not like the eurofighters will already be hold back by not getting the propper weaponkits.
Also as rmk-30 for UHT, but nuh oh - non historical (or any other reason…)
or by not getting the propper thrust for their engines
or by not getting the propper Instant turnrate
or by not getting the propper sustained turnrate
or by not getting their ECM Modelled
2 Likes
German Eurofighter is lightest Eurofighter in game because it has no IRST right??
1 Like
Should be in theory, but wasn’t on the dev server. It had the same weight
The IRST was probably replaced with a counterweight to avoid upsetting the balance of the aircraft. Britain at one point considered removing the gun from their Eurofighters, but kept it when they round they’d have to pay to put a counterweight in it’s place.
1 Like
Lol you don’t need to “counteract” the weight, first of all it’s negligible, and the aircraft is computer controlled using fly by wire, it easily corrects for imbalance.
No one is saying it can’t super cruise.
theres been two guys MiG-23M and BBCRF have been claiming it cant at all for the last couple weeks
5 Likes
When not having proof of concrete numbers you are making speculative numbers. I looked more into that site it is an forum much like this one. Sources the site uses may be useful but without seeing them the data there is useless and questionable. I.e. numbers on an aircraft that never existed.
Also i never said blind speculation so what are you trying to do? Speculation can be made with information but if you don’t have enough information the info is still speculative.
End of the day they are an 3rd party source and will be nothing but against the standards that Gaijin has enforced on other aircraft.
You do need to counteract it, since having the computer constantly compensate will create noticeable extra drag and worse performance
What kind of source would be valid in your opinion, we gave you pilot testimony, manufacturer specifications from several independent firms, specifications from several different airforces, and forums such as that one, that all corroborate. Everything agrees, except you
That’s not what the UK were told
The decision to retain operational flexibility was made in early 2003 after a detailed assessment of the costs of ballast compared with guns," says the MoD. Ballast would have been needed to replace the gun mass as the aircraft’s flight- control system took into account the presence of the gun. An assessment into the use of ballast for the UK’s planned remaining 177 Eurofighters , carried out by UK Eurofighter partner company BAE Syst ems , concluded that guns, and not ballast , was the better option .
4 Likes
Well this is just a bold face lie i had to scroll up to see if i missed something. The only thing provided that i put into question was that site and it’s numbers I haven’t seen any 1st or second party sources that corroborate those number and therefore I will not accept them. As well with it being 3rd party numbers neither should Gaijin.
So far the only source I have seen posted in here about trusted numbers are the engines producing 20,000 lbf but that is static and not including channel loss so preformance will be less when installed like it is on all aircraft just like it is modeled in game.