F-102 Needs to receive AIM-4A + AIM-4D this patch

RELEVANT BUG REPORT (Not a bugged) (Made by @Nostalgistic)
New relevant bug report by @Jadenbetter-live

image
(Origin)

Currently the F-102A Has the AIM-4F and AIM-4G Super Falcons, Which there is no evidence to show that the F-102A could ever mount and shoot the Super Falcon series

as such, the F-102A Should it correct late service (that F-102A is modelled after) AIM-4A and AIM-4D Missiles

The above quote from @Smin1080p_WT states that the F-102A will receive ahistorical AIM-4F and AIM-4G Super falcons in the major update, and that the correct AIM-4A and AIM-4D are not currently planned

Not only does this needlessly hinder the F-102A (Super falcons are specialized for speeds the F-102 physically cannot get to), AIM-4A + D will improve the F-102A’s ability to fight within the realms of War Thunder, Especially as it will rely upon its missiles heavily due to its poor flight performance and being its only practical weapon, unless it receives the SUU-11 gunpod, which will perform poorly

In addition, given that AIM-4D is the Swedish RB28, this would translate into a new missile for the J35J and J35XS too


Should F-102A receive the AIM-4A and AIM-4D Falcons for update “Sky Odyssey”

  • Yes, Give F-102A the correct AIM-4A+D Falcons
  • No, Keep the ahistorical AIM-4G/F Super Falcons
0 voters
12 Likes

Absolutely.

Before anything, the AIM-4A through AIM-4D Falcons aren’t much of a downgrade compared to the AIM-4F/Gs. The upper hand these Falcons have over the -4F/-4G is speed.

They have the AIM-4D in the CDK jail. They just need to copy and paste it to make the AIM-4A into a SARH version. Problem easily solved, and we will have the AIM-4A/-4D ready by the live patch. The AIM-4C and the redundant AIM-4B can wait.

10 Likes

This is as important to the F-102 as APFSDS is to a 10.0+ MBT! 102 Needs early falcons!

7 Likes

100%

5 Likes

Absolutly agree!

4 Likes

id love the Swedish RB 28 to be added to the J35J, J35XS and AJ37 as well

2 Likes

I don’t know how they conclude this. There’s literally zero hard evidence that supports otherwise.

5 Likes

the missiles dont even share the same dimensions or shape…

1 Like

do you people have the f106? lol why on earth would anyone want worse falcons

looks like someone doesnt know the differnce between the falcon variants

1 Like

??

so they’re worse? brilliant at proving me wrong there.

why do you want to make a bad plane worse

@Smin1080p_WT Could you tell us which source is used to prove that they are technically compatible?

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/2QT3PETojLxZ

Just because they are the same family of missile does not mean it is compatible, see navy and army sidewinders for an example (AIM-9J vs AIM-9G for a more specific example)

“Super falcon” is 4 inches larger than the AIM-4A or D, and may not fit inside the missile bay properly

and there is no apparent evidence F-102 could carry or did carry AIM-4F or AIM-4G

5 Likes

you probably think the 106’s missiles are better just because they have super in the name

How did you reach this conclusion. This is not what I was saying.

2 Likes

don’t try to teach me about American missiles when your only American vehicle is the IRIAF

Consequences of propaganda and misinformation against AIM-4 Falcons, I guess.

depending on AIM-4D performance i want G/F kept as they will fit and connect

I’m gonna call as I see it: Gaijin is way in over their head with this update and they decided they have a lot more things to work on before even trying to fix the F102 and launch it in an acceptable state, and I’ll be understanding on that front.

But @Gunjob , @Smin1080p_WT , for crying out loud, adding a vehicle to the tech tree to 9.0 BR with ONLY 2 air to air missiles when stock is outright sadistic.

image

If nothing else, at least tell the developers to either give it 6 aim-4G missiles or the 24 FFAR rockets to start with, even if they don’t manage to add the gunpods as a modification.

7 Likes