and yet they had 0 problem adding the the kh58 to planes that already have Kh-31PD or the rb28 to the j35 (already has 9P)
it’s 2026 and to give a plane its correct armament you have to:
- prove the fake armament is incompatible
- prove the fake armament physically can’t fit
- prove the historical armament isn’t inferior to the fake armament
I never thought a game would be more bureaucratic than governments
No idea why we’re getting RB-28 when its straight up worse than the 9J.
@Smin1080p_WT Hello, i believe the devs need to review this more.

This may be true in the context of IRL when considering reliability and other technological capabilities that are not reflected in WT. In game the earlier falcons would actually be superior due to them have much more energy, this is especially critical since they have no proxy fuse. As proof here are graphs:
AIM-4G:

AIM-4C:

As you can see, the AIM-4C launched at about mach 0.8 at sea level reaches about mach 2.2. In contrast, the AIM-4G launched at about 1.1 or so, at sea level, reaches about mach 1.6. So despite having a close to 50% higher launch speed the AIM-4G is vastly slower. Furthermore, the F-102 is a much slower aircraft than the F-106, so the AIM-4F/Gs are even more disadvantageous on it. Based on these facts, I do not believe it can be concluded that the AIM-4A-D are inferior weapons systems in the context of warthunder. Many others and I hope this is re-evalulated.
additional ingame comparison (RB28: AIM-4A/B/C/D):

left: AIM-4A/B/C/D
right: AIM-4F/G
bug report rejected
why add aim4d to j35j while aim9j exists on it lmao, just another example of there being zero actual standards.
looks like gaijin has absolutely no problem with keeping incompatible weapons
don’t worry, something else is coming very soon, i just need to proof-read it
Dev server forum will be closed, as we’ll receive the update by tomorrow.
Please redirect your feedback about F-102A’s incorrect thrust and AIM-4 missiles to this more accessible thread by Master_Teaz.