Yes very warranted to make the pay-to-play plane have a capability the real-life version never had. They do that a lot for premiums.
1 Like
I’ve looked it up, and it’s historically impossible for an F-102 to carry a proximity fused FFAR, for much the same reasons the F-89 couldn’t have it:
The m429 VT warhead is longer than a standard mk4, and wouldn’t fit within the launch tubes (in the f-102 case specifically you couldn’t put 2 of them in tandem)
You can’t launch multiple proxy fused rockets simultaneously in close proximity to one another without them blowing up each other, they have to be launched one at the time
The m429 warhead only entered service after the type was retired.
The only viable FFAR airburst rocket for the type would be the wdu-4 flechette round, which detonates on motor burnout - but considering the really poor state of the TBA-darts in the super etendard, i don’t want them to try…
What would REALLY help is having a better visual guide to aim the rockets than whatever the current reticle is supposed to mean. I understand that modelling radar guided air to air rocket CCRP is beyond gaijin’s capabilities/will, but having a gyro optical sight tuned to the rocket’s ballistics corrected for speed, altitude and turn rate like the backup aiming system the f-102 already had in the 50’s, would already be a huge step forward.
Ah, that’s a bummer. Thanks for your notes!
But yeah, a visual guide to aiming rockets would be very nice to have.
No not at all, they modeled the time fused rocket system it had, the problem was that it did not work at all in game due to the limitations gaijin had at the time.
In practice wise the VT fused rockets function exactly like how the TF fused ones were meant to work in game.
This pre-dates radars automatically updating TF fused round fuse times remember, that feature got added like 3 years after the F-89 arrived, prior to such it’s FCS could not be modeled. Now it can.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but i haven’t seen a reference to the F-89D/H using time fused FFAR’s anywhere at all (although ironically the HVAR’s DID have optional proximity fused warheads in service at the time), they were standard mk4’s as well. What the computer did was to calculate the exact timing of when the rockets should be launched to hit the target, and launch the rockets if the pilot gave it permission to do so - it was literally air to air rocket CCRP.
The original Hughes E-6 system was able program the center set pod mounted FFARs with a generic range for the entire group, making it like a flak shotgun. You brought up the WDU-4 rockets above and I would most closely associate such with that but as a attempt to actually control the feature.
There was no nuance in the programming either, all the rockets got the same range input which I would also wager why it was not found to be that useful or wanted.
As far as I am aware the feature was never used and possibly not actually implemented and instead the F-89D was only ever equipped with point detonating mark 1 warheads.
Not sure that’s entirely true? For starters, the FCS had a minimum range (~500m apparently). And you could only fire at a target/the target you had locked on radar. Just making them VT fuzes means you skip both those issues.
Pretty sure F-89D in game wouldn’t be half as annoying to face in props in an uptier with those limitations.
It’s relevant here because the same rockets on the F-102A should have the same issues, really. I agree that wouldn’t make it as much fun to play though.
(EDIT, and as you say it doesn’t appear the F-89D used anything but point-detonating fuzes in any case).
Primary issue here is really just that, direct hitting a player aircraft with FFARs in game is next to impossible unless you are hugging them.
Without a effective TF setup or proxy fuses the rockets are really only usable as a air to ground weapon and even then there are vastly better aircraft to deploy FFARs with.
Combine that with the AIM-4 being not really great and even worse for a stock grind and no cannon being present on the F-102, I really cant see any other way of making the stock grind bearable.
I agree that some sacrifices need to be made for gameplay.
One way I think you could get closer to the “FFAR experience” in the F-102 and F-89D without making it terrible for the player would be to make it so, if you had a radar lock on launch, you get the proxy fuze effect (because having the radar lock would make this system significantly more accurate, by all accounts, time fuze or no), and if you don’t have the radar lock (such as when you’re using it for CAS) you don’t (it’s just a PD fuze).
I mean…
We have a toilet to drop from the A-1H