Well, the only thing left is to wait. I would like to get something interesting and unique for US, but in the end I see an F/A-18C without a single unique weapon.
Biggest issue is that a significant portion of the stores inventory is in some way exported, so is very likely to be able to be duplicated in another tree somewhere (Sub trees really don’t help here) and that the few unique options aren’t actually on the table (due to existing precedent or game balancing considerations, e.g. Post Release control / re-target, LOAL -F&F & submunition warheads).
In reality they still didn’t have much that either wasn’t a Joint Store ( DMLGB / EGBU, JDAM & JSOW), or able to be carried by the A-6E / A-7E that it replaced (AGM-84E, ER/DL kit Walleye w/ datalink, AGM-65E & -65F).
One thing I would like to see would be the AGM-123 Skipper II, or BLU-95 / -96 (500 and 2000lb class FAE bombs).
Also as we don’t actually have a contemporaneous F-16 / F-15 / F-14 it provides no advantages there especially for the BR it’s at doesn’t matter if it doesn’t have a useful lineup either as it is basically overshadowed in terms of A2G capabilities, and it’s strengths are well known and easily worked around for most potential threats in terms of A2A, where it is otherwise at a notable disadvantage.
Even if we talk about Joint Store… JSOW for F/A-18 would be OP? I dont think so. It is literally Grom-like bomb in game. Even JDAM-ER… But we have all same weapons in game. Just Mavs with different name.
Thermobaric bombs will be interesting to view in game.
depends which (sub)variant would be implemented. As the various warheads behave very differently.
the S-13DF was a removed rocket that used an FAE warhead, so it does sort of have precedent, it’s just got a massive radius due to the TNTe that they used.
IIRC, main difference between 65F and 65G it is seekers algorithms. But warhead same as 65G
As far as I remember and know, the developers made it just a HE but with a huge amount of explosives. This was an incorrect settings, because in general, thermobaric ammunition against armored vehicles is not very effective.
Close, the difference is that between them is practically only the presence of a “Carrier certified” (HERO) Safety and Arming device (does nothing In WT), on the -65F. Both the -65F & -65G have an (independent, axial) correlation seeker mode as it allows “point attack” for both large facilities and ships (Zero relative Contrast targets), at extended ranges, and improves slightly over the -65D.
Though the Seekers in game are overperforming known data somewhat.
The S-13DF used a TNTe of approximately 3 or so, it’s still by far the highest “Re Factor” in game as most other explosives run from 1.3 though 1.7 so the BLU-96 would have similar performance to the 5t bombs in game (~100 meter effective radius)
Only if they are fully buttoned up, which is rare even in combat. and even then would still mission kill the engine, they are still far more effective against light armor, AI targets and “Rats”.
Well, that’s what I said. For the game G = F and it’s just a rename.
The EGBU, LJDAM and even mav variants iirc.
Only laser, but it is useless for game.
Yes, I said about it.
1 Like
Ehh. Useless or not I would still like to see all the historical ordnance.
I don’t think Laser Mav is historical on USAF aircrafts.
Idk man. If they used them i want to see them. If they didn’t so be it. Wasn’t there another much newer vairant of the Mav. Like the H or K afaik
H in game already iirc and it is same or very similar for… AGM-65B? AGM-65K we already have in Sweden TT on Viggens and Gripens (Rb.75T)
1 Like
It is but it’s fairly rare, and tended to only really be carried by aircraft expected to go on BAI / CAS taskings (e.g. Specific Block F-16’s & A-10s) since the basic -65E could not properly track own-ship designators due to the way the seeker worked (the basic -65E inherited the -65C’s SALH seeker from the early 70’s) has to do with how centroid tracking and Laser reflections & Shadows, interfere with the Guidance and Control section.
As such the -65E-2 / -65L (the same missile, sans HERO compliant SAD system) is far more useful, since it can be freely self-lased and isn’t left hanging without additional support (which frees up other tactical elements to do other things). And permits better tasking for specific Target sets meaning that inventory can be better managed. (I wouldn’t be surprised if the Digital seeker from the E-2 was backported to the HEAT-F warhead to produce the AGM-65C-2 configuration to allow full use of remaining inventory of the 125lb warheads).
LJDAM bug report got closed for being a duplicate, which ig is fair, for every jet except the A-10C.
And they also deleted your comment and removed the A-10 vs F-35 document for being classified, even though the only reason you came across it is because it got declassified (at least I assume lol) and there was a whole article linked in report on it being declassified lol
Not blaming you, just wanted to let you know and also I find it kind of funny, since the one jet that it isn’t a duplicate of I cannot report since the primary source I used is apparently classified
Can’t find anything immediately (which makes sense since it’s a pretty obscure piece of equipment) but it’s come up before and iirc it cannot fire amraams and is only good for ferrying them around. Would be cool if they could
everything should come to fact that there is patent on double amraam rail for amber cfts…
Yeah I’m fine with those, it’s the quad racks that I’m unsure about
All the same, needs to wait. Because no one can prove the absence of double pylons for the Su-27SM and Su-30.
1 Like