Even no looking at constitution Japan hasn’t integrated any Paveway or other laser weapon on F-4EJ
It is not the pod for targeting, the same with J/AAQ-2. It is just navigation pod
Similar to the LANA pod on the A-7?
In game LANA can be used for aiming weapon but J/APQ-1 can’t do it mostly
Gotcha
Honestly not even that… There was one guy that kept rejecting any sources suggesting it could on the basis that they didn’t state “GCS-1 is able to track all ground vehicles in the game War Thunder”, but only such abstract things like directly showing the IR signature range the GCS-1 tracks to include ground targets.
But even then since we got the Penguin that’s the last bit of argument for GCS-1 deniers gone anyways, considering there is more evidence GCS-1 could track ground targets than the Penguin.
There is really no such thing as “offensive” or “defensive” weapons. In fact I can just as easily turn this around and say dumb bombs are offensive with less regard to local infrastructure in a defensive role, rather than guided ordnance that can be specifically guided towards only the enemy forces.
It’s a political argument, not a strict rule. Basically serves no purpose other than to strike a debate that doesn’t have a predetermined outcome.
It’s left intentionally vague so that nothing is explicitly banned, while still slowing down and sometimes preventing decistions. Essentially the policy of post-war USA, where they wanted to hinder the Japanese military post-WWII, but still wanted allied forces in the region.
1 Like
For the EJ Kai the only things would be GCS-1 and ASM-2 tho im not sure if ASM-2B can be used on the EJ Kai due to lack of GPS antenna maybe with third party coordinates idk.
In game technically both can be used even more so now with other IR air to ground weapons gaijins has added
Only with GCS-1 i can see some issues with targeting where you simply drop them and they target what they see with IR.
With ASM-2 it will work similar to the penguin. Set a designated location where an enemy is and fire then once the missile gets close it will lock in with IR.
Of course ASM-2 would have bit better performance…maybe range and higher warhead.
I didn’t say it was justified ;) IR seekers are pretty simple, you’re probably seen that gif of a Sidewinder perfectly tracking a cigarette being held in front of it. An object with a heat signature infinitely smaller than a hot engine bay or jet engine.
Speaking of that, I wonder if a Penguin has ever been tested against ground targets.
I assume it’d just work like the basic ASM-2 then. GPS guidance was added but it is still capable of normal inertial guidance to my knowledge.
2 Likes
in gate I believe they were dumb bombs or GPS guided jdams
To be fair, that cigarette was much closer than 9km+
Yes, and that’s precisely my argument. It doesn’t really matter how big your target is, eventually you’ll lock onto it if you get close enough. Arguing that the GCS-1 can’t track a tank because it’s “too small” is ridiculous.
2 Likes
I believe IR missiles cant track tanks because they aren’t designed to track a tanks heat signature at a distance that would allow it to be launched and hit the target without putting the aircraft at risk, also I believe it may just be a targeting issue
Good thing the GCS-1 isn’t an IR missile then.
oh it appears I hit reply to the wrong comment sorry
I meant to reply to this
1 Like
Not like the AGM-65G exists, nor the KH-38.