It would provide a unique option to patch the 8.3-9.0 American CAS gap.
No, it would still retain a massive payload, ballistics computers, and be very able to defend itself.
What would the vehicles you suggest add?
Something actually interesting.
Nope. They would add literally nothing interesting to the game.
How are they not interesting? All of them come with AIM-9’s and nice payloads. Bronco can have a minigun turret installed underneath the fuselage.
1 Like
I think the real question is what CAS gap hes even talking about?
Is he playing a different game?
1 Like
Anything else? there’s dozens of American planes that fit that description.
Out of all of those, the Bronco is the only interesting one.
He’s playing different game it seems.
1 Like
The Mavericks in this case are very obviously mockups due to a lack of any service markings. Unless there is an official US report stating it was tested with operational AGM-65A missiles, Gaijin will not accept it as proof of usage.
1 Like
The cockpit is also lacking any display for guided munition, wich is also another proof of it’s inability of using maverick or any other sort of PGM.
6 Likes
Isn’t the A4 and other aircrafts with bullpups alredy there?
2 Likes
Nice picture. The sketch in the report is not very legible, so I wondered what some of the instruments were. Especially the elapsed flight time clock on the right side.
Since the A-X was supposed to have the munitions the A-10 has now, some instruments were there as placehodler. I think this is what the extra instruments with the arrows(?) into the sketch mean.
So no Mavericks, as there is no display, and maybe no RWR either?
I really don’t think Gaijin would change anything with this, unless another source, like a weapons test report, is found.
@Pangolin_Fan here is the source: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADB004597.pdf
have a read. It is quite interesting what flaws came to be and what suggestions were made, that were then installed into the final aircraft
1 Like
Im glad you took our criticism and fixed your suggestion.
I know some people who wouldn’t do that.
Not only that, but we could literally get another later Skyhawk variant to fill those gaps
We genuinely don’t need the YA-10 in the TT due to just how many options could be added for the US that were proper service aircraft
2 Likes
A later Skyhawk, you mean a more modern one than the A-4E Early? Kinda defeats the whole purpose of an 8.3/7 CAS if it’s not gonna be 8.3/7.
I would love to see a more modern Skyhawk, but it wouldn’t patch the 8.3/7 CAS gap.
Something like a late A-4E (humpbacked) or A-4F could work.
A-4M could be reserved for much later in the tree, with AIM-9H/AIM-9L, AGM-65F, Walleyes, etc
All of these would be a major improvement over the A-4B in the TT
They wouldn’t be at 8.3/7 though. The whole point of this suggestion is an 8.3/7 CAS.
A late A-4E would be virtually no different from the early in ground ordnance, and would quite literally fit exactly at 8.7. All that might differentiate it is the visual model, and maybe 4x AIM-9Bs instead of just 2x.
An A-4F and A-4M would come after for higher BRs
A-4E Early’s ground BR is 9.3.
In that case, disregard everything I said
tbf, my main reason for not trusting the document was bc I though it was inaccurate/outdated. When @CodenameCrusade pointed out that I was in the wrong, and that the mavericks were merely mockups, that kinda defeated my whole reason for thinking it got info wrong.