No
People who don’t deeply focus in Japanese tree can’t get all historic problems, all missing vehicle problems and all missing potential of tech tree
This people may have the opinion about balance but it is also very doubt because even people with all tech trees mostly has one lovely tree and they can’t correctly understand Japanese tree
But the problem that Japan was missing any content at this br for years
We had 7.3 line where you couldn’t take anything because kikka is too bad already and r2y2 is too high.
Only what fixed it - F-84G but I talk here about the Japanese tree, not Thais one
If Japan had planes on every br from 6.7 to 8.0 I could understand you, but because of missing vehicles there, planes like T-1, T-33 and Vampire must be appeared
Its supposed to have a passive seeker when 2.5 km from the POI. However with the 0.1 degree view at 2 5 km it cant see anything. Not very surpised that it doesnt function wellin Ground RB, given its an anti-ship missile…
I don’t, I am not an expert in Japanese stuff maybe @Grzegames has smth, though I don’t see why it matters since we have a ton of “technically possible” stuff in the game.
T-1s make up for with AIM-9B/E missile capability, T-33 is good BR 6.X CAS compared to current options like the Kikka that are even higher BR and Vampire T55 shouldn’t be an issue with 2x 20mm (4x 20mm with the second seat taken out)
But even then those are just the Japanese options for rank 5, there’s a good amount of content from founding ASEAN nations like the Thai A-37B, Malaysian MB-339AM or Indonesian Hawk 53. Still not as much as US/USSR or even UK, but a lot more than what the tree is currently limited to
Btw, not too sure about the Vampire Trainer: Afaik only one was used for evaluation, right?
I know there are different opinions, and I know this has been handled differently at least in some cases, but I myself are an advocate for using types and weapons that the respective countries actually used. Am also not at all a fan of the Harrier Gr.1 carrying SRAAM, for example, or Sweden having Apache and Havoc, for example.
I personally think such things should be reduced if possible, not increased.
Flew my first matches yesterday in Sim with the F-5A(G), and liked it so far, being also a fan of the F-5E FCU already.
Certainly has less power than the F-5E, but RWR and HUD is very nice, and the 9L’s work well. BR placement I find fair, certainly no lower, possibly could work ok also with 11.3 in Sim, certainly not higher.
It’s one of those fighters where you have to really rely on yourself as most important asset (and sensor), so it is “situational awareness intensive”, but thus also fun to fly.
But we have! There is a “F-18” with a question mark in the leak. The aircraft was only called “F-18” in Finnish service. The air to ground capability was deleted on purpose and the aircraft was offered, selected and put in service as the “F-18”. I remember it very well even though I was only 11 years old. The leftist politicians would never have accepted an “American attack aircraft”. It was a big thing, the fighter selection was even talked about in school by our teacher. There was American extorsion involved as was discovered later. The Americans had told that if non-American fighter was selected, then the AIM-9M and the RWR threat library would not be approved for export.
I found some more informstion regarding the chaff, such as it used Fiberglass with a metal coating, it could be used various sizes according to what it was intended to be used as. It is a Norwegian modified AN/ALE-38 and has been given the designation A-38N or ALE-38N, seen both used.
Here is a video of one of the pods being installed on the plane;
Radar jamming pods were also used on these planes, i believe it would have 3 options! 1 being the Norwegian developed “Samovar” jamming pod itself, the amweican jamming pod (don’t remember the name) or both installed together on the centerline pod, as seen in the iimage below. We don’t have jamming pods yet to my knowlegde, but when we get them. I believe it would increase its survivability a bit?
Yeah, I’m also not much of a fan of arbitrary connections like Gaijin do. For example the F-16A OCUs AMRAAM bother me a lot.
I think primarily armament should be any weapon type used by a nation on the aircraft, but I’m also fine with weapons that are explicitly compatible without needing modification and are in inventory.
But then there’s also exporting nations that get their airframes spread out a lot. For them I think it’s fair to give broader armament based on what they armament offer to be used with it for export (but not foreign modifications). This way they get a bigger selection in return for being the nation of origin.
I don’t really mind tested armament by itself though, so long as it’s only given to the nation that tested it, and not assigned as some arbitrary default loadout for completely different nations.
But this is also just my personal opinion, and it seems Gaijin prefers to go for a case by case differing system rather than fixed rules to follow.
Does anyone know whether this is correct? The HUD unit for the F-5A(G) from third person view is half black and half grey, did they forget to texture half of it or something?
