F-105D
F-16C
AV-8B(NA), Harrier T.10
MiG-27
There are other jets which have 10000kgf+ in their ‘one engine’.
Also, is there any meaning that seperate ‘single engine jet’ and ‘twin engine jet’??
Yak-141, F-15E, Su-27SM, Su-33, J-11B, F-111F all have above 10,000 kgf per engine iirc
1 Like
I was quite felt lazy to find them all, and I was trying to limit ‘single engine-r’ for his favor :/
Thanks for find other jets which has 10000kgf+ engine in their fuslage.
1 Like
Mig-29, J-10, Su-33, almost every 4th gen, F-104S, F-4F, basically any Kfir, Mirage 2000s, J35XS, and alot more can make 10000kgf peak thrust.
1 Like
So we need to brick Gaijin with red brick or gift a case of JP-6.
how tf are easy bug report like that never saw implementation?
I have no idea.
I’ve got a year old bug report for all Harriers having a sooty exhaust. They shouldn’t. It drives me nuts when something relatively trivial just gets ignored.
There are loads of great reports that are 2+ years old now, that would make a world of difference. Like Aim-9Ms have massively underperforming lock ranges and SRAAMs should have double their current range.
1 Like
Ah, britain hate case. wtf is it wrong with those R-country origin devs for them to hate on britain so much? they conquered london black finance service industry, the old enemy of RuSsIaN eMpIrE is dead, why is the hate boner still there? it’s a game for god sake. Just give their Phantoms 9L and their plane BLU-27. it’s not that hard.
2 Likes
Yeah…
What’s so special about JP-6?
Thank you
You can drop them in front of convoys of light vehicles and they will continuously drive into it. Bombs should be more relevant than napalm for common usage since a lot of planes are missing napalm including many strike aircraft, why should they be at a disadvantage?
Okay, so I can either drop it on bases or waste it on AI convoys. Wow, so useful.
You can use napalm for bases? I never knew that :|
They are better than bombs on any map that only has convoys and spread out units, which is unfortunately a lot of them. Again, why should napalm be better than bombs when many strike aircraft lack it? It’s not that it shouldn’t be useful, it’s that it shouldn’t put normal bombs at a disadvantage like the current ARB does. Ideally people wouldn’t have to compete for bases but even then why should people grind out fighters to do the strike fighters job but better?
Even if you consider the planes that have high quantity bomb loadouts with CCIP that can ground pound they seriously suffer doing this due to bombs having the highest impact on flight performance compared to rockets and napalm, whilst also the units being plastered in the middle of the map so anyone can farm them.
Okay, so either I can bomb bases with them, or waste them on convoys. You have guns, there’s no need to waste napalm on a bunch of jeeps.
It’s not so much wasting them as it is providing a way to kill them without individually shooting them, which takes up your attention compared to napalm and depletes gun ammo, a rather important and often scarce resource for most aircraft. It’s also most of the time a better use of a hardpoint than any single bomb for ground pounding.
Again
The critical question here is not so much a use for napalm as weighing it against bombs having a use.
Because bombs are good for everything. Jesus Christ, how daft are you? Cry cry cry, that’s all this community does. Nerf this, nerf that, change this, don’t change that. How about shut the hell up and play the damn game? Boo hoo, napalm is good, who cares? Just enjoy the stupid game.
Given how deadly the SPAAGs in the convoys can be. Using CCRP to drop them just a head of the convoy would be a good way to deal with them without guided weapons.
A good tactic for me to try in the AMX A-1A actually
1 Like
No they aren’t, like others have said the best base bomber at any BR is whatever is the fastest aircraft that can carry napalm and most of them aren’t even strike aircraft.
It’s not crying, it’s an opinion you don’t like for reasons you seemingly can’t make an argument for. Who’s going to make an argument against cutting payload weight by well over 50% and achieving basically the same reward? It’s transparently obvious napalm is the superior choice and the implications that makes are almost equally hard to justify.
1 Like
Next time you destroy a Leopard 2A7 with napalm, let me know. Napalm is a one trick pony, they can only destroy bases. Bombs can destroy bases, tanks, other vehicles, and can even destroy planes. It’s a jack of all trades.