I wish we got the latest model from 1995 that would have Matra FFARs, an IFF, a better RWR, napalm bombs, and some cool cockpid modifications like the MM-3 artificial horizon instead of the AGI-1S and the GPS-100 navigation system, the reality is that we have a vehicle that is accurate to te August, 1976 configration from right when it got the Martin-Baker Mk. 10B ejection seat, but before it got the IFF in October of the same year.
I would much prefer that fit, but if they are going to keep it without an IFF, MM-3, or the AERO-31 pylons, all of which it got before the Matra FFARs, then it also should not have Matra FFARs to stay accurate.
Then it also needs an IFF, AERO-31 pylons, and the MM-3 artificial horizon, but that would require the snail gods to put in more effort, so it’s easier for them to just remove the FFARs and call it a day.
The standard AIM-9P in-game is actually a AIM-9P-3 iirc, the missing rockets is actually incorrect. The F-6C we’ve got in-game is quite weird (the year configuration specifically).
No it’s an AIM-9P-1. It doesn’t have the smokeless motor of the AIM-9P-3s. And the missing rockets are correct for the August, 1976 fit of the F6C. I do agree that it is an extremely bizarre fit to choose of this aircraft, they almost certainly only made it this fit by accident, but it is technically accurate.
Agreed. I wish. It wouldn’t be a major change. It would be a few small model changes, a new artificial horizon in the cockpit, and that’s it. I would love it to be like that.
The AIM-9P we’ve got isn’t modelled correctly, it has radar slaving and the missing smokeless motor is currently a acknowledged bug. It would be mostly correct if Gaijin gave the F-6C an actual AIM-9P-1, which it doesn’t have in-game. I’d personally prefer a later year configuration anyways to make the vehicle as unique as possible, we have other options for a tech tree alternative anyways.
Oh I know. It’s wrong and the F6C shouldn’t have the AIM-9P-1 anyway, it should have a smokeless rear-aspect AIM-9P which would be the AIM-9P-2 or P-3, but rn ingame it is closest to the P-1.
It’d help if Gaijin actually differentiated the AIM-9 family of missiles instead of just the current ‘AIM-9P’ and ‘AIM-9M’ naming scheme we’ve got in-game.
Edited this. Can’t find a single photo of 7840 with inboard pylon. They will need to make it a later version (as 7839 or otherwise) if they want to keep it accurate with inboard pylons.
I can’t remember for the life of me right now which pylon is Aero 31 (brain says maybe the dual rack or something but I could be misremembering - it’s worth mentioning I haven’t been awake very long)?
Ngl, I cannot for the life of me figure out what AERO-31 is eithe. But I do know that it had it. As for inboard S-5KP pylons, those came standard on all J6s.
They honestly might as well just go ahead and make it a late. They’ve already likely put time into modeling Matra. Might as well go full send at this point. They’ve got plenty of time to fix it before the vehicle is released. It would probably also generate more sales while making a good many people who were initially excited for it happier tbh.
The issue is that bringing it to the 1979 fit, or even the really late 1995 fit, would require other model changes. IFF antenna, reciever for it in the cockpit, MM-3 artificial horizon, and AERO-31 pylons. I wish they would do this, but they won’t.
Hopefully we get a late one in the TT with the new Paki line if they don’t reverse and fix this one (since China only has 4 air lines rn Pakistan + Bangladesh being the 5th makes sense). Genuinely makes me super sad they didn’t make this a late version.
Personally I am hoping for JF-17 Block III, J-10CE, F-7PG, K-8/K-8NG, Mirage III ROSE, Mirage V ROSE, F-16AM (as an alternative and decent step up from Block 20 MLU), F-16C Block 52+ (as a upgrade from the MLU and AM and a step below the eventual Block 70 or 72 we will get for Taiwan), and of course the Super Mushshak for the meme with its missiles for Pakistan.
