If they can’t carry gbus on racks how can it still Carry gbu12
Don’t get the Logic behind it
In this case its a handoff issue, JDAMs and SDBs need to have the onboard computer load the target data from the aircraft when dropped, although thats not required to use the bombs as the bombs can have pre-set GPS targets loaded by the ground crew prior to launch.
Physical carriage wise even the oldest TER and MER can carry JDAMs since they are just MK8X bombs.
GBU-12 wise the bombs are self guided, although modern kits require a interface as they also have a GPS guidance system onboard that can guide just like JDAMs.
That’s sad, i’m starting to think it won’t come this update
Those gold stars look nice, what are they for though?
Never understood how that is such a big issue couldn’t they Just use the Control for 1 and then add a Splitter that alternates between the launch Points ?
Probably problematic if you have several different thing’s on the hard point like the f4 phantom but I don’t know if mixing ordnance on those av8+ hard points is even a thing
Welp, there you have it, the makers of the TER-9 are not a primary source on their own product.
Guess we can say goodby to any NATO aircraft carrying STAR TER-9s.
2 Likes
Wut? It even has a designation BRU-70/A. The old non-digital one was BRU-42/A
Article from NAVAIR’s website detailing the use of Digital Improved Triple Ejector Rack on AV-8B:
https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/22046
Harriers with DITER will be capable of carrying three JDAMs on each rack depending on the mission requirement and armament configuration.
It was deployed in combat by late 2016
4 Likes
And they instantly locked the bug report with not a bug
Could they atlest give 24hours of time to provide more evidence
Me trying to stay calm. just got my suspension for insult lifted
4 Likes
Good find, @WaretaGarasu since I see that you are active with the JF-17 reports, would you mind reopening the AV-8B report so @da12thmonkey may add this citation and image as sources?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/t78mtQ1YexA7
i can think of many things they could’ve added to the game, the bomber version of the mossie being one or if need be anything that can be easily added to the game so adding different varients of stuff we already have like ju88p, or add a different variant of the fw190a8 with 2 30mms
1 Like
Significant Designs
Fw190A8 with 2x30mm is Fw190 F-8 (a single modification to acquire gives 2 30mm guns)
Ju-88P doesn’t change a lot if not anything.
That’s not the main issue here, manufacturer sources they gladly accept, but the problem here is proving that the AV-8B (and F-16, A-10, etc) actually used them. So the report should ideally be restructured with sources that the AV-8B (and others, as seperate reports) used said ejection rack. AND even then, it can be disregarded by the devs as they brush off the lack of equipment (that is not inherent to the aircraft itself) as not a bug and at most a suggestion. So at best we will be at the mercy of the devs deciding if they require it for balance or not, that’s really all there’s to it sadly.
I guess devs have decided that the only TER we will have is the BRU-42. So we are just out of luck until they decide to add better ones. At least the F-16C already has the BRU-57, so it will have 2 JDAMs per pylon, though I don’t think the inner pylons can accept any. I think balance wise, the devs could add better TERs and if not, then maybe larger JDAMs, so I hope the devs may consider it at least.
1 Like
As far as I know the Fw 190 A-8 couldn’t mount Mk 103s, but only Mk 108s.
I might be wrong though.
It the (BRU-70) is also listed as being compatible with the AV-8B+ from the manufacturer.
And the JDAM and (L-JDAM kits) should be considered a UAS Type 1 store so is compatible with the D-ITER.
https://www.iqpc.com/media/6729/4428.pdf#page=22
and
I’m not sure about GBU-32 carriage though, even if the BRU-70 supports the use of 1000lb class ordnance, the AV-8B doesn’t support more than one per station.
2 Likes
Did the developer specify somewhere why they removed the 6 JDAM bombs from the AV-8B?
@Stona_WT
2 Likes
Or how the bug report was just closed of has not a bug without giving time to search for further evidence
And if someone makes a new one it will probably be closed has duplicate
Could stona clarify what the preferred way forward is?
1 Like
so it was not even said that it is a bug, or that it is a bug, or that it is not a bug, at least the changelog did not say anything about changing the number of JDAM, only the Community Manager’s comment will clarify the situation.
I don’t think that JDAM is a weapon that should be removed because of the balance, however we have already implemented GBU-8 in the game, which do not capture equipment, but only a piece of land under the equipment, JDAM has the same mechanics, it always has a point in the capture, and that’s what does not make it a weapon of mass destruction, Su-24M has 7 such bombs, and the combat rating is 11.3, what is the point of taking these bombs from AV-8B, which is at 13.0.
Not when they were originally implemented, Contrast type seekers (US designed Electro Optical seekers) were removed from the game and replaced with Correlation seekers, probably for game balance purposes.
As can be seen with the MiG-27M’s Dev blog, and this bug report
Unlike the seeker of the Maverick missiles, the Kh-29T missile and the KAB-500kr guided bomb are equipped with a TV-correlation seeker, the main feature of which is the difference in the visual image of the captured area and the rest of the background. This means that such seeker will not be able to lock on single ground targets such as a tank, but they will be able to capture any point on the land surface.
Here is Developers answer
Seekers like these can track optically contrast objects. As it is not possible to implement true contrast edge tracking in the game we allow seekers to lock on any point on the ground. So any point on the ground is considered contrast object.
it’s also a somewhat strange response since its a single Boolean in the code that controls the behavior and so it is an easy correction to make.
1 Like
I would love to get the VR bug resolved where the turret does turn back in 3rd person view every 3 seconds. This is gamebreaking and an open „acknowledged“ tickets since beginning of 2024. Bug introduced in the first big update of this year.
I am happy to fix all these little historical flaws, like wrong gun, wrong loadout, wrong ammo, wrong cockpits right after fixing all the game general issues. Inaccuracies are no bug.
The bugs should be fixed in first instance!
Why the devs cannot just spend one entire release only with bugfixing, rather than adding new stuff, testing out new game mechanics???
Well having 8 or even 10 of them would be useful but I guess gaijin decided Nato shouldn’t have to much of the new toy (it could be to Good)