Me and some people outside of here who know actual people of competence in russian federation, digged like rats at the best of our abilities, i know the best i am saying is a “trust me bro” but i can assure you with my very words, there is zero evidence the MI28NM can
Gaijin is fabricating technical feasability of equipment
And despite multiple requests, no moderator or developer of gaijin entertainment every gave a SINGLE proof of that…
If you can DM me the link to the one that was rejected (the link here is the one that was passed), then I can take a look during the next week to review if there was any differences in how it was handled.
AGM-88 is currently not planned to be added at this low of a BR. Subject to change of course as always.
the best part is now because gaijin did that its hard to find actual information on the MI28NM and people will confidently tell you that all 4 pylons can, purely because its like that in warthunder
smin while your here id like to say you are infact the goat and i promise i wont mention the challenger 2 for ATLEAST 10 minutes
It’s a lose-lose situation, no document fully attests that it can use 4 pylons as in game, every single document and brochure says it can carry at max 4 LMUR pylon dispenser
Every bugreport using public sources got denied
In either case they can tell you “not enough documentation that it can”
Smin do you know why some people including me cant play the war thunder dev server?
try using your wt account login rather than web login (if you are)
ok thank you
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HjXQ0D5n5tGg
Thats the link for the rejected one.
I specifically did this report in the same manner as the previous one as it was accepted.
I appreciate you taking a second look
pretty he sure hes getting the same issue i am so, wont work we just have to wait for a fix
also hi zulizia :D
hi Rzi4628-live
i hate seeing live next to my name when do we get account transfers back
given ARMs are found as low as 10.0 (in ground RB) on the Su-22M3
would it not be reasonable to give the A-7E (10.7 in ground RB) either the AGM-88 or the AGM-45 that is already in the files
E, D, G, F, band for search radar
I J band for Tracking radar
A/B/C bands are not in game on any Ground vehicle, C band is what german WWII FuG202 uses on the Me-410R6
As mentioned, we can only detail the current plans, which are subject to change still.
i pray the tornado gr1 decision is subject to change
If only it actually looked LIKE THIS ingame instead of being full of bare paint chippings xD
Great how much longer until I can Nuke a Yamamoto with it 😮💨
Brimstone with the SAL seeker wasn’t a consortium integrated project for Typhoon. Only the longer range Brimstone 2 and 3 are
Adding the SAL seeker to Brimstone was a UOR development for RAF Tornado in the same manner APKWS-II is now being integrated by Qinetiq, BAE and the RAF for UK Typhoon outside of the Eurofighter consortium’s Phased Enhancement initiative, to meet pressing needs for British military operations.
Its development led to the commercial Brimstone 2, but the missile itself was an interim capability, not export-developed or shared with partner nations, and relied on refitting missile from RAF stocks of MMW-only Brimstones to add the new seeker.
If it’s to be treated under the same criteria as HOSBO, Brimstone SAL would be removed from German and Italian Typhoons and German Tornado IDS SLE, or replaced by a missile that operates like Brimstone 2’s SAL mode. And the ongoing internal APKWS-II suggestion for Typhoon needs to be re-specified to only consider adding it to the UK Typhoons until the consortium makes a decision on adding it to Eurofighter’s outline for Phase 4 or Phase 5 Enhancement.