Major Update "Leviathans" - Rumor Round-Up & Discussion (Part 3)

Game Discussion General Discussion
8621

Ignoring the rocket pylons, the hunter has 4 default stations: 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The fuel tanks being added are the larger ones for stations 2 & 3, the F58 uses AAM rails on stations 1 & 4. SRAAM from what I can tell are mounted on stations 2 & 3 so that’s where the conflict arises.

SRAAM on a Hunter, note the dog tooth in the wing, which occurs just outboard of stations 2 & 3

image

The FGA.9’s have the AAMs mounted on a “new” station between the inboard and outboard stations as seen in the 2nd picture I sent earlier.

I guess we need to bug report the lack of the smaller 100 gal tanks? Though that might be a FAA thing?

8622

Yeah. I do think a cap on the amount of BOL pods might be in order. the F-18 with 8x might screw over the chances for getting BOL fixed. But yeah. 2 being added to aircraft here and there wouldnt hurt

8623

Yeah, was thinking that. those FGA9 pictures show a mini tank that would go I guess where the 1000lb bombs do alongside the SRAAM

8624

Yeah a few could really benefit hard from it (tho i forgot the names of the jets ill be honest)

Dear Error 405 i hope your pillow is warm

8625

some F-16s and F-15s mostly from what I understand

Yeah. Its been 2 weeks. Im surprised they ahvent fixed it yet

8626

I think the F-15C could get BOLs, it doesnt necessarily need them, but it would be awesome to see. Not sure about the F15J and F15J(M) tho, would need to dig a bit

8627

i know we have USS fletcher but could we see USS johnston ?
Destroyer Photo Index DD-557 USS JOHNSTON

8628

all toptiers should recieve them for playability and balance reasons

1 Like
8629

Found this photo of a Jordanian F.6 with 100 gal tanks on the outboard

2nd picture down

image
source: Hawker Hunter F.6 (4) Page 01-960 Has a few more pictures of the 100 gal tank

Struggling to find anything else though

8630

Yeah, I dont think 2 would hurt too much, but is tricky and I dont think Japan ever had BOL, but they might choose to be one of their cases of "F-15=F-15 and therefore if one can carry them, they all can.

Shame that doesnt apply to everyone, but alas…

8631

Oh, very nice

Also we probably need to report 230 Gallon tanks for the FGA9 too

https://www.baesystems.com/heritage/page/hawker-hunter#:~:text=Single-seat%20ground%20attack%20fighter%20variant%20for%20the%20RAF%2C%20 modified%20from%20F.6%20airframes.%20Strengthened%20wing%2C%20230%20gallon%20inboard%20drop%20tanks%2C%20tail%20chute.

8632

They already get AAM-3 and 4 + 9M, 120A vs just 9M and 120A on the US F-15C so it evens out

8633

No, not really. It would make 0 sense to give them to jets that never used BOLs. Rather give those who dont have their full CMs they should have (cough thai F16) the proper amount

8634

side grade Aim-9M and Aim-120B vs 320 LCMs… Doesnt sound quite balaned to me

8635

640, 4 rails can be fitted

Anyways US should be allowed to have good version of its own aircraft for once

8636

Well theoretically speaking the J and J(M) could probably carry them. I mean aren’t they just F15C but upgraded by Mitsubishi or am i mixing something up

8637

Blame the US for selling their equipment so other countries upgrade it

8638

and what we were saying is that it would better to limit the amount of BOL in favour of BOL being full strength than BOL being nerfed because a few have loads.

F-15 with 2x BOL at full strength dwarfs 4x BOL at 1/4 strength.

And the F-15C can just go to 14.0 I guess.

8639

Same exact aircraft just nuclear devices removed and domestic RWR

8640

if only aim-9M had historical range