Thats just a claim based on some authors words.
That claim was made before even CAPTOR was tested on existing airframes.
does any one know the origin of the source i might go rabbit hole dving
I’m on the other side
I personally find the monotone Gray/Black paint schemes of today look very boring
I’d love it when Airforces go back to Multicoloured Camouflages
the ready rack and spall liner is the main issue that need fixing but idk if i can @ smin and ask or not i dont go on forums much
it’s the only public information on it’s range against an F-35 sized target
it’s from the RoKAF trials and was published in an article about it
to be fair a large portion are still just using a gray camouflage if it was between funnymulticolour camo and modern i 100% agree but if its between the f15, f18 and f16 current grayish blue camo and stealth ram i want the black.
Modelling a spall liner involves 1 person to create 1 plane, shape it a bit to fit the plate, and give it a multiplier value.
And changing Type 10’s steering so it’s not broken involves changing exactly 2 values in the code, which YouTubers and even myself did in SECONDS just to try it out. And it’s been 5 years.
No one in the dev team had 2 minutes over these 5 years to fix Type 10’s steering?
2 Likes
Yea with zero credible sources and article clearly indicates that its an assumption based on expected performance for radar.
There is no official source that proves that claim.
Yeah…
Well, my post is ready for every. Single. Update.
Some day, maybe a Dev will read it
if it was russian it would have been accepted instantly
there are no Declassified sources for 99% of modern aircraft additions
we just kinda have to go wirh assumptions from Prototype trials, Brochures and stuff like that article and accept that there are errors
i mean smin took notice for the engine buff so that was something i just witsh they did something more so the chally wasnt so dissapointing
1 Like
Yeah that might be. But its weird that the devs wont jump at the chance for copy paste content, compared to air and ground.
I thought it mightve been because of identification in RB, but that doesnt make much sense neither. Its mixed teams and markers for friendlies.
With Ise, do you mean the makeshift carrier retrofit?
Not in this case and not like that.
You’re trying to use assumptions like some kinda concrete evidence while in reality CAPTOR-E hasn’t even tested against F-35 under real life scenarios.
wdym it hasn’t even tested
ECRS Mk 0, the radar mentioned has been in service for several (5) years with the Kiwaiti Airforce
they’re literally taking part in current things where they regularly see F-35s
Did they test it against F-35 under real life scenarios? Did they published any data about that?
CAPTOR-E is deployed thats true but you dont have a single concrete evidence on how it performs against F-35, thats the problem.
Unfortunately, we’re back in business
that’s exactly what I mean, there’s so much classified about this aircraft that we just have to take second hand informations from trials like this number from the RoKAF trial
like what are you gonna do instead of this?
You know, not every single rule has to be for the sake of gameplay. They can have self imposed restrictions just for the sake of it.
The rule also doesn’t really exclude “copy paste” as outside of appearance and secondary armament, sisterships don’t differ much. It does put a limit on the amount of a shipclass we can see though.
And yes, I mean the quasi carrier conversion. It’s a huge missed opportunity as it could have been the perfect carrier testbed.
Simple, until we get general information about performance metrics those vehicles shouldn’t be added.
Because if we rely on assumptions only then whole thing will become even more messy than already is.