Major Update “Seek & Destroy” — DEV Server Changelog (11.06.2024)

[VenomiZeD]

I don’t think the Lima model of hellfires would be a healthy addition to the game.

[NanoCyb0rg]

Why the F-16C blk50 missing the new radar feature? Intended? Bug? Oversight?

This one:

Edit1:Its fixed, thanks.

Edit2: No, its a bug with the TGP. When equipped, its not showing missile location.

[GNDM_Panzer]

Removal of spawn sniping on maps; Is good.

Making maps smaller and more CoD-like in gameplay; Is Not Good.

[LtCol-RedFox]

Alright this might be a longshot to ask here but I don’t think making a thread here will be any help so I’d rather post a small comment here but.

What are the chances of the devs fixing the previous bluewater warship of the coastal tech tree USN Destroyer Escort USS Dealey DE-1006 GFCS in this update?

My post mentioning issues including the GFCS,

Dealey class Destroyer Escort USS Dealey DE-1006 thread,

So I can’t think of a title but I’m just gonna make it a main thread I guess. Thoughts I’ve had on testing the new Dealey class Destroyer Escort, G’day I’m working my way to unlocking this vessel currently an through the few test sails & just general reading on the class I’m confused on a few things an might just wanted some answers maybe? First: randefinders, Why doesn’t it have an operational Rangefinder/Fire Directors for the GFCS? Other ships with this armament have the same directors an…

Longvow bug report on the matter of the GFCS being missing,

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4KdI4UokjOrx?comment=MNJ8RLE4taZRYlPkFeOxLS73

On a sidenote,

I’m surprised that for the dutch being given to the french tree an all the current foreign copies added yet only a single dutch design yet no addition of a K class sloop, Which although is a copy is also a dutch design which currently sits in game as the K-2 in the German tree.

[wilberwinds1]

will the new AI ground targets be on all maps on release or just golan heights?

[Gerhard_bar]

Ar 234 (all variants) — drag parachute has been added. OMG

[肘子方程式]

Q-5L — we’ve removed the increase to 10.7 and instead the Battle Rating will be increased to 10.3 in Ground Battles. Please note that we initially decided to lower the Battle Rating in Air Battles to 9.3 (like the Q-5A), and not to 9.0 (like the Q-5A early), since in the next major update this aircraft will receive countermeasures, making it similar to the Q-5A in Air Battles. Countermeasures should also make it easier to counter various threats in Ground Battles.

@Stona_WT Will Q-5L receive the flare promised by gaijin in the BR change in this update? So far, it has not obtained any flare in the development server.

[Danzig_A11]

agreed on all, especially the jets portion.

Spoiler

YaK-141 should also be one of the jets to Receive R-77s (R-73s as well).

[warthogboy09]

@Yontzee

AAM-4’s for the new F-15’s unless

Only 4 AAM-4s can be carried. They cannot be loaded on the wing stations.

[Morvran]

@Yontzee

JAS39A Gripen

I dont think it should, purely because that is the entire point of the Gripen C. I know its extra grinding that other nations dont need to do. But in the future, the 12.7 gripen could stand out and be good not having to fight whatever is going to be at 14.0

[Yontzee]

Gotcha, thought they could. Either way for the other ones.

[LuizBarros99]

@Stona_WT

External fuel tank additions:

• J-8B, J-8F, JH-7A, Jaguar A, Jaguar E, Jaguar GR.1, Jaguar GR.1A, Jaguar IS, F-5A, F-5C, F-5E (all variants), F-20

I really wish that one day the F-4 Phantom receives the external fuel tanks that were mounted on the wing pylons, since the variants that lack the internal gun and carry only a single central gunpod are unable to carry their gunpod with the central external fuel tank.

[BleedingUranium]

Thanks as always for highlighting the additions!

The ability to view ships’ crew placement is an amazing addition! It would be nice to have a more “fixed” version (like x-ray) in the future as well, in addition to this “directional” version (like penetration testing), to really properly see exactly where they are.

[oom1992]

@Morvran

@Yontzee

JAS39A Gripen

I dont think it should, purely because that is the entire point of the Gripen C. I know its extra grinding that other nations dont need to do. But in the future, the 12.7 gripen could stand out and be good not having to fight whatever is going to be at 14.0

For JAS39 Gripen A, I want Rb 99 (ARH) swap Rb 71 (SARH) but lose IR AAM Rb 74(M) and HMS mode

Spoiler

Major Update “Seek & Destroy” — DEV Server Changelog (04.06.2024)

Recommendations: F-16A Block 20 MLU - AIM-120A’s (As placeholder for AIM-120C’s), and AIM-9M’s/AIM-9P-4’s. At least the 9M’s/P-4’s at the minimum. JH-7A - PL-12’s due to equipping them IRL and having the RADAR capability for them. Allowing full payload of 8x AIM-120’s/AAM-4’s for the new F-15’s unless dev’s specifically state this is held of for a specific reason and will be implemented in the future. Improve the F-15 Improved Baz by equipping it with the proper cockpit, and providing more …

@Yontzee For my idea

• F-16A Block 20 MLU - AIM-120B (placeholder) or AIM-120C-5, AIM-9P & AIM-9M swap AIM-9P & AIM-9L
  • x2 AIM-9P replace by AIM-9P-4
• AIM-9L/i for F-4F KWS-LV (ICE), Tornado F3 late (RAF), Tornado ADV (ITA), F-104A ASA (ITA) and F-16A Block 15 ADF (ITA)
• AIM-9M for 2 USA fighter aircraft (F-14B Tomcat & F-16A Block 15 ADF) with max BR to 12.3

[Deathskyz]

@Stona_WT Would Gaijin consider changing the stock loadouts of NATO 13.0 Jets?
AIM-9Ls at 13.0 is unacceptable. The suggested changes should be like this, no changes to the Modifications tree, so Gaijin can still keep players grinding out AIM-9Ls and AIM-9Ms, while keeping good gameplay balance.

[02ded]

r60ms at 12.0 arent either, yet they still kept them

mind you, r60ms should end at 11.0

[Deathskyz]

Meanwhile some 12.0 NATO planes start off with 2x AIM-9J/Ps, not even All-Aspect.
R-60Ms and AIM-9Ls are comparable, since they are the first All-Aspect either bloc gets.

At 13.0, some planes gets 2x IRCCM missiles stock, while others dont. Which isnt fair.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

I would like to add this thread I made about this, which had overwhelming support:

Why does Gaijin keep applying such double standards to favour Russia and handicap other nations?

F-15C, just like many other jets, should get stock AIM-9M the same way SU-27, SU-27SM and MiG-29SMT get stock R-73; and the RP grind for AIM-120A and R-77 should be equal and not have a 24,000 RP difference. EDIT: My post goes for any end of the line 12.7/13.0 fighter that, regardless of the nation, still has AIM-9L as stock: AIM-9L is just not fit for 13.0, the same way R-60M isn’t. So, just like R-73-armed planes get it stock not to start with R-60M, same should go for AIM-9M planes. There’s…

[aDSD]

I would not be suprised if they were sent a bug report about some series of it using better RWRs and instead of implementing newer RWR they would nerf it to the older one.
They did that with Mi-24s already.

[Stray_BulletsCze]

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-UTT hELLFiRe LOnG bOw WOULD RUIN THE GAME SINCE IT CAN SHOOT THROUGH SMOKE!!!
Meanwhile Vikhrs ever since they were added: https://youtu.be/5t1VdVJbLQI?t=520

Also Hellfire L would still be kinematically extremely underpowered just as the current Hellfires are. Meanwhile Spike ER can EASILY shoot down helicopters 8KM away that are CLIMBING since Spike ER motor is burning literally forever. Current Hellfires are not even able to get kills past 3Km on moving helis and Hellfire L would be exactly the same. And let’s not even mention the fact that all FnF ATGMs are extremely unreliable because after all the nerfs to them they always just target turret cheeks and other parts where they can’t do any real damage.