Major Update "Seek & Destroy" - Rumor Round-Up & Discussion (Part 4)

[Macron-Spokesman]

@Smin1080p

Its possible some other reports may be resolved by the time of the major, but typically all attention is on the current reported issues and feedback.

Then what of the wobbling and thrust vectoring issues with MICA EM, any chances we will see reworks happening with that?

[Smin1080p_WT]

@DirectSupport

Then what of the wobbling and thrust vectoring issues with MICA EM, any chances we will see reworks happening with that?

Reports on FOX-3 missiles are naturally under investigation.

[Jεcka]

It just says “AGM-65 Maverick”. C’mon, you can do better than that.

[someweirdname]

you asked for a source, got one from Smin and then proceded to ignore it

then you got another source and you’re ignoring that one too

[Jεcka]

In what way did I ignore it?

My question was “what variant of the Maverick”, only Smin answered that and Devil added that it doesn’t actually matter since the aircraft will see them all the same.

[DevilO6]

And how in the world was this message a ping?

[Mytho-GR1]

@DevilO6

Hello, i have to step up here.
Mavericks are modular missiles. The inside and soft are the same for all the versions. What changes is warhead and seeker. Soft stays the same.


You can at any time change warhead, seeker and add safe arm if needed, it will not change how plane sees it.

Continue to live in your bubble

[Dontkev-psn]

Smin, I am wondering, so far we only heard that the devs consider newer AGM-65, would it be possible to know to which version of the AGM-65 the devs tend currently?

[ID_Heaven]

License version which undergo very similar set if upgrades

[Jεcka]

Living in my own bubble when I acknowledged his point in my answer to Smin?

I suggest reading what’s actually written next time instead of making up your own conclusions (pretty sure that’s what living in your own bubble actually is).

[Smin1080p_WT]

@Dontkev

Smin, I am wondering, so far we only heard that the devs consider newer AGM-65, would it be possible to know to which version of the AGM-65 the devs tend currently?

When we have news to report or something to show, we will.

[Dontkev-psn]

was a try worth :D

[_Woe]

Rather have them buff the AAM4 to more “realistic” levels and then leave the quantity at 4 since it’s a more IRL loadout to go 4x AAM4 and 4x AAM3 instead of add random AIM120

[Panther2995]

Then may i ask why Swedish JAS39C doesnt get access to AGM65-D/G models?

Since its compatible with all of them it should have access to those ordinance, otherwise it will be inferior to other Gripen C models.

[ID_Heaven]

Doesn’t sweden operate only Rb75 and Rb75T?

[Panther2995]

Well SAAF didnt operate AGM-65G and Aim-9M but here we are.

[J3SUS_Chr1st]

They do not have them irl, only A/B variants

[Macron-Spokesman]

You should read what he wrote first

[Panther2995]

@J3SUS_Chr1st

They do not have them irl, only A/B variants

Re-read my reply.

JAS-39C is compatible with all NATO munitions, this includes more sophisticated AGM-65 versions.

SAAF Gripen didnt have Aim-9M,R-Darter and Agm-65G in real life yet it recieved because of balance reasons, so its safe to say Swedish Gripen C should also recieve AGM-65D/G.

[J3SUS_Chr1st]

@Panther2995

SAAF Gripen didnt have Aim-9M and Agm-65G in real life yet it recieved because of balance reasons, so its safe to say Swedish Gripen C should also recieve AGM-65D/G.

The developers have a different opinion on this matter; they rely mainly on real things.