Allegedly no, not on the M2K airframe as apparently anything bigger than MICA or a dumb bomb would block the landing gears according to one source I’ve read.
This is a deliberate balancing decision by Gaijin which limited the loadout in that aspect. If they add the R2, I suspect they would unlock that pylon for GBUs even though there was no such difference in real life.
Given what you listed, I would not be surprised to see Gaijin skipping the R2 to directly add the RMV, because there is not that much of a difference bewteen them for the ground pounding area, there is just a new targeting pod.
The major differences between theses two are found in the air to air department, where the RMV would be better at defending itself than the R2, with the MICA IR, the CC-422 gunpod (that is smaller and lighter than the one we have now, so it’s a better choice if we want it as a “just in case” weapon or if we want to not hurt too much the flight performance) and a HMS, things that would be needed to help it staying relevant at 12.0.
Don’t forget that this aircraft have to be played in ARB before being able to use it in GRB, so if the BR is raised from 11.3 to 12.0 without anything different from the R1 in the air to air department, it will just be a worse experience in ARB.
It would also be a good platform to introduce the MICA IR first, because it should not be able to use it at his full potential, i’m thinking about the datalink (because of the fact that the 2000D should have the Antilope 5 radar), and can carry only two of them.
Because of theses factor i do think that it is likely that the R2 will be skipped in favor of the RMV. It fit better because the higher BR it will get would be justified not only by the better ground pounding capabilities but also by the better air to air weaponry : there is a better balance between theses two capabilities in the RMV than the R2.
it is really sad how bad 530Ds are rn not they have ever been in a good spot as soon as the booster turns off the turn into bricks that cant pull more than 10gs at least that’s what it feels like its like they just stop trying to lead and just give up
Most of the time, my S.530D does have good maneuvrability after it got closer than 2km to target
Seems fair enough to keep energy → hard to have good energy state at max range.
@MiG_23M and @DirectSupport :
Is anyone of you made a bug report about the ability to TWS 24 target, with 18 displayed and the ability to mutlple shot 4 target at a time, given by RDY Radar?
Yes. They said they will add it once fox 3s are here.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/wCEG44zQze9c
Probably joint to the All Aspect TWS. I hope anyway
Ok, this is very interesting
This could mean that once medium range ARH missiles are added, we may see TWS actually track multiple targets.
So the 2000C-S5 is going to 12.0
But the Event 2000C-S4 is staying at 11.7?
isn’t the only difference that it has less CMs
I waiting new Mirage 2000D (11.7 or 12.0 BR) with Damocles targeting pod, drag hardpoint and GPS/INS guidance munitions this year
Mirage 2000D RMV would be 12.7 ~ 13.0 BR, very good infrared Air-to-Air Missile & dogfight tactic, modern helmet mounted display, great modern targeting pod, GPS/INS guidance munitions and stand off long-range Air-to-Surface
My question is, how would you see the arrival of GPS guidance in the game ? Aren’t they supposed to be preprogrammed ammunitions without the ability to track moving targets, making them only useful at targeting bases ?
Some are GPS guidance only. Some like the GBU-49 is GPS and Laser, so you can decide to use GPS to preprogram the munition to travel to a specific location and hit that specific spot, or in the last few seconds you can decide to laser the target if they’re moving, so as to track the laser.
We’ve already seen how GPS guidance only bombs work, they once added JDAM into the game on the EJ Kai on dev server before removing it since it did not use it IRL:
Not in this world.
R-3R on MiG-21S does better in that situation.
Statcard wise: F-4C turn in 26seconds while Mirage F.1C turn in 27 seconds
both stats considering a slick aircraft and with full modification.
Both 9C / R3R are equally useful in that situation tbh;
Statcard is wrong. @RideR2 did a sustained rate test on most aircrafts in-game.
Here’s his spreadsheet: Sustained turn rate tests - War Thunder - Google Spreadsheets
As you can see here Mirage F1C has a better sustained rate compared to F-4C. The Mirage F1 is similar to F-4E in sustained but better at high speeds.
Mirage F1 really should’ve been added back when the F-4E was top dog. Inferior radar missiles for better close-in performance with Magic I.
So I guess MICA EM is going to come with the rest of the other fox 3 missiles once they’re added.
“But we’d also love to give this cutting-edge weapon (fox 3s) to all nations at once to prevent one of them from becoming too OP.”
Video: 12:35 timestamp
SIKE, active skyflash for france
Impossible other Fox3s would be OP compared to it by all means.