Found a manual saying Mitsubishi F-1 used laser guided bombs/missiles → if you do (and you’ll have trouble), then go bug report it.
you’d have find something showing GCS can lock ground targets. that’s why GCS isn’t in-game right now, it was built for naval targets and there’s no evidence it can lock ground targets.
There is much more evidence pointing to the fact that it would be able to attack ground targets than there is that it can’t. The only reasoning is “its called an anti ship bomb so it can only be used for that”, but that excuse is terrible seeing as we have naval mavericks in game with IR seekers that can lock on to ground fine. The thermal signature of ships and tanks are near identical and the de-clutter method (that GCS-1 does have) is identical for both.
And before you go “erm ships engines are bigger and would appear better”. No, for one the ships that GCS-1 would be used against are small landing craft and even potentially amphibious vehicles. Here is a barge with a small diesel engine crane showing a very clear IR signature with a land background.
Then we also have XGCS-2 where the entire excuse with 0 evidence is that the bombs were non functional even though we have documents showing thats entirely BS.
https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/hyouka/seisaku_n/portal/index/kenkyu/mod.html#/
For starters prototypes were tested over 3 years from 2001 to 2004 and a certain mod thinks they just dropped inert non-functioning dummies for 3 years? The docs show that the steering, range, warhead, and seeker were all successfully tested.
GCS-1 and XGCS-2 being kept out of the game are done from cheap excuses. Japan always plays with words to skirt around the opposition government from rejecting defense projects and Gaijin takes those political games as fact while ignoring actual evidence.
9 Likes
then submit it, I ain’t the one who’s keeping bombs from getting added. I don’t keep up with this CAS stuff either
Do you think adding aim-9l missiles to the F-1 is possible? In theory, you can put it at 10.7, the same su-22 has 6 r-60mk missiles
Same question for F-4EJ Kai with AAM-3, because they would put MiG(Bison) on 11.7
Also for F-1, no flares, so moving to 10.7 not needed
Interesting photo of FS-T2 Kai (F-1 prototype and testbed in ADTW during F-1 service) with experimental XASM-2 missile
5 Likes
can we have FS-T2 to replace the F-1 we have now, and F-1 get higher BR but with AIM-9L, ASM-1, ASM-2/2B and GCS-1, will this work?
1 Like
Like get back to 10.3? Actually with AIM-9L it would better, in my opinion
1 Like
F-1 is good, my favorite, but with AIM-9L will be even better, 10.3~10.7 i think
it will be funny if they add ASM-1 and we use that for air to air
1 Like
F-1 can’t use ASM-2B because this version already got GPS
Also I am not sure was at the end ASM-2 fully tested on F-1 or not because have never seen it on serial aircrafts and manual doesn’t mention it
2 Likes
F-1 is kinda busted at 10.0, I think it wouldn’t be the worst change to put it to 10.3 with 2x 9L 2x 9J loadout.
so nowadays we have jdams and aasm hammers etc in the game, do you guys think we could get the IR mk82’s / IR M117’s for the F1? i would love to see those ngl.
The scene of the paranoia. It’s so funny that you indirectly mentioned my nickname.
FYI, it was LordMustang, not me, who first pointed out that GCS-1 was unusable against ground targets. You failed to prove anything at the time and then start accusing me of it.
And that time, he posted the developers answer, they had doubts about this even before I posted.
So stop insulting me, engage in a healthy discussion, I still remember the moment when you were permanently banned from the old forum.
Maybe because on the old forums you used your mod position to pin your reply at the top of every single page as if it was some official stance and refused to unpin it after more evidence came out. It wasn’t even the only time you did it either.
1 Like
You’ve got it all wrong, that post was pinned before I became TM.
I didn’t pin it, so how can I take it down? I don’t even know who pinned it.
Also, a lot of evidence? One pdf that says that the heat signatures of ground vehicles and ships are similar to an unsourced something that uses GCS-1 to attack North Korean TELs?
That can’t even be evidence, the point already made by the devs was that there is no evidence that they work the same on the surface and at sea.
Ok you were still wrong about the GCS-1, XGCS-2, and ARH on the Type 81, so it doesn’t make a difference. Still people try and quote you on it to this day because of that pin.
There is no reason to accept your claim because I am not wrong, all published material mentions that they are not for ground attack.
You’ve already been pointed out in previous forums by two other tech mods, not me, but you forget all about it and post as if I’m the only one who denied you.
If you had brought in material that met the proper source criteria, not all tech mods would have denied your claim.
It’s just that some people are taking copium too far
The entire excuse of why it couldn’t attack tanks was because the ir bands were different and the background clutter was different. The doc disproves both whether or not it mentions the GCS-1. The IR bands are identical and the decluttering is identical. The basic principles don’t magically change for the GCS.
2 Likes