Yeah, I hope Gaijin change their mind on this. We have more info on Japanese air to surface IR than there is for Penguin locking ground targets, so I hope to see GCS-1 and ASM-2 implemented with F-2.
6 Likes
That depends, because the F-15A USA got is a later F-15A made after the later F-15Cs which themselves are made after the F-15J.
The reason the F-15J uses its own countermeasure system was because the F-15Cs weren’t fitted with them yet in US service though were about to be.
The F-15J is the oldest F-15 in the game, and GBU-8 would have to be proven usable on those older F-15s.
I am not saying it can or cannot, just laying down the requirements needed for proof.
if they implement the F-2 next update it would be amazing and if GCS-1 implemented for all the craft that carried it would be a huge bonus
1 Like
just laying down the requirements needed for proof
meanwhile we get missiles that dont exist, based off a mockup from a brochure, ASM’s magically being able to track tanks (tanks are just boats on land source: trust me bro)
I think if they can allow ahistorical nonsense like that. I’m very sure they can let it slide
1 Like
I will not address any posts that are talking about anything other than the F-15J.
Especially bait.
Dang if only people talked about the actual gameplay of the jet
2 Likes
Not really bait, if other F-15’s can get its kit, why cant the F-15J? if all F-15’s can use including the 15J despite never operating 9M’s but on an ahistorical basis can
why cant 15J get GBU-8’s etc?
Why allow 9M’s to be on the 15J despite never operating them, but GBU-8’s is where the line is drawn
Japan’s top tier is already extremely limited, to a F-16 that barely holds its weight and a Gripen which in todays meta is severely underperforming
Only reliable jet to compete with todays meta is the F-15J/MJ so why cant it get guided munitions but the 9M sidewinder be acceptable
Great! If this is a rule Gaijin are willing to live by I am fine with it. Give every aircraft all compatible armament. But then do it properly, and not just where Gaijin feels like it.
For example that same F-15J is also missing GBU-8, the capability was there from the very start and never removed, so why are they missing?
And while we’re at it, how about AIM-7F? Not only are they compatible, but even used by Japan, but not in game. You can argue they are redundant, but that’s the same as AIM-9M to AAM-3 currently.
This is what I meant, they are inconsistent. What we need is clear structure. To make sure every vehicle and every weapon from every nation in the game is treated with the same, fair and clear logic that is easy to add onto with bug reports and suggestions, rather than the mess we have now.
Personally I’d like to see it done like this:
Spoiler
- Armament used in service by a nation is added to the nation’s aircraft
- Armament tested by a nation is added to the nation’s aircraft
- If a nation didn’t use or test an armament, it is not added to the nation’s aircraft. Exceptions can be:
- Armament offered as compatible for export is added to the exporting nation’s aircraft, even if they don’t use it. This actually gives a benefit of more versatile armament to exporting nations.
- Armament that’s compatible (without needing modification) and in inventory of a nation, but not used on a specific aircraft can be considered
- Countermeasures as a balance case, similar to what they did with the F-5A/Cs
…but that’s just one of many ways to do it. Gaijin really just have to pick one and stick with it.
5 Likes
It’s a big hit and miss with some things, either by intentional negligence or “Balancing” reasoning
Which I think is completely bogus
I hope gaijin adds the GBU-8 to the F-15J/MJ, it would help it out quite a bit
That is a criticism of Gaijin’s fear of redundancy, and that’s tied to the fact they like to put specific weapons behind specific mods.
All tech trees have examples of dated weaponry that can be fired not being present, or sometimes removed when more capable weapons are added; this is especially seen in tanks tho that’s off-topic.
I’m glad my point about the ruleset got to you, and I’ll reiterate for you again just in case:
1- Vehicle manufacturer documents.
2- Weapon manufacturer documents.
3- Photographs.
4- Tests.
I support this system of adding weapons.
I negatively criticize Gaijin’s fear about weapon “clutter”. If vehicle mods are an issue make combined mods, have the weakest weapons as entirely stock, etc.
1 Like
1 - most likely classified
2 - most likely classified (ik GCS-1 is classified till 2050)
3 - Did that already with the F-4EJ/EJ Kai and ADTW ➞ gaijin ignored or outright said no. Even with DMM explicitly stating that its planned/will be added
4 - Did but ignored or outright said no
1 Like
Yeah, the issue here usually is cases like the F-15J, where Gaijin adds a vehicle with a weapon removed that by their own standards could be there, but it’s missing in game.
Then reporting any missing weapon is a suggestion, not a bug, so even well made reports with proper sources about compatibility or even proof it was used in service by a nation sit around long periods of time even before being passed. And that is assuming the “suggestion” isn’t just rejected by the devs.
Meanwhile for others it’s simply there from the start. Sometimes single vehicles have wildly varying ways of implemented armament like the F-15J as best example. The 9M is added because the F-15 is compatible, the 7F not because it’s redundant, and the GBU-8 excluded because Japan didn’t use it. It’s this inconsistency that I think is wrong.
Completely unrelated from what weapons I’d personally like to see implemented or not, the current system is not working unless Gaijin finally set some clear rules.
7 Likes
This is false, several WWII props have modifications which swap their fuel type. What it is is that in the configuration for each plane, they don’t actually have individual fuel types,with fuel just being represented as a mass. Considering that basically the only noticable changes in game for the fuel types would be the density, i think its very reasonablr to expect gaijin to lower it to be historically accurate. Again, japan literally didnt use JP-8 with the F-15J we have in game, nore could they have as they didnt have it in service yet.
4 Likes
Besides the too high G-load (ignoring AoA adjustments), incorrectly configured lead-autopilot and engine config, the current AAM-4 is (from an overall viewpoint) not too far from its IRL counterpart - AAM-4B is closer to AIM-120C-5.
4 Likes
Also its datalink configuration, thats a big one and honestly what makes it strong irl.
3 Likes
Um, isn’t the point of this place to be able to discuss both big and small things? Well, if it’s something not worth discussing, using GE, or something that is not a priority or relevant to many players, that’s fine. Because I myself have already finished my research and got it.
I just hope they don’t add the AIM-9M to the F-2.
1 Like
to be honest i only looking forward for the aesa seeker on AAM-4B.
looking at the steph comment they are trying to make aesa similar to real life
Yea but thats smth rather global in-game as we don’t have datalinks in any form yet.
But yes, its special Datalink makes it stand out of early and most late ARH missiles.
4 Likes
Do u have any sources about this? (I’m a bit curious)
That is dictated by manual not use, and it doesn’t change fuel mass or fuel, it just increases power by an amount. On top of being props not jets, thus is moving the goalposts to false equivalence.
I get being addicted to details, cause I am as well; this won’t positively impact the F-15J in War Thunder if you’re thinking it will.