Consider going here, over 5000msg’s and no valid proof other than a mockup from a brochure with no performance stats etc/how it performs etc
Definitely Lying about the 38MT
First image is T-2, not F-1.
Second image is an F-1, but I think it’s for display so I’m not sure if that proves anything. On one hand iirc AAM-1 were used on F-1 and also not in manual, but on the other integrating Chaff pods is more complicated than a different type of missile that goes on the same rails as the others.
4 Likes
Thanks for the correction on the first image :D
1 Like
Usually for demonstrations it usually displays what it can operate no?
E.g. F-2A having AAM-3 + AAM-5 on its wing tip pylons and so on
so if the case for the F-1, it’ll most likely be the case too
I am talking about chaff pod on F-1 and not the Kh-38. If you wanna say that it should get non-realistic pod because we have Kh-38 you can do it, but instead you are talking about things like it is made in IRL like LWS, LRF and Thermal for Type 99, like RWR for T-2 and etc what is not true
No. Here is documents about AAM-5 integration in F-2 but meanwhile isn’t mention in manual about Chaff pod for F-1
I gave proof to that, but as usual gets disregarded cause source “I know better”
Manual usually outlines the general use, not everything
It could, but that’s not what it is in reality. We can’t expect or demand something to be better than it should. Instead we can only ask for it to be accurate, and hope it’s not even worse if they add it at all.
Yeah, it’d be the only guided option for the T-2. But it’d also be much harder to use without the ballistic computer, so it would take a lot of practice and a bit of luck as well to use.
I think it’d be a very interesting system and I really want to see it added. I just wanted to say it’s far from an answer to the trees CAS problem, more like a niche option that can be fun to use.
3 Likes
Depending how gaijin want’s to go about it, if they want a quick implementation and then later when they perfect the accurate change to that, can make it work like the GBU-8
a girl can dream for this
Also I remember you from that topic in March, where Oxy mentioned something similar. Disappointed that a source didn’t come from it.
1 Like
That is why it was described in T-2 manual? If it is too general why it isn’t missing at T-2 manual but in F-1 missing
Also @MAUSWAFFE the GCS-1 currently is fully functional ontop of being modelled etc. Only issue why we havent got it yet is “No Proof it can track tanks” - From gaijin
5 Likes
Because here is counter proofs with manual and F-2 documents?
counter proofs being “no”
In that case they could always add it the way it was in the files, with it basically being an AIM-9 style seeker that locks ground targets before launch.
I wouldn’t expect it like that still, but it could be
1 Like
thing is theres been proof time and time again that it can track tanks. Someone in Gaijins dev team is purposefully denying it
We could get the official documentation for it however 1. It’s currently classified 2. It wont be unclassified till 2050 (so 25 more years wait :()
I sent a link + even translated the japanese text. where the type 99 effectively has a automated range finder etc based off a radio data link
3 seconds, and ngl its not that bad, at the range its seeker can pick up most targets from it only has around a 140 meter radius to pick up targets given its rangebands and FoV. Usable enough to avoid teamkills on most maps.
2 Likes
Ah, the good old “This Alpha Jet has the same name as the other so it must be identical!” treatment, where the Thai had an upgraded engine but the same thrust?
I hope Gaijin don’t just reskin/rename the GBU-8 and throw it onto the T-2.
5 Likes