This is for the GCS-1 just later development’s for it
Dude the technology this talks about literally did not exist yet.
2 Likes
" just later development’s for it " he said
but idk abt GCS-1 later developments, did they have separate Designations?
also why would they be talking about dual wavelength on a topic about the GCS-1 and nothing BUT the GCS-1
Where does this presentation says it’s about GCS-1? You have made multiple loud statements (HMD was tested! GCS-1 can track tanks!) and yet there is no solid proofs of anything from you.
As far as I know how humanity works - we don’t mass produce smth with one desigh and designation, and then decide to produce smth with different design and stll keep same designation. It’s simply unconvinient. It could be GCS-1M/GCS-1 Kai/GCS-2, but not same GCS-1. At the moment I’m more confident that this entire document is not about GCS-1 at all. If you can provide proofs of opposite - fine. But for now we didn’t see proofs from you
5 Likes
lol
I mean, there are already 2 GCS-1s. The Mk. 82 500 lb GCS-1 and the M117 750lb GCS-1.
Also fun fact: the GCS-2 is actually a real thing. Its a 2000 lb GPS guided glide bomb.
2 Likes
And the first one is type I, while the second one is type II, right? They have different designations then.
Any signs of IR seeker? Even if so - we are talking about GCS-1, not about GCS-2.
-removed
-paper, but all parts existed
-real and flew
3 Likes
Ron shouldn’t have included Kikka in the fake list.
I wouldn’t have included the Yak-141 in the first place. It flew, it’s a cool plane, close enough. If we’re gonna be ahistorical anyway, might as well get something out of it.
The Kikka currently featured in War thunder is undoubtedly fake. actual Kikka was not equipped gun, and engine output is also incorrect.
it flew without guns
so it is pretty similar to the YAK-141 in that aspect
that is the exact reason why i included it
Closer to “fiction, but all parts existed”, considering it’s not actually implemented as the brochure described. Instead they made some weird changes with no historical basis.
I agree about the others though, no point in arguing against vehicles that are removed anyways.
4 Likes
Yes, the caveat is that it’s not actually “the” F-16AJ, just a block 10 with sparrows. Can’t decide if this makes it more or less fake.
“No, baka gaijin! It is foru DEFENSIVE PUHPOSES ONRI! It DOES NOT ATTACK”
-Some JSDF Official who probably reads this
(Best Japanese accent I can muster in written form)
3 Likes
Will the tech tree F2 not get any Mavericks in its weapons??
Afaik they could operate it no ?
I think the whole “NO A2G! ONLY FOR DEFENSE PURPOSE!” is not came from JSDF but from the parliament, there are many example that shown JSDF officer try to sneak pass the government regulation and keep the A2G capability, like calling them “anti-boat weapon” or saying that is crititcal system of the plane.
8 Likes
F-2 doesn’t have any AGM-65 and never tested it
2 Likes
ASM-2B is for ground tanks
ASM-2 can go for tanks however its primarily used for air to surface (so in a sense ASM-2 will be our mavericks - if gaijin decides to do the ASM lore of being able to track tanks)