GCS-1 will effectively be the GBU-8 but for japan with different weights/appearances if they wanted to implement it in a more usable stage
especially since we do have alot of ahistorical stuff, or outright image.png
Lol it is totally different things because here is talks about IRL integration and I say to you that it doesnβt have ability to use it IRL but you starts liying about ability because in game Su-30 has Kh-38
What the nonsense
personally I think having that option on the T-2 is valuable because using the Alpha Jet TH is subsonic and w/ so little cannon rounds, basically a treat for most other CAS.
Β¬ Not to say itβd be amazing or great, but itβd be nice to have that option of not completely committing to CAS role and playing a sort of weird Multirole
1 Like
Consider going here, over 5000msgβs 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 itβs for display so Iβm 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, itβll 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 isnβt mention in manual about Chaff pod for F-1
I gave proof to that, but as usual gets disregarded cause source βI know betterβ
Manual usually outlines the general use, not everything
It could, but thatβs not what it is in reality. We canβt expect or demand something to be better than it should. Instead we can only ask for it to be accurate, and hope itβs not even worse if they add it at all.
Yeah, itβd be the only guided option for the T-2. But itβd 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 itβd be a very interesting system and I really want to see it added. I just wanted to say itβs 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 wantβs 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 didnβt come from it.
1 Like
That is why it was described in T-2 manual? If it is too general why it isnβt 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 βNo Proof it can track tanksβ - From gaijin
5 Likes
Because here is counter proofs with manual and F-2 documents?
counter proofs being βnoβ
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 wouldnβt 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. Itβs currently classified 2. It wont be unclassified till 2050 (so 25 more years wait :()