Your post was breaching this rule here: 3.1.1 profanity, obscene and offensive language, words, phrases, and abbreviations (including their disguised forms);
Feel free to DM if you wish discuss this further!
You are more than welcome to submit your evidence for any corrections you believe it should have and the sources those are based on here: Community Bug Reporting System
However we are not going to just invent the name of a radar out of thin air.
2 Likes
Yet you literally did?
There are 0 sources on it. No name no specs not even what it looks like
but do you even have proof that the J15T radar is false?
We have used an existing known radar set with details that are known. Your suggestion is to change that to something entirely unknown and something you haven’t even provided anything to support your claims with.
We dont even have proof it has a radar in the radome it could be empty for all we know
Either way, whatever they do I’m good with. That’s just me, though.
A tech demonstrator… I mean, if we have the Yak-141 in tech tree, I suppose we can have that in the tech tree. It definitely wouldn’t work as an event or squadron vehicle lol.
IRL the EX succeeds the C, it wouldn’t make sense to put it under the Strike Eagle?
See, there is a place for an F-15E (AESA)/Late :D. Solves the no rank 9 issue instantly.
We have based the radar on a known radar set.
We are not going to change it, as the person who’s topic I was responding too, to an entirely fabricated made up name and radar set “just because”.
Again, if you have information to present, please do. Otherwise this is an entirely pointless discussion.
1 Like
im sure we don’t have any sources on the KLJ-10A either, besides deagel which is far than a trustworthy source, and can’t forget about the RWR of the J-15T which is the same rwr the A-5C, Q-5L, J-7E, J-10C, J-11B, J-10A, J-8F, all three JH-7s, and the J-15T share
and then i have another question, what’s going to be done for the avionics of the chinese 5th gens? is it going to use the same RWR from the 80s? same radar as the J-10C despite having completely different radome sizes?
1 Like
Cant wait for J-20 and J-35 with KLJ-10A :)
2 Likes
Again, any issues can be reported with evidence here Community Bug Reporting System
Nothing is going to change from claims alone.
The KLJ-10A is hardly a “known radar set” the only known parts is the name and there aren’t really any good sources for that either
As already explained, we are open to any public information for corrections. However its clear at this stage you dont have any intention of that.
2 Likes
hell there are no sources for any chinese aircraft post 4.5th gen at all, so it’s all going to be either made up or copies from other planes, im curious if we’ll see the same stock J-7E/A-5C RWR on the J-20 or J-35 when it eventually arrives, i get copying the same avionics for planes near the capability/br/generation of the other one but if it’s stretched out too much it’s going to be bad
Same amount as Gaijin has on it, literally nonexistent. You make stuff up and expect us get have actual documentation on it.
You could literally just say “there’s no information available on it at the moment” its a placeholder
But you insist on pushing this report it agenda even tho you know there isnt any information to report with
2 Likes
would you rather they just not add a radar at all? like you arent giving them any other options here lmao
1 Like
As I said just call it “AESA” or placeholder why base it of a already completely made up radar
so all future 4.5 and 5th gen to come will use an 80’s rwr and klj-10a? that’s kinda ridiculous, in fact it kinda just ruins the whole point of getting more modern.
j-20 will have the same radar, rwr, and armament as the j-10c but with maybe noticeable stealth, no point in playing further than the j-10c anymore.
1 Like
Nobody is insisting on reporting anything. You are free not too. I was simply explaining the process to take for those that do wish to submit evidence.
But taging me for a rant sn’t going to lead to any changes.