They told last year that submarines almost done soooooo… it can be. Last test like infantry on WW1 last year.
We had like 2 test of Infantry, Mecha warriors and WW1,
Submarines were 2 test as well.
Dynamic weathers only had 1 test with Mad Max theme.
servers dying again for me, for the 15th time this week, yippie
I was about to post about the Yak-130 here and there it goes appearing in March’s passed to the devs post… lol.
Anyway, can’t wait for it to be placed right before the Su-25SM3. Light attacker with R-73 + HMS + AESA? YES.
and future EW suits, yibbie
What if its NLOS artillery focused?
My mistake, Yak-130 doesn’t use AESA, that would be Yak-130M.
But also, Yak-130M would be placed above Su-25SM3 probably. 4x R-73 + HMS/HMD + AESA would be interesting on a light attacker lol
Yeah, but this sacrifices 2x R-73 u_u
More trainers are always welcome. Although they kinda missed the opportunity a full trainer update with the Hawk 200/T.1/T.2, Alpha Jets, MB-339/346, YaK-130 and F-5F/F+.
2 Likes
I hope this one is a tech tree addition, though.
Hopefully, would fit nicely between the Yak-141 and Yak-38M.
1 Like
The USA aviation tech tree lack early level jet trainer/light attack aircraft around 6.3 ~ 7.0 from USAF & USN to researchable vehicles
China tech tree no Pakistani and ROCAF light attack aircraft
I guess 3 countries receive MB-339
Japan tech tree no Malaysian Hawk 208
Unlike T.1 & T.1A ?
1 Like
Thinking is a T.1 with just rockets, bombs, and gunpod around 8.7 similarly to the Alpha Jets with a Hawk T.2 with 9L around 10.0 - 10.3. It would be flareless so pretty bad but still an option.
Pakistan operated Supermarine Attackers iirc?
Surely you mean Hawk 208? 209 is the Indonesian variant
2 Likes
At 8.7 basically nothing has flares. And the 9.7 and 10.0 ones don’t have any flares already, this one would actually do better at 8.7 lol
Honestly given the whole “hamster maintenance” I suspect the April Fools event will be more… lighthearted, or satirical, then anything serious like a test for submarines or ECM.
1 Like
Imo they aren’t going for subs, naval is quite unpopular, Silent Thunder was tested the same year as the Naval CBT begun. I am hoping for a mix of ECM/EW/SEAD this year, maybe with some added flavour (IADS, S300 Gargoyle is in the files, GBU53 MMW?), testing more modern SEAD (AGM-88E/G, KH31) with the legacy ARMs coming in later updates.
why would legacy ARM come after modern ARM, i know top tier needs it more but it’d make sense to add legacy ARM
- Making sure every nation actually has something of roughly equivalent performance (not every nation is going to have options for “legacy” ARM)
- balancing ARM at lower BRs
Does kinda make sense to start with AGM-88, ALARM, etc and then go back and add others here and there
I don’t really see ARMs as a way to add flavour to top-tier GRB, I hope they are aming for a full-scale EC RB mode, modern ARMs outclass SAM systems present in-game at the GRB ranges. Also more modern ARMs let them test other systems like terminal MMW guidance (as seen on the AGM-88E/G), HTS style pods with Pseudo-range multilateration, dual pulse A2G missiles.