Derby and subsequently R-DARTER should feature a shorter range, but a much higher pull in the mean time, roughly predicted at 70G at least based on its OG missile the PT4. Arguably the PT4 should also come in the next update as the barak 2 is lacking in FM.
A Lavi?
2 Likes
put that grenade down will you ? X)
1 Like
Given the delay in the implementation of this year’s major updates along with the roadmap, I only used Alpha Strike as a reference, the trailer come out 1 week after the pre order, and spend about half month to implement the major updates after the trailer, if next major update also implemented in this way and start pre sale today (Friday) , we will indeed see it in mid June
Chap, I could explain how J-10 is based off J-9, a project that is aimed at an interceptor instead of multirole of the lavi, while the cancelling of the lavi is forced by the US, there are Israeli experts who shared some, some data - but cant be bothered to.
And I wanted both in the game. Barak II is kinda lame.
Its possible that Derby was overperforming in manueverability on dev server according to several sources. But otherwise the Derby was modeled accurately according to Czechslovakian estimates
2 Likes
Would Chinese Lavi suffice? 🤔
4 Likes
Depends. The Chinese community has a very pessimistic view of the J-10, believing that it would be butchered with inaccurate radar, lack of good RWR, and the ability to only carry 2xARH and 2xPL-8s. Later version of the J-10A should be at least able to carry 4+2, but with how China is depicted in the game as a whole you cant say the community is willing to have high expectations just like other minor trees.
1 Like
Imo, the MoD’s biggest blunder is abandoning that modernization program.
Reading the J-10 thread it does seem to be that there’s a big lack of information or sources regarding the J-10 aircraft, with some people having to resort to pixel counting the countermeasure dispensers in order to approximate how many flares and chaffs it can get.
But I’m not sure of any other alternative besides JH-7, perhaps there’s more information on that since it has been exported.
1 Like
and they’re probably right about that tbh
1 Like
Not exactly their fault, if the AJAX isnt an equally big blunder.
1 Like
They rejected my report about energy on terminal approach.
For the report about range, they gave a pretty confusing response which suggests they do not understand the report, but still agreed the range needs increasing. I’ve since sent them more information.
The report on rear aspect performance where the largest shortfalls are has not been responded to.
2 Likes
I mean, this is the warthunder bugreport mods…
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems that they stated the kinetic energy of the AIM-120A is correct. The only other way I can see them implementing a range increase is by giving it higher lofts similar to what Derby and Darter has, which would technically allow it to “float down” for more range, same for rear aspect. Although this might butcher its performance in other areas…
but on the Dev server there was only the 120B?
AIM-120A was the text name, although the model might have shown AIM-120B on it.
i remember something that we had both the A and B but only one was used
fun fact, these uranium pellets are extremely small, but feel so heavy in the hand (for their size)
1 Like