Probably bc of this:
建国記念の日：デカール＆セール販売※2月9日18:00更新 - War Thunder （ウォーサンダー）- DMM GAMES
1 Like
can we make these the new forum emojis please Gaijin
6 Likes
I have more of them (as i am the one that started the whole thing)
Also F-18C+
1 Like
Not technically true, there 's still the low-detail AI target on Hurtgen and some other Air RB maps:
The playable version went MIA in 2021 after having been in the files for years ( Unused assets of War Thunder ). The BT-7M and T-28 (1938) had previously had models of equal age, which were replaced by the now-ingame ones. So it 's still possible this vehicle may appear in future too.
Speaking of this, the other vehicle from that which has not yet been added is in the files. PGZ88
Using PGZ09 stats as placeholder.
2 Likes
What issue? That the F-18 and Su-33 aren’t in game?
You’ve ignored numerous times my point that there is no need for it. The current airframes that were just added are borderline unplayable. There is no reason for more advanced aircraft to be added when the ones currently in-game aren’t finalized.
How is the Gripen relevant in any way? The topic of the Su-33 and its implementation has nothing to do with the Gripen. To say that it’s in the game and use that to justify the Su-33 is extremely asinine, as they are in no way related on an analytical scale.
What do you mean by this?
The Su-33 is a further development of the Su-27, not an Su-27 adapted for something. It did not come directly from the Su-27’s development, nor does it share defining features with it. The entire airframe was redesigned, a full FBW system was implemented, all control surfaces and servos were changed. It has new engines, the spine was remodeled and featured provisions for entirely different systems.
There’s a myriad of differences, all of which only putting it further from the Su-27 in design and general similarity. Quite literally the only thing I can think of being unchanged is the gun, which has been standard for a little over 40 years now.
You compared an Su-27 to an Su-33. I compared an XM-1 to an M1A2C. What’s the issue?
And believe it or not, it took over 2 years to get from the F-4C and its issues to the F-4J.
As for the Mirage-III, it’s taken us 2.5 years to go from the widely used IIIC to the current 2000CS-5.
MiG-21? You wanna talk MiG-21? That was a little under 2 years.
So tell me, why should we have a vastly modernized aircraft, taking multiple traits from 2 world renowned fighters, and add it <6 months after the base variant of the entire lineage?
With 4th gen aircraft they what?
Rewrite that second sentence mate, it’s unintelligible.
Quite literally all of the statistics of the vehicles in this game are based on realism, with balancing factored in afterwards.
It’s as much of a leap in technology as what is found from the F-16 Block 15 to the F-16 Block 50. Hell, it’s as much of a leap as the Block 40 to the 40++. This is the difference between the J-16 and J-11.
Slightly changed… Right. It’s not as if the wing dimensions and area have changed, as well as going from the S-12-5 to the P44M series of design, all control surfaces were redesigned, the airframe was heavily modified and… Yeah, you get the point.
At this point you can say that the F-2 is just a different set of pixels than the F-16, but if you can’t get the F-16 right… Why implement the F-2?
The Su-33 took so long because it wasn’t a direct development or end-goal of the T-10 series of prototypes. It was rushed out in the end, taking over a decade before reaching its trials, and is still facing modernization to this day.
So… Why add the Su-33 now? We’re receiving “modern” ARH missiles within the next half year, as well as fixes to the current aircraft that are already capable of carrying them. Why add the Su-33?
The Leopard 2A6M added mine protection over the 2A6. It did not feature an entire design overhaul, new sensors, engine/transmission, tracks, and so on.
Again, why are you so stuck on the Su-33 being an Su-27?
Yes, and we arrived there 2 months ago. They are still being fixed, and there is no reason to immediately push to early '00 and '10 jets.
The F-18, sure, but not the Su-33. The F-18 itself, I can see coming in either an A or C variant with a larger update, as the A’s primary weapon selection was 6-8 missiles, having either a 1:3 of AIM-7 to AIM-9, or a 2:1 of AIM-7s to AIM-9s.
Once the F-15 is somewhat flyable, I’d see the F-18 as a fair addition to the game… Though seeing the current state of it and the Su-27, there is no reason whatsoever for an aircraft to the degree of the Su-33.
1 Like
IF you want to go at it like that nothing in the past 9 years that has been added actually was needed.
SU-33 still is a reworked SU-27 to operate from aircraft carriers.
The finalised aircraft of the programme that lead to SU-33 is clearly based on SU-27. Your idea of what it means to develope sth. on the base of sth. that already exists is extremly flawed.
Practically every change you listed fulfills this purpose.
SU-33 is part of the ‘‘Flanker family’’ as Mirage 50M is part of the Mirage III/5/50 family.
Either way comparisons lead us nowhere apparently, since you do not seem to understand half of them, certainly not in the way they are intended to be understood, causing us to go in circles.
You are contradicting yourself with the part about unplayable aircraft combined with the question of how Gripen could possibly be relevant which I answered already as well.
You must realise that Gaijin will never stopp adding new airframes even though the old ones were not finished which is a fact that in and of itself renders 90% of your arguments pointless.
War Thunder uses some known aspects of aircraft they implement as inspiration. Otherwise the flight performance of every aircraft in game is fantasy, especially in RB when the instructor comes into play.
Most aerodynamics are not modelled realistically or whole aircraft are supposedly stable when they should not be etc.
You still have not named a single argument regarding any issues with implementation of SU-33 beside that it is work for Gaijin to do which any new ‘‘airframe’’ is.
Sure SU-33 is more maneuverable while heavier and possibly has 2 more hardpoints but with AIM-120 coming soon I do not see any issue whatsoever.
1 Like
Is it always 6km-ish on the GBU-8? Anyhow, elevation gives you both energy to burn through in dodging missiles, plus it requires more energy from the missile to reach you. I’ve found a lot of good CAS players who hover near the standoff envelope they are comfortable with, and drop on people from there. Not impossible to engage as SPAA, but difficult, and requires good timing.
Again, players that have no idea what they are doing are toast. Even players that do, just have to change direction the wrong way, and I know my missile has a good chance. That’s more than I can say of any other Russian SPAA, even the 2S6 which is better than people complain post-nerf, albeit noticeably slower than the Pantsir.
MiG-27 is almost a solution to the high-altitude distance bombing, but again, no thermals/targeting pod makes targeting a little difficult (can’t fly semi-parallel), and smaller KG bombs give it less wiggle room. MiG-27 with R-60M’s is preferable to the Su-39, but neither are qualified to take on an F-15A or F-15C in the air.
2 Likes
You know something I would like to see in the tree, as 11.7/12.0?
Object 292 as how it was intended to be once finished; with ERA and thermals.
Semi-paper? Maybe. Who cares? Not me. xD.
4 Likes
now show plans and existing components ))
The Object 195 fires Grifel which is much larger than Vacuum-1, Vacuum-1 is fired from the 2A82-1M 125mm from the T-14 Armata.
1 Like
Interesting!
The point is, Russia has effectively run out of Top Tiers by now.
Sure, they will add a T-80BVM mod.2022 with slightly different side ERA and maybe other minor changes, but… that’s pretty much it.
I doubt they will add T-14, since there is zero info on what the armor may even look like, so the only chance for future Russian additions is Object prototypes.
I thought there was a T-90M with 2A82-1M, but I can’t find any info about that!
That’s great
Now give Thumper or M1A2 with L/55
EDIT: I have sneaking suspicion that 292 might set a trend for event tanks
2 Likes
I would have to disagree, there’s plenty of basic stuff on it, it’s just up to gaijin on its implementation.
If that were the case, a lot of top tier wouldn’t exist.
Also the T-90M with 2A82-1M doesn’t exist
1 Like
Su-33 is going to be filler for the USSR/Ru. Unless we get a later model, we can’t even guarantee it will get the R-77. It’s heavier, and is not quite as agile as the Su-27 (in spite of the canards).
F-18 is going to be a turbo F-5, and probably cancer, but I guess it’s not important until the AIM-120’s are added.
aim 120 100% will be added before the F-18
2 Likes
FWIW, I think if US gets F-15C or really any plane with Fox 3s, it’s safe to say the SMT or other RU jet is getting it as well.
4 Likes
It’s a related development to the Su-27*. If the sole characteristic one had for an Su-27 was to be carrier worthy, then the Su-27K, and later, the Su-33 (basically same plane, just post-Soviet) are a direct successor. Given the expansion of the Su-27 family, I see it more of a lateral variant, than a down the development path variant.
Came from the T-10K. Su-27K is the initial production name given to the Su-27K.
The difference is that the Su-30SM is both a multirole and an interceptor, and has TVC, a new radar, fcs, flight computer, reshaped LERX’s, as well as other technology gathered from the Su-35. It is night and day different from the Su-27. Compared to the Su-27K/33, the Su-27 just can’t fly off of Soviet aircraft carrier ramps (basically).
Other than a few late 80’s early 90’s T-72/80’s, of the few tanks left to come, I want the Obj. 195 the most. What a dream.