Chance of blog on 29th?
F-35I Idir carried AIM-120C-8 on weapon bays
F-15I Ra’am and F-16I Sufa never armed AIM-120C-8 ?
Removed ?
But return in the future ?
IMO premium F-14D is really questionable because D model is last variants of F-14s also, it is ways better than B model.
I assume they will add F-14A(2003) instead.
F-14A cant do modern CAS the premium has to be able to do it all. They will probably add one to the tech tree and one as a premium like the JA-37
They could do F-14B (AMRAAM)
It did test and fire AMRAAM
( [Coming Soon] XM1 Platoon: Way to the “Abrams” - War Thunder Mobile - Online Military Action Game - Play for Free )
The " Abrams " came sooner than I anticipated for WT Mobile. Now I’m not sure what their December headline will be - something w/ thermals or a 120mm+ dart maybe.
That 's not accurate, the reasoning given for why GCS was not introduced was this:
Regarding the GCS-1, there is no information that it can succesfully detect and track ground targets. Detecting a heat signature of a ground target can be significantly more difficult than detecting ships.
( Mitsubishi F-4EJ Kai Super Phantom - Page 11 - Japan - War Thunder - Official Forum )
You might be confusing it w/ later discussions, after the AS.34 Kormoran was added; since from a code perspective self-guiding weapons do not distinguish between " land " and " sea " targets, only " airborne " and " ground " targets, the AS.34 is only allowed to launch when the player aircraft 's radar has captured the target, since aircraft radars are coded unlike self-guiding weapons and can distinguish tanks from ships. Which allows it to be added w/ the developer 's intended behaviour of only being usable against ships, even though codewise it 's not possible yet to configure the missile itself to do that.
The GCS bombs have nothing preventing them being added except for not needing ( or even using ) the launch aircraft 's sensors to find targets, which means that ingame they would not be prevented from attacking vehicles on land which is against the developer 's understanding of their use, which is only against sea targets.
^
that part is all inference from their behaviour regarding similar weapons to GCS-1, so it 's important to note that the only thing we’ve been told specifically abt GCS-1 in WT is that the devs discovered it isn’t capable of being used against ground vehicles, so they decided not to add it.
F-5T SCU and Su-33, truly this could be the december update that adds weird missiles:
Small chance of us getting an AI Kuznetsov too ? Baku was added along w/ the first VTOL carrier-based russian aircraft, maybe a new carrier will appear for the first STOBAR.
4 Likes
They could.
The A model in late 1990s to 2000s was basically regular F-14B with TF-30s because they got many upgrades, including RWR, targeting pods.
1 Like
Too bad not an NF-5A :/
1 Like
i mean centauro does fit a lot of that, the KE protection is the difficult point
depends if they count in the protection offered trough the APS which reduces the KE penetration
We wasn’t meant to see them hence the quick removal but it does point towards a sub tree tho
Fake…
1 Like
Well, we haven’t seen all yet
These are probably just the consequences from that time they almost put most of ASEAN to China instead. With only Thailand they probably had to grab what they can get, which means a lot of C&P like the F-5A and weird choices like the “late” harrier to split one plane that was never modified and always carried the same weapons into two.
Now they either delay it and release a more interesting proper subtree, or release it as is in an underwhelming state with all other ASEAN founders besides Thailand limited to unlockable camos for the time being.
3 Likes
I know I was joking, So what the difference between the FCU and SCU ?
1 Like
I wonder if we will see that with more premiums in the future or if it will remain just a unique case for the Viggen.
Instead of paywalling aircraft, just adding a premium version in addition to the TT would fix quite a few issues.
It’s true that was the given reason, but it’s also since been disproven. Even back then was only based on the technicality that it’s called an anti ship bomb and “it doesn’t explicitly state it can target tanks”, not any real evidence.
2 Likes
its fine since italy, germany, the uk and france all use the Meteor which is either on par or better
1 Like
Sweden too
forgot about them but yep them as well
It’s also WAY better than Aim-120D.
Its why the US are rushing to develop Aim-260 because they are massively behind the curve withwise of ARH missiles at the moment.
1 Like