So with Python 4 not being a thing I guess there not really that much of a difference which suggest it being tech tree
They’ve never responded to claims that GCS-1 has greater seeker performance past the linked post, so there 's no indication that they’ve moved from their position. So, there 's no reason to believe that the devs have, or will, change their stance and allow ground-attack use for it.
Plus, they added their " F-16AJ Blk 15 " on a special exemption in the time since, for the specific purpose of gapfilling the JPN techtree an FnF weapon carrier - they’re not unaware of what planes in the techtree can carry GCS-1, so that decision must have been borne of continued denial for it to attack ground targets.
The HMD will be more then enough of a difference
2 Likes
Not saying the devs accepted it, just that they were wrong.
Then again, even if they’d know it targets ground vehicles, they’d also know it has no IFF and selects the target autonomously 4s after the drop. This basically makes it a teamkill gambling machine, even if you should be able to somewhat aim using CCIP at closer ranges.
Even without Python 4 that would still allow for AIM-9L/M with HMD
2 Likes
Out of all the fixes and changes I want to see from next major update. This is the top of my list:
This is driivng me absolutely nuts. Why does Tpods STILL use altitude for the distance unit.
But that 's necessary for understanding what happened up to this point, and that understanding is required to predict what can happen in future. It 's only when the devs decide to put things in the game that they actually make it to the game, after all. And the same in reverse.
Putting additional qualifiers on that only produces a distorted picture of the situation, which isn’t useful
for making valid inference. Like shay 's erroneous belief that subtrees require their own techtree lines.
Yeah, but seeing it constantly thrown around that GCS-1 somehow “can’t see tanks” also produces a distorted picture that many just accept and believe.
It’s far from a convenient anti tank weapon, but it still is an anti ship weapon that can target tanks, even if that brings its own issues. Sure, it wasn’t added because the devs believe it just can’t see tanks, but that is still untrue and shouldn’t just be said like it is.
1 Like
Gaijin then does a collab with sea power and introduce the orel :P
No aim120 though
The R-37M and the PL-15 are also putting the USAF and USN and probably why we saw the USN effort to mount SM-6 on Hornets
1 Like
Yep. US is WAY behind most nations for BVR missiles at the moment, which is really funny. US should just buy Meteors :P
2 Likes
Too late, aim 260 already been live fired off multiple aircraft
Not integrated for F-35 or F-22 though
Yes they are that’s one of the biggest criteria of the program
1 Like
AIM-54s are enough if they modeled it correctly.
Doesnt the F-22 has the Peregrine program?
F-35 we haven’t even seen images of it being shot or loaded for carriage. Or reports of it tested
Seems like both are being equipped with it. The original “proposed” render showed they were longer than an Aim120 with an expended booster
I dont think its worthy to explain to US mains how BVRAAM ranks nowadays, chap has less than 500 games in the other 9 nations. The US uses quantity of amraams which are not far behind meteors or PL-15s, where their advantage is to get a lot of amraam launch platforms airborne simutaneously. Its like sherman and T-34 vs tigers and panthers, these cant be reflected in game.
2 Likes
The 260 is meant to have a similar form factor to the amraam so it probably doesn’t have a largely extended booster, unless an f22 or f35 can carry the same amount of them. And testing on F-22 started 2023 but idk about f35
2 Likes
What does that have to do with whether an aim260 will fit in a F-22 or F-35 weapons bay?