14.7 minimum, thats too powerful, biased as always.
We talked about this in the R+R but i think it belongs in here as well, how about folding aircraft wings as a nice gimmick like open canopys and ejection seats?
Some examples of folding wings from the FAA museum in Yeovil
More SPAA. There’s huge gaps in almost every nation’s lineups where you have to use SPAA from 2 BR’s lower or go up a BR just to get working SPAA.
I need this for yesterday…c’mon!!
JH-7 basic limited PL-5B & unguided Air-to-Ground armament, F-15A Baz (IAF/IDF) would 12.3 because carries 4 guidance IR AIM-9G/AIM-9L sidewinder & Python 3 and 4 SARH BVR AIM-7F
F-15A from USAF carries 4 guidance IR AIM-9J/AIM-9L sidewinder & SARH BVR AIM-7F and could be 12.0 only
They can give it PL-5E for now.Even PL-5B would be enough for now.
Yeah I’ve been waiting for this more than years
yeah, i think 20.0 would be better
San Giorgio (1941) as a 5.7-6.0 armored cruiser.
She’d make a well armored vessel (200 mm belt) with decent anti-ship armament (2x2 254 mm + 4x2 190 mm)
G6 marksman looks like alien tech
IIRC it was the only one of them that did not make it into the real world, and stayed as a proposition
I was assuming AIM-7M (entered service in 1982, 8 years after first F-15s) and AIM-9M (1983) to create a more balanced aircraft. The F-15A exceeds the flight performance of the F-14B by a significant margin in pretty much every aspect.
3,000km/h vs 2,200km/h
1.85TWR vs 1.24
342m/s climb vs 224
55lb/ft^2 vs 94 (lower is better)
The F-15A would have by far the best flight performance of any aircraft in the game. There could be an argument for a lower BR with the weapons it had in 1974 when it first entered service, but then it would be an extremely unbalanced aircraft with incredible flight performance and mediocre armament. I’d rather give it a bit better missiles (no AMRAAM, yet) and put it at a higher BR where it can compete with other aircraft of more similar flight performance (Su-27, Typhoon, etc.). At 12.0 what is a MiG-21 supposed to do against an F-15, even one without any missiles at all.
It looks like you are right and only the JH-7A could carry PL-8s. That being said, the standard JH-7 could use PL-5Es which are essentially AIM-9Ls or even PL-5EIIs with IRCCM. With its CCIP and PL-5Es, 11.0 would be fine. JH-7A could come soon after at 11.7 with its more capable armament.
does anyone know if we will get a mig-25 or mig-31 this year still? seems weird to me that we are likely to get an f15 and su-27 before we get the iconic russian interceptors…
Durjoy MBT with Hay camouflage.
Prototype Durjoy MBT. It had a different Turret.That turret was similar to ZTZ 96’s turret.Only these two pictures of it exists online.
Spoiler
Yeah but was marskman turret used on boat?
Because this French turret was also put on boat. :))
I think if that’s added the Mule is gonna be seen sleeping and there going to fully animate it to be asleep.
MiG-25 is too much of a hyperspecialized interceptor to be particularly useful in War Thunder. The aircraft itself is designed for pure speed (a whopping Mach 3.08) at the expense of all maneuverability. Armament-wise, the Foxbat only has R-60Ms and R-40s, hulking missiles with decent range but completely unable to hit a target pulling over 4gs.
The MiG-31, on the other hand, is a much more balanced aircraft. With an extremely fast firing (8,000RPM!) GSh-23-6 and options of R-60Ms, R-40s, R-73s, and R-33s (ARH AIM-54C equivalent) the A2A armament of the MiG-31 is extremely similar to the F-14B. While the MiG-25 ancestry is clear on the MiG-31, it’s flight performance is more well-rounded. Top speed is reduced to Mach 2.83 while its composite construction gives it half-decent maneuverability.
Basically, the MiG-25 is an unbalanceable one-trick pony while the MiG-31 is an F-14B that gives up CAS capability and some maneuverability for MOAR SPEED!!!
The MiG-31 would be pretty perfect for 12.3 once some 12.7s (F-15A early, Su-27) are added to keep it from totally dominating ARB.