Yes, things that aren’t contrast seeking bombs/missiles from the Vietnam war.
I want laser guided bombs/missiles from the Vietnam war.
I see. Personally, I prefer the tv ones because i dont have to baby it the whole time and i can just drop and focus on dodging enemy air/spaa.
But i know the laser ones have their own benefits.
1 Like
The real problem is that we’re missing like 3 generations of targeting systems.
We get the LANA FLIR/NAV pod, then straight to LANTIRN.
The F4E should have Pave Spike, the F4D should be introduced with its PAVE Knive, then there’s PAVE Track and NITE Hawk too.
I don’t know for sure but I imagine they would work with TV or Laser guided ordinance. Both coexisted early on with introductions like the GBU-8 and Paveways being right around the same time.
1 Like
A lot of has to do with exactly which systems are implemented and their Seeker / Warhead / Propulsion configurations. and in general giving the US the short end of the stick constantly and omitting options
For all intents and purposes NITEHAWK (AAS-38) is a Navigation / LST pod(USMC did not permit Self designation loadouts whatsoever with said pod due to poor resolution), not a targeting pod for in game purposes.
The Laser Designator functionality was included with the upgrade to the -38A and so comes way too late and is inferior to the ATFLIR (ASQ-228) [F/A-18D -E &-F] or LITENING AT [-A+ & -C] which are Self designation capable Targeting pod counterparts for the various services, with the NAVY using the ATFLIR, and USMC the LITENING AT.
Also you could further stretch this to include the AN/AVQ-9 PAVE Light, Airborne Laser Designator but that isn’t a poded system, but it did work.
1 Like
Idk I just copy pasted the Wikipedia page for ‘laser designator pods’
Still, we jump from the LANA FLIR/Nav to LANTIRN and LITENING, totally skipping like 20 years of laser pods
Huh? No,…
9L currently should be more sensible to flares,… there is no IRCCM the flare rejection should be as high as the 9J maybe slightly better but that it.
9M is the one having IRCCM.
IRL 9L is well documented to have been extremely hard to decoy in rear aspect, especially when afterburning.
9M actively counters decoys using the IRCCM, but 9L (and likely most All-Aspect IR missiles), get an extremely strong lock from rear aspect.
Mil power is 100% thrust in WT, not afterburning.
1 Like
That’s the catch,… 9L is definetly better than documentation within game,… sometimes 9L is never affected by flares(and i’m not speaking of 1 flare,… but more like 3 to 5 sprays of 3 flares while cutting afterburner down) that is not 58-80% but 100%
Flares also were worked out in real life–> in game those only are categorized about their Caliber (light medium/heavy) with no consideration for chemistry/shapes and IR-Signatures.
One aircraft that is currently missing survivability because of that is Mirage 2000,… and surely several other aircrafts in game.
From rear aspect when having a Reheat.
Current Magic-2 is going for flares more often than you know, even with reheat plumes +flares unless said flares are light caliber one (happenned to kill one Mirage 2000CS4 like that at 2.5km range, but he wasn’t cutting afterburner, and C’s are fit with light caliber flares)
Magic-2 is currently more sensible to flares than ANY non IRCCM carrier All-Aspect missile, and surely not on par with R-73/9M (while it should superior/similar respectively).
So,… no: 9L is currently overperforming in game or the Magic-2 should be rewrked entirely, …
Not GBU8 such kind of FF bomb, There is only A6E that could take GBU 12 or other bombs that need laser guide.
The real answer is the US is missing a ‘late’ F-4E or Navy Phantom for that matter.
1 Like
This is not even close to right, as the documentation states. All IR missiles are dramatically underperforming
This is true, and the documentation that supports it has already been submitted. It’s a dev decision at this point. But claiming it’s current IRCCM is worse than the 9L is comical.
You’re looking at its arcade BR, its 11.0 in RB, same as the Germany ones.
My bad. USSR and Isr should be at 11.0. Not 10.7.
Still, what are people’s opinions about adding a new F-5E with all-aspect AIM 9P?
Honestly a F-14A without all spect capability at a lower BR is fine. Just add a F-14A late (upgrade) which is a F-14A converted to a F-14B, (foldered ofc). Then add the 9M for the standard F-14B and boom, three different BR spots fillies to suit the gaming style and BRs you want to face. (Although I’m willing to bet 50 bucks gaijin will just make a premium tomcat at some point lmfao, they’d be too stupid not too)
That it will be a premium someday,… and so i don’t think it will ever made in game for TT enjoyers.