I’m not really sure why it matters though. We have weapons that deny the Geneva convention in game (napalm), so I don’t see why the JP233 would be a moral-bridge too far.
1 Like
It wouldn’t be. Whether it would be useful, is another matter
2 Likes
With AI spaa overhauls and proper sead. Deploying JP233s on AF in SB (with some form of damage multiplier, or runway disabling affect due to mines) would be great fun. Though i can see some raging from people being taken out by mines if they tried to land.
In GRB, maybe a good tool for area surpression/denial. But would need to be carefully tuned. Also the question of whether you could actually survive long enough to deploy them is another issue. Definetly would need sead.
In both instances though, they would need a short timer on any mines (5 to 10 mins max) or maybe theyd just omit the mines and have them something akin to MW-1 and just deploy bomblets.
But at the end of the day. No such thing as too many options, and even rarely used, niche weapons would be great to have.
1 Like
I’d like to make it clear; I’m not saying they lied about what or when, I’m saying they are trying to spin the decision into one of politics and meeting the needs of the treaty, when it was primarily a doctrinal and military decision to retire the JP233 and related submunitions. Politicians (especially in the UK) have a habit of taking a decision made for one reason and ascribing it to another (BoJo included).
I would like to point out that our politicians (including BoJo, somehow) have a history of getting away with manipulating the expressed reasons for doing something, especially when it comes to the Military and public spending.
I’d also like to point out that the decision to retire the JP233 and associated submunitions was made relatively shortly after the Gulf war, where we learnt a lot of lessons about our future (and current) needs, capabilities and most importantly our limitations. The designed role of the JP233 and the Tornado was largely redundant even then, so the JP233 was scrapped and the Tornado was modified heavily. It is far more likely that the OttConv was merely a convenient excuse for politicians who wanted to avoid the “Why did we waste so much money on this weapon?” questions.
Yeah, that’s a really good point; it’s why it irks me to see the Super Etendard not getting it’s Exocet, just because it doesn’t have a specific role in gameplay doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a fun addition.
I assume you are talking about the Gulf War? The JP233 wasn’t in service at the time of the Falklands War.
1 Like
Yes, apologies! I’ll edit now for clarity! (Been doing some Falklands research recently so I think it’s on my mind XD)
A yes the One Seat version, liked only by Italy
Just had a match in which a skytrash ST got chaffed by an F-104S while a solid PD lock of its rear aspect was maintained from ACM mode about 2-3 km away and without any ground interference (completely changing its course from plane to chaff). Is it a normal behaviour or something worth of a report? @Gunjob
Presently that is normal.
I see, thanks for the answer.
well well well, seems like the tornados soon should get some love
1 Like
Hmm?
They are adding a new button to radar lock ground targets, might mean ground radars are in the making
1 Like
Nothing with that is shown in the data mine you posted?
Oh images right. Eh
Unfortunately there are plenty of other vehicles that could be for (AH-64D, Khrizantema-S, etc.)
Hope dies last
That is why we will add new ground radar to su 39, for test purpose of course.