Does this mean that the revenge class wont come for a long time if not at all?
If thats the case all UK naval players wont like that news
As explained:
so i can go away with my question about engines,… roger that
Iirc Hawk 209 uses Adour 871, same as the Hawk 208
1 Like
ID already buy 42 J-10CE in Oct. 2025
real :(
no MoU has been signed, the deal has also been questioned by the House of Representatives & with some rumors that the Minister of Finance dissaproval alongside it. Which if it were to go ahead, must proceed with his permission.
Besides its very unlikely the J-10CE if it were to go ahead, since CN has been offering their used J-10 to us for a long time, its most likely the J-10B
5 Likes
Says who?
6 Likes
In WT it is. In real life it’s an AIM-9P3 with a AIM-9L seeker head. And in real life the AIM-9P3/P4/P5 has about the same kinematic performance as the AIM-9L (or the AIM-9G) and is only worse in it’s maneuverability. In real life only the AIM-9P1/P2 are similar to the AIM-9J
War Thunder has the AIM-9P’s totally wrong, and one of the biggest sufferers is Sweden which uses the RB24J (AIM-9P3).
Statsshark in Rear aspect configuration:
AIM-9P (-3) ; AIM-9P-4 and AIM-9J have the same kinematics
AIM-9L got better kinematics
this is because the rocket engine used IRL are:
AIM-9P (-1): Hercules/Aerojet Mk.17
AIM-9P (-3) : SR116 HP-1
AIM-9P-4 : SR116 HP-1
AIM-9J : Hercules/Aerojet Mk.17 (AIM-9J-1 variant) /// SR116 HP-1 (in AIM-9J-3 variant)
AIM-9L : Hercules/Bermite Mk.36 Mod.7 or 8
Now checking on current Bug-reports about it:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/UkGKNn8aXUWl
that the AIM-9P-1 used the same Hercule/Aerojet Mk17 than AIM-9J-1, and both engines were changed to SR116 rocket engines from AIM-9P-2 and AIM-9J-3 variants, when they used a different propellant mixture to reduce smoke (only way to really reduce the amount of smoke, is through Chemistry)
this source implies that both “Mk.17” and “SR116” engines have the exact same size in length and diameters (same storage boxes): https://defenseammunitioncenter.army.mil/usatces/capdraw/drawings/pdfs/7059-3c.pdf
so they basically got the same kinematics for the reason that they have the same engine, only difference being the propellant and designation.
Remember that AIM-9P’s were essentially the export variants of US missiles:
AIM-9P-1 = AIM-9J-1 (“Mk.17”)
AIM-9P-2 = AIM-9J-3 (“SR116”)
AIM-9P-3 = AIM-9J-3 (“SR116”) + Radar Slaving feature
AIM-9P-4 = AIM-9L (with AIM-9J-3 rocket engine “SR116”)
AIM-9P-5 = AIM-9M (with AIM-9J-3 rocket engine “SR116”)
the extended maneuvrability from the AIM-9P-3 come from the seeker feature “Radar Slaving”
and war thunder gave it to AIM-9P(-3) if you check about this table:
https://old-wiki.warthunder.com/AIM-9P_Sidewinder
[in picture - the only one Red cross AIM-9J have , is about radar slaving feature]
Allowing a better HOBS launch from AIM-9P’s
so the one currently suffering from AIM-9P/RB-24J are those using only the AIM-9J (as they can’t radar slave their missiles to target in order to get an “easy HOBS” launch):
Belgian Mirage 5BA/F-104G for exemple
1 Like
IRL the AIM-9P-3 was actually already all-aspect: I found in a book about Swiss Tigers when they went to Vidsel in Sweden in 1981 specifically also to practice live firing with 9P-3’s from the front aspect, with two successful test using wartime ammo. (enagemenet from 150°, so 30° off the towed target’s nose, firing distance 3 miles…)
150° from who? the “target” or the “firing aircraft”?
Radar Slaved or not?
those precisions makes a lot of differences.
Also, this doesn’t shows a full All-Aspect.
but it might be similar to what the Magic-1 is also capable (side+rear aspects).
in-game however, Gaijin doesn’t gave such Rear/Side/All Aspect definitions, but only Rear/All, so it’s a bit difficult to know what is capable of what,…
Why it should be different? We have premium Viggen with ARH and TT Viggen with ARH. For F-2 it would work too
As far as I could decipher 150° refers to the angle deviating from perfectly astern, so 150° would correspond to the missile being fired from the 11h or 01h position as seen from the target.
Shot was fired with radar slaving. I remember the pilot noted he had to be careful as the echo of the towing aircraft and the towed target appeared uncomfortably close together. And that he fired the missile reaching a distance to target of 16’000ft…
Glad to see more hawks but it does sting to see a hawk get better maverics and the underslung gun and a cop out of a reason why the 200 in the british tree cant… that little bump does not block an aden gun
at least if it does get AGM 65D it will be 10.7 worthy for ground.
1 Like
how many mavericks can this carry? 2 or 4?
2 AGM-64Gs
1 Like
i wonder why only 2?
the tech tree one can carry 4
or is it some kind of like weight restriction? although i can’t imagine the fuel tanks being lighter than mavericks
No idea.
Probably just that the hawk 209 has only been seen with 2x AGM-65s and Gaijin decided to balance them by having the 209 with 2x AGM-65Gs and the 200/200 RDA with 4x AGM-65Bs
1 Like
and the su-34 was seen with 0 kh-38mt’s… hmm…
1 Like