It’s going to need foreign designs. They went from a bomber retrofitted for A2A to the one of if not the most powerful jet fighter of the modern day.
A CF-18, Gripen C, or something is going to be needed to fill those gaps.
Unfortunately, the aircraft in the photo is not the XF-2A, but rather an "F-2A upgraded from the XF-2A.
According to reports from those involved in the XF-2’s production, only the XF-2B (Prototype No. 4) is armed out of the four XF-2 models. The other aircraft were not tested with armament or radar installed, and were upgraded to F-2A(B) after the tests were completed. Since that photo shows the XF-2 after the upgrade, it is practically no different from the F-2, so it would be difficult to implement.
If it were to be implemented in the current environment, it would only be the XF-2B that was armed and tested during testing. This aircraft was tested with data acquisition equipment in the rear seat and equipped with a machine gun and radar.
We both know you just want the SU-27 no matter what, the F/A-18 is not even close to equivalent until after it gets the AMRAAM though
1 Like
They are just another nation main doing nation main things. How predictable and honestly kind of boring/disappointing.
It’s fine, I’m still hoping for the Python 4 this or next update so I’m not exactly innocent if that
It’s kinda the point of being a nation main, you gotta advocate for yourself, even if it’s a bit stupid
The SU-27 is probably the next big thing for Russia so it makes sense to ask for that specifically
4 Likes
I just hope that they revert some of the Changes to the Chaparral, mainly for the Israeli one, because this:
“Imp.Chaparral : Default Pitch : 0 → 17°”
Just killed it’s usefullness against anything within like 2 to maybe 3km.
1 Like
Eh, they could do it if they got rid of the E’s too. ER/ET is more of a stretch.
1 Like
Yeah that’s kinda the sticking point, I agree that without the E it would already be a good fit for the game, I just don’t see them introducing it without the Es
Maybe you’re right though, it would make for a great patch if they introduced the F-15 and SU-27 together
no further Dev server updates tonight?
is it closed yet?
should have closed an hour ago
ok so what we expect today?
silence? new Devblog?
I don’t think they’ll send the update live on a friday, imagine the poor souls trying to build the Day one fix on saturday
Not gonna lie, I watched some DCS videos, and I’m convinced what makes the Su-27 the most deadly is the ripple-fire. Put someone on the defensive with an R, tag them with a T, and break-off. Most people never see it coming. Just can’t do that in a MiG-29 with only two pylons for R-27’s.
I honestly don’t even think the Su-27 should carry an R-73 except for solely defensive purposes/weapon of last resort. Bread and butter is the 27’s. I’m sure R-77’s are nice, but I don’t know if that’s the only way to play it.
Gonna try the Kid’s meal version of this with the Yak once I have the modules grinded out.
1 Like
that tactic got a name? it’s the soviet nuclear interception doctrine
that tactic is the reason why MiG-25s aways carried R-40T and R-40R
that’s also the reason why R-23/24/27 have both an R and a T version
1 Like
Sad, smin dint want to awnser my question
I guess? The way it was explained to me sounded more like an offensive strategy, given the payload a Flanker can take on. I always understood that the R/T combo with the R-40’s was as a redundancy/backup to ensure interception of the target.
I honestly think the RAAF F-18 might be the better choice, as that was actually equipped with ASRAAMs. I guess either CF-18 or the aussie F-18 could be the premium and one goes into the tree, or something along those lines.
you’re also ensuring your target gets ahot down by launching 2 diffrent seeker missiles
All things being equal, with sufficient altitude, weather, and intercept distance/course, yes.
If we go by the games trends already:
Australia is more closely tied to USA, see M1A1 AIM.
Canadian vehicles like the ADATS M113, Skink, etc are all put in the UK tree.
I have a strong feeling we’ll be seeing CF-18s as tech tree vehicles, rather than RAAF F-18s. Canada is just closer to Britain than Australia both in WT and in real life.
There’s a precedent there.
ASRAAM would be cool, but to fill that 12.0+ gap for britain, AIM-7Ms, AIM120s, and AIM9Ms would do just fine
7 Likes
Australian-flagged vehicles are also put in the UK when appropriate. See A.C.I, A.C.IV, Beaufighter Mk.21, Wirraway, Boomerangs and about 3 ships that bear the HMAS prefix
There are also Canadian-flagged vehicles in the US tree: Stuart VI (5th CAD), M4A5
There’s no fixed allocation for where Australian and Canadian stuff goes on the basis of nationality. It’s usually on the basis of where the vehicle was produced. But not in all cases, since the M4A5 went to the US despite being a Canadian-built tank.
Other vehicles that are Canadian-built (Skink, QF 3.7 Ram etc.) or Australian-built (A.C tanks, Boomerang etc.) have all gone to the UK.
Apart from the first two, Australia’s F-18s were assembled in Aus from parts shipped from the US.
Canada’s were IIRC wholly built in the US apart from a dozen or so ex-Australian F-18s they bought a few years ago to bolster the aging CF-18 fleet which have been modified to CF-18 standard with the exception of having no spotlight installed and retaining the Australian front landing gear which has a simple counterweight bar instead of a proper catapult launch bar.
4 Likes