No, they should model the IR signature properly. It is way too easy to lock this thing from any angle
2 Likes
Is an SU-34 vs F-14 historically realistic?
I know. I don’t think it makes much sense to do it, but if the other guy insists…
It’s not a historical re-enactment, but basic common sense that a MiG-15 shouldn’t see half of the enemy team in F-117s every single game.
For example. There are many other possibilities.
No and I don’t think Su-34 should be added already, when there are other planes waiting to be added. Su-34 could wait.
I also don’t think rushing with new jets like that in general is a good idea. For example the jump from F-16A Block 15 straight to F-16C Block 50 or from MiG-29 9-12 straight to MiG-29SMT 9-19 with nothing in between. Jumping from the 70s-80s straight to 2000s guarantees compression.
F-117 at 8.7 is a different kind of stupid though. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
I don’t care what you think my point is WT has never used historical MM and never will cause if you do. You will have F-15As vs MIG-21BIS.
Guys, what do you think about this?
I like the idea of giving the F-117 2x AIM-9s, it seems this was technically possible and the reason behind the lowering trapeze weapon mounts in the first place
(This is from Paul Crickmore’s book on the F-117)
I’m going to be skeptical of a source that says an radarless aircraft could use AIM-7s
I’m not advocating here for historical MM, I want basic common sense.
No no, it doesn’t say it could use the AIM-7. It says it could haul AIM-7, two different things. My guess is they wanted the option to if a radar solution came down the road
I would give it Aim-9Bs (perhaps Aim-9Ds) but I wouldn’t increase it’s BR. If you give it better weaponry it will be moved up to a BR where it would be completely useless, even as a bomber. You would have to give it counter-measures to move it up any more, and even then it would be no-where near as useful as the A-10s.
Why would you haul an AIM-7?
1 Like
They wanted the option to carry it inside the bay just in case they figured out a way to mount radar further down the road.
Turns out they never did, but they didn’t know that when they started out.
The sidewinder however doesn’t need the radar, and it was test fired
Call me crazy but I’d like to see it with 9L or 9M just so it could go to a BR where stealth and radar weaponry is relevant
Yeah how does one ground test fire an AIM9?
Use your imagination, lol
@Smin1080p_WT
Can we expect to see a functional emergancy arrestor hook upon release for the aircraft and functional parachute? With it resetting the state of the panel like parachutes do ingame currently for both? If so it would be a major boost to it’s realism. (I understand currently hooks are only active upon approach for aircraft carriers, but it would be great as an inbetween until airfield arrestor systems are added). (For reference I found the photo on google images since I already was aware of it having one).
1 Like
Ok now were are moving away from historical to common sense cool.
Common sense dictates the 117 should be 8.7
3 Likes
From what i understand there was supposed to be an 117N variatant but the navy rejected it.
1 Like
There was indeed, but this is just a normal emergancy arrestor hook for airfield landings, to my knowledge not reinforced unless someone can find out otherwise for carrier landings. (Just like the F-15’s,F-16’s, Lightnings, Tornados and so forth).
Edit: Plus it’s landing gear and it’s engines are ESPECIALLY not rated for aircraft carrier landings.
1 Like
That’s crazy. The F-117 is only stealthy from one direction. It would get massacred, especially if it doesn’t have countermeasures. Forget radar, it would get destroyed from 6km away by R-73s.
This will be the ju288c of America. Say goodbye to 8.7. But unlike the former, it doesn’t have a 360 degree death sphere