Because F-15E is a strike plane. As far as I know, F-104C and maybe others can also be put into the striker role, but gaijin is too lazy to put these planes into the classification
How do these takes get worse everytime?
5 Likes
Your statement makes it sound like you’re comparing the 15E to the 30SM
which coincidentally btw, is only slightly better than the 15E
1 Like
The multirole jet which can do both A2A and A2G because the USAF thinks the F-15 platform is solid enough to make new multi-role.
How the hell F-104C should be put into a striker jet role
it is a purebred interceptor. for Christ’s sake.
I am a bit unsure about F-104G/S which Lockheed sold them as a multirole though, but F-104C?? Striker?
1 Like
From Wikipedia
Fighter-bomber version for USAF Tactical Air Command, with improved fire-control radar (AN/ASG-14T-2), centerline and two wing pylons (for a total of five), and ability to carry one Mk 28 or Mk 43 nuclear weapon on the centerline pylon. The F-104C also had in-flight refuelling capability. On 14 December 1959, an F-104C set a world altitude record of 103,395 ft (31,515 m), 77 built.
fighter-bomber, like F-4?
Perhaps. I’m just saying there’s the possibility for strike plane designation. But gaijin is inconsistent with designations
given history of the airframe, and how it only adds nukes and dumb bombs for a2g, it would say it still qualifies as a fighter ingame
Man, I tried my best to defend you when you made your ‘first’ bad take.
But your claim and theory get constantly worse and worse and worse.
How about giving everyone air spawn for faster bombing then?
I am sure that you will bomb with your J-20 or F-35 too.
it seems that removing the base itself will be the only solution for this. :/
Yes. MiG-27 or Mirage 5 variants need to be redesignated to Strike Aircraft just like MiG-23BN does.
But Nah, Not the F-104C.
If we consider the F-104C as a strike aircraft, the whole phantom family need that redesignation too.
Pff… F-104C… Strike Aircraft…?
Over my dead Buccaneer body!
What is meant by “they”? Am I in a group of base bombers or something?
It I get a J-20 or F-35 I will bomb.
Because SEAD, attacks against mostly static targets (alike to bases in game) is what modern jets pilots do 99% of the times. Study recent events (but I’m not allowed to state them) and you’ll find out.
Your means of address is uncertain, therefore “they” is used until clarification is obtained. The clarification is not required.
Thank you for the clarification. English isn’t my first language and I don’t see “they” used to describe one person a lot.
but you sacrifice stealth or valuable internal bay space to carry a2g weapons\
and you dont even have the internal capacity to take out a base
Alright lads, it seems we need to end this discussion.
Do I need to report to mods about ‘spamming discussion about base bombing’ for this?
6 Likes
It depends how stealth will be simulated in game. If stealth is worthless, I will put on “three day configuration” or “beast mode” and spam as many as missiles/bombs as possible
It’s a fairly old convention that fell out of favour and has been re-introduced a few decades ago.
From a WW2 aviation perspective, fighter-bombers running ground strikes is usually done after air superiority had been achieved.
In fact, even bomber escort was abandoned for a much more effective “fighters fly ahead of the bombers and clear the airspace of threats before bombers even get there rather than fly lockstep and then engage.”
I don’t see how is it against rules to discuss about a specific topic? I play ARB a lot so you’ll see me hang around these spaces
Not true. SEAD missions will be a major part of stealth planes.
There is a YouTuber that has done simulations on scenario involving conventional (lots of Which are low RCS gen 4.5) and stealth airplanes conducting SEAD
As long as there is no Anti-Radiation missile in this game at all,
your claim about ‘SEAD’ seems null and void.
Especially when there is no proper SAM/SPAA in ARB outside of the airfield.
Destroying base =/= clear enemy radar out for allies.