Israelis have DASH 1/2/3 to fall back on if gaijin ever feels like stripping JHMCS off of their F-16/F-15 fleet
1 Like
We don’t need to, empirical evidence shows otherwise.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331532719_Missile_Grid_Fins_Analysis_using_Computational_Fluid_Dynamics_A_Systematic_Review
Last I checked the MiG-19 is capable of doing this exact same maneuver without issue.
More than happy to if they have their analogues. IRIS-T is far too sophisticated of a system to think of adding anytime soon, unless 9X-III and R-74M2 are in the picture as well. Seeing as MICA-NG is in the files, I’d imagine it isn’t the hardest to start work on them.
Even then, absolutely none of these are “scum of the barrel” as I’ve said.
The most current weapons on the game? Such as what?
The Grom was in service over 9 years ago… The hell are you talking about.
The R-73’s first launch was in 1977, with its full scale production beginning in 1982. Its service date means absolutely nothing.
^
CM-50s with JHMCS first hit their mods in 2004, with standard 50+ models incorporating it in 2006.
Oh boy, I didn’t know we had the first F-15E to ever grace this earth!
2 Likes
Da yis, India is the authority on rocketry, my mistake. /s
I’d love to see some proof of that, given the fact that the Mig-19 does not have thrust remotely close to 1-1.
I’m glad we can agree on this, although you do seem to be overestimating the efficacy of the first versions of the IRIS-T, you also seem to be underestimating the likes of the base AIM-9X, given it has the same generation and type seeker as the IRIS-T, and the exact same seeker as the ASRAAM, it would easily match the likes presented.
Oh dont play dumb with me you know well what I’m talking about, it got added this patch and allows the SU-34 to nuke bases from across the map without effort.
But if you really need some help, I’ll give you part of it’s name, “UMPK Bomb” , the first recorded usage of this kit was on June 20th 2024 and the first announced usage of the weapon was on July 14th 2024.
Service date marks the first delivery to operational service, missiles sitting in a box are a factory are irrelevant, as such its the only date that matters, and my mistake on the AIM-9M-1’s service date, it actually entered service in 1982.
And yet the cockpit, HUD, TGP, and a myriad of other equipment present are indicative of an original block 50 F-16C, but once again, as stated prior, gaijin does adds HMDs to whatever it wants, this is why both the F-16C, F-15C and F-15E are all abominations of a myriad of different aircraft blocks.
I didn’t know that the USAF even had original AN/AAQ-14 pods still in their inventory in 2010, after all, they were removed from service in 2008, man, its amazing how they fished out obsolete targeting pods for the F-15E 2 years after they were replaced by SNIPER pods which were already replacing the AN/AAQ-14 as early as 2001, its even more funny with the F-15I Ra’am since it got replaced in 1995.
Heck its even more funny when you find out that it seems like none of the LANTIRN’s upgrades ever occurred in war thunder as well, namely the third generation FLIR of the LANTIRN 2000 or the myriad of upgrades that occurred with the LANTIRN-ER.
But nope, we get the original 1987 LANTIRN, predating the airframe that its attached to in game by a year, its not even capable of handing off GPS targets, yet, here it is feeding data to JDAMs and GBU-39s somehow.
2 Likes
They have publicly maintained that they use ordnance as a balancing mechanic.
They also publicly admit that they estimate armor when they don’t have actual data for the armor.
When it comes to planes, they go off of whatever data that gives balance. The pedigree of the information isn’t really relevant except in these forums.
E.G. Russian tech likely works better than IRL as they are famous for public data that is better than the performance.
NATO data is hamstrung by the classified performance being unavailable. This is particularly relevant to the ability of AA ordnance maintaining lock through use of countermeasures.
The bottom line is that at Top Tier, what you are playing is a facsimile loosely based on reality. (Not to mention the limitations of the simulation they run. An accurate simulation would bog down the game and limit it to the realm of supercomputers,.)
Evidence one way or the other either doesn’t exist (classified) or must be taken with a large grain of salt (when it comes to Russian or Chinese stuff).
All of this is largely irrelevant if the game is balanced. All arguments should focus on BALANCE. Because if it is balanced Gaijin probably isn’t going to change it. If it is not balanced they will change it with a modicum of support. The on caveat is if GAIJIN sees it as balanced. They have statistics for in game performance that we don’t. “X plane should be better than because I read this article online about it, watched a video, some other unscientific online media,” is not an argument that they will or should listen to.
3 Likes
We love xenophobia.
The average IQ of Punjab probably exceeds your own… I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if you sat below 106.
By all means, sure. Got an email I can send it to?
Real quick question though… What’s 5970/5450?
From what I remember, that’s >1…
I’m not overestimating the first versions of IRIS-T, I’m stating my opinion based on the quite open fire tests of it from 1999-2001. It has features that the 9X-II doesn’t even have, and that the 9X-III was too expensive to incorporate.
How am I underestimating the 9X? It’s a cut and dry equivalent to the R-74M2, with both featuring IIR seekers, capable thrust vectoring, and extended range of 20km+.
Oh boy… Not bases! It’s almost as if the GBU-39, LS-6, and AASMs do the exact same thing!
It’s effectiveness in realistic battles is utterly useless, as by the time they reach a base the match is more than likely done and over with, or simply taken by somebody that decided to use effective bombs instead.
If it makes you feel any better, the UMPK kit is better in every imaginable way and takes 1 pylon instead of 4 to destroy a base.
Alright…? So tell me again how the UMPK is relevant to its effectiveness in ARB/ASB in any sort of way?
Yeah, except for when missiles are delivered to operational units before its service entry date (I’m looking at you, AIM-120…)
CM-50s still have the exact same cockpit layouts, CJ-50++s were the very first to integrate Viper standard displays and avionics.
The WAC HUD would be the exact same no matter what model it is… The ONLY different HUD to choose from was solely used on 40/42s (they’re better than 50/52s anyway), so I have no clue why you choose to mention it.
Original CM-50s had the ability to carry AAQ-33 from the get-go. The issue presented is that it simply isn’t in-game.
The F-16C in-game perfectly aligns with a 50+. The early F-15s effectively need to be ahistorical to be relevant in a PvP game, while the F-15E is simply an amalgamation of dozens of different systems.
So you concede to my argument that dates of introduction / use mean absolutely nothing, right?
Su-35 for sure.
1 Like
Yeah this thread is off the rails.
1 Like
This thread in a nutshell:
5 Likes
It’s always the US fanboys that do this, no one can have anything remotely capable to them. That includes allied and hostile nations.
4 Likes
Yeah, it isn’t at all the point. I have no clue why you decided to turn to that topic, but get back to the original topic.
They aren’t? The Su-30SM/MK have been more than capable of taking down both air targets and conducting strike missions.
Pray tell, what do they do worse?
And look at what’s happened to them… They’ve been relegated to nothing but air defense of missiles and bombs, with literally ZERO air to air engagements.
It even has a loss doing that!
I know exactly what it means, and that’s precisely what can be seen on the battlefield.
Regardless of the Su-30’s existence or the VERY blatant lack of western aircraft in the war, it’s obscenely off topic.
If by outside of airspace you mean in captured territories and the eastern seaboard, sure… That USED to be opposing territory and due to some unknown reason it no longer is…
We love playing make-believe and acting as if we’re battling an unsurmountable force… And still losing.
A MiG-15 can’t fire R-37Ms, launch cruise munition from 400km+, or breach 2 longest kill records in the span of 2 years.
A MiG-15 lacks a radar to begin with, let alone SAR mapping and precision munitions.
Your point here is irrelevant.
In what was is it inferior? I’ve asked you twice now and you still don’t seem to have an answer.
How so? Air superiority is a mix of both aircraft screening and air defense destruction. Both of which are being done, with literally no aircraft operating in opposition within 50km of the frontlines since early 2023. Between that and constant destruction of air defenses from Strelas to S-300s, I can see a pretty clear case of superiority.
Pretty much exactly what I’ve been harping on, gaijin’s implementation of current equipment is intrinsically variable due to how they chose to balance, this is why a number of vehicles are abominations of various upgrade packages and standard models.
Ah yes, saying that India is not an authority on rocketry is xenopobic. Sure my guy, please try to dispute the fact that India barley even shows up in the orbital aerospace industry.
Last I checked, India has launched 92 orbital craft so far, meanwhile SpaceX alone has launched 96 craft in 2023 alone, and among nearly all industry leading rocketry industries being located in the United States.
No, India is not even close to being remotely relevant to the world of rocketry.
That and nice Ad Hominem.
You are on the WT forums, you would post such here, but given your comment itself, I would wager your dont have such proof.
The only boons the IRIS-T has over the base model of 9X is the datalink handoff for actual formal LOAL, although the base 9X can already do limited LOAL as is, and a bit of range due to the base 9X using the same motor as the 9M. None of the above missiles will also ever reach out to 40km in actual practice.
Man you need to go back and look up the payload weight of these bombs vs the required amount of explosive tonnage to kill a base because that is the most wrong comment in this entire comment chain by a massive margin.
I’ll do the GBU-39 calc for you since you just to start out, you can do the rest yourself. The TNT equivalent of a GBU-39 is 26.45 kg, a F-15E can carry 20 of them, the total payload explosive mass is 529kg of TNT. You need 2300kg of TNT to kill a base at top tier, which just so happens to be right on the edge of the UMPK’s explosive mass of 2219.2kg, meaning the UMPK has enough TNT equivalent alone to trigger the base self destruction.
You need 5 F-15Es carrying 100 GBU-39s to kill a base.
Thats not even remotely comparable.
You can map mark a base and launch a free base kill at the start of the match, such is also extremely easy to pull off in SIM via tossing the bomb.
But then again you somehow thought the GBU-39 was somehow capable of anything remotely close to the same feats so I doubt you would understand how to do this.
And? I already gave you those dates, its 1991 and 1994 for the A and B respectively, they were on being given to units in active service in said years.
Nope wrong again, the late make 50s, 52s, post the batch ordered in 1996, all mount the improved MFDs and cockpit instrumentation that were made standard on the Block 60 under the F-16 CCIP program among a myriad of other changes made to the aircraft. (Pre- 1997 block 50s all retained the MLU’s color MFDs and cockpit instrumentation.)
This was also the kit that introduced JHMCS functionality to the aircraft along with the functionality for the F-16C to employ GPS weapons, two things that we currently have in game for the phase 2 upgrades.
Issue is that the 16C we have has a number of the phase 1 and phase 2 CCIP upgrades present, but, the first major upgrade made to the aircraft was the upgrade to the cockpit systems and instrumentation which is completely missing. The current F-16C cockpit is a direct copy of the MLU’s cockpit which is quite incorrect for a completed CCIP Block 50/52, such would only be the case for a Block 40/42.
Sniper compatibility was added with the CCIP as well, it could not be carried by block 50s prior to the CCIP.
In the case of the HUD, its not the display design that is the issue, it is instead the HUD’s projection itself, it is lacking information that the CCIP program added to it’s data system, namely the symbology provided by tape 4.3 onwards, after all, as long as our F-16C has GBU-39s it is a tape 6.1 or higher as that was the version that added that functionality, or even 6.5 due to the fact that we have the BRU-69/A for JDAMs.
The F-14B we currently have suffers from a nearly identical issue where it is missing it’s cockpit upgrade it that was installed when it got the ability to mount GPS bombs, yet, that is still missing.
Currently our F-16C Block 50 is a stock Block 50 with trappings of a phase 1 and phase 2 CCIP upgraded F-16C, but missing a number of them.
Quick edit since I know that someone will bring it up as well, no the DCS F-16C is not free of the same scorn as well, it too is a frankenviper with upgrades from across the CCIP program, before the program and after it. It too is an abomination.
Just like how the F-16C or Gripen needs a Litening II instead of a Litening III to be relevant? Sure seems like the Eurofighters dont need a Litening II to be relevant since they got Litening IIIs.
Or how for the longest time the F-16C’s TGP, which was identical to the Gripen’s TGP, had a worse thermal quality for no reason.
Nope, the F-15Es we got could have gotten their historic Litening IIIs or SNIPER ATPs without issue.
So you concede to my argument that the equipment of an aircraft means absolutely nothing, right?
Also lol, that you never made that argument to begin with, you claimed that the F-15E is quote
You then stated
To which I proved that it was indeed first make F-15E with random, ahistoric junk attached to it, which it should not.
1 Like
Before last major Su-27 was made based on prototype documentation, not even a finished aircraft. That’s why it was way worse than IRL.
2 Likes
I like poking trolls.
I know a lot of people would argue this is a net negative.
Still, I find it fun.
I’m kind of sorry not sorry about the whole thing.
4 Likes
It ain’t a Russian aircraft cockpit without a third party GPS bolted to something.
2 Likes
it’s classic for “Russian” artists, devs, hackers, etc. to do such trash to Russian planes/tanks/anything while triggering “wehst supermacy” fans with some insignificant things like cobra or rare 73 supermaneuvers. but at least when they believe IRL is the same, they get painfully hurt :]]
1 Like
*Kort Parad
:3
1 Like
0.86 oswald
Thread locked due to going severely off-topic
2 Likes