they got nothing but money to burn into the air. what waste of time and talent.
2 Likes
where?
just admit you hate the US and are biased against it lol
2 Likes
just like any us player being bais toward any other country ?
a nice reminder of our fellow friend in the forum.
what a deflection
1 Like
Pure talent i must say, what a show of incompetence.
how can i hate it if i support it.
but you cant see that side or knowing the difference of truth and hate.
but yes i am bais toward it some time, like how yak130 is being talked about being baised when we had the a4 for so many years and yet no one mentioned it.
It seems that to be the case since you provided upgrades with existing base models like AIM-260 a clear evolution of the AIM-120, M2A4E1 upgrade complex which also is nothing exclusive, the CIRCM system on the AH-64E probably based of from the LAIRCM, and the M1A2 SepV3 which can fall under the M2A4E1 upgrade package situation bringing huge improvements to the vehicle which I specifically said new technology and quoted the Constellation-class frigate and the M10 Booker as examples of these.
If you care reading my original post again:
Skepticism being the word here. I’m didn’t born with english as my first language so using a dictionary—according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries—Skepticism means:
an attitude of doubting that claims or statements are true or that something will happen
My point isn’t affirming that the American arms industry is incapable of coming with something new, just like people that has skepticism or are certain that the Chinese or Russian industry is just fallacy, is fair to have the same reaction to whoever claims a new groundbreaking technology.
Which is a good thing to be honest. You might be aware of the chore that it can be some times to find sources of, lets say, T-14 Armata loading systems for example, how their tests on the vehicle are occurring, what has been changed, what succeed, what failed and so on.
Regarding the topic, which, in my opinion has been derailed. AGM-53 as I’ve mentioned previously will be the closest that can be added to USA to be a direct counterpart of the Kh-29 and Kh-38 in War Thunder. Although I’m concerned of how reliable this weapon may be at long distances, though it has data-link which is a interesting feature for a '70s technology.
I think it’s a needed weapon if a direct counterpart for the Kh-29 and Kh-38 is really needed if we ignore the most recent addition to the tech tree ground attack capabilities, I’m not aware of which platforms could be implemented to given that’s a United States Navy project, it’s very certain that would be heavily restricted to a few airplanes.
2 Likes
dont act like you dont constantly slander the US, you cherry pick bad examples and i have never seen 200km AIM-260 from any reputable source before
AIM-260 is a completely different missile.
also, you forget about the B-21 program which is huge and going extremely well
Which, on all fairness, I’m a complete troglodyte regarding airplanes new technology, which is why I tend to mostly quote ground vehicles like the M10 Booker—not because it was cancelled so I’m here kicking the dead horse. But yes, it’s flying [B21], so it’s a huge thing to be fair, I just hope that’s not another case of going too far away with the budget so it doesn’t get cancelled as others projects.
AGM-65G: 1991. No 1970s.
Hammer & Kh-38 missile platforms are unique, but in War Thunder their IR versions currently copy the AGM-65D/G seeker head.
How Hammer & Kh-38, IR versions, should function is by the pilot programming the target & launching the missile, then the missile using LOAL to spot & lock the target within 1.5km of the area.
While Hammer & Kh-38 both use modern technology IRL, neither do in-game, and both are still using 1980s technology in-game until Gaijin adds LOAL functionality to the game.
LOAL is defined as active-seeking, BTW. Not passive re-lock of targets within a non-moving cone.
And as @Morvran pointed out:
And to consider this further, weapon introduction date will never, ever, dictate the novelty of the technology within.
Just because a thing is made in 2020 doesn’t mean it uses anything newer than 1980s in technological advancements.
If I make a bakelite spoon, it’s still a 1910s technology even if it’s made in 2026.
every source that mention the aim260 also mention that the goal of the missile itself is to keep the shape of the aim120 and replace the booster with a better and longer dual pulse booster over the aim120-D3 with the range of 160km.
nothing official, but you most likelly misunderstood the number we are talking are estimates.
dont try to gaslight me lol
They have a russian favoritism checklist they have to keep up with