or… Dual-mode will inexplictly be better than IIR
Well we have “IIR” ingame already and they’re all already nerfed down to dual irccm unfortunately, including aim-9X, Python 5, iris-t, and etc.
But don’t be surprised if r-74m2 which has datalink ends up being more resistant to flares because of said datalink preventing it from seeing flares over western IIR missiles that lack datalink.
1 Like
Imagine if they added F-22 with HMD, 9M and 120D (as the plane they are talking about to add in next update) without it’s stealth and say stealth would be given to it when other 5th gen are added.
Again, by the same logic, there is no reason to research anything but the best plane / tank / ship in a single tree. It also means if we were to follow this logic, we cant add anything else to Germany, Italy or the UK at 14.3-14.7 because “they already have the Eurofighter”.
People want to have choice. The RAAF Superhornet was also a frequent request as soon as we added the other commonwealth Hornets. There was no reason to withhold a new variant of the aircraft from the game, when it had a perfect home.
If its not something that interests you, thats ok. But others do want this aircraft. Regardless of the Eurofighter.
8 Likes
Datalink for IR missiles works exactly the same way as for ARH - it only updates IOG of the missile, is ignored when seeker picks up anything in IOG indicated area.
“IIR” missiles also currently fly on very wide FoV (5 degrees, R60 kind) before they get a lock and switch to 0.25, which makes them extremely vulnerable to preflaring. At the same time, baseline lock range value is 9km for current IIRs, while IOG lets you do “BVR” with them.
For now yeah that’s how it works. For now
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/blfh9aGDg3GQ
“Accepted” only means bug report went through initial screening, doesn’t guarantee it will be actually acted upon.
Though it should be doable-ish by forcing seeker into IOG proper when angle gating (ARH) or tracking suspension (IR) engages, instead this random moment where angle gating sometimes switches to IOG proper, sometimes keeps track of chaff BUT missile continues to follow last known trajectory.
That wouldn’t be acceptable if they implemented it that way, it’s either trk+ dl or not. Datalink while tracking would allow the next-gen ir missile to both simultaneously ignore chaff and flares since dl does not see flares and ir seeker doesn’t see chaff, only way to defeat it theoretically would be notching the dl while also flaring.
And yet Gaijin went out of their way to develop and introduce combined tracking suspension and gatewidth for dual band and then IIR missiles, instead just dialing down “flare sensitivity” to zero. As if they are trying to maintain semblance of playability instead
These are all good arguments, but playing devil’s advocate, I can understand why some players might feel a degree of frustration with the SH’s capabilities compared to other aircraft at similar battle ratings, particularly given its lack of comparable ordnance options.
Granted the SH was never going to be an amazing Air-to-Air platform, but it would be a decent Air-to-Ground platform if it benefited from things like the SDB-II or the SLAM/SLAM-ER which would place it on par with the EFTs, Gripens and Su-30s in terms of ground capability which is where the Super Hornets should shine.
It’s just a shame to be stuck with AGM-65s when Brimstones, AASMs and KH-38s are falling out of the sky.
They used the same argument as they did with the Tornado but just C&P with a new skin because they’re unoriginal
: P
“Britain is claiming the world again, they should be happy with just the Tornado they don’t need early Hornets” and recycled with “Britain is claiming the world again, they should be happy with just the Typhoon they don’t need super Hornets.”
1 Like
If the US tree is never going to get an F/A-18F because it already has the -18E and they are functionally identical, is there any chance that Technical Moderators are going to accept that both the F/A-18E & -F should be similar in terms of stores because this is going to cause issues since documentation says one thing, but unspecified Bug Report Manager(s) erroneously believe another.
This is going to cause issues with the AGM-187A and asorted other stores (e.g. AGM-88J, etc.) going forward.
F/A - 18 e didn’t get his equipment gbu-53 b guided bombs
“F/A-18F != F/A-18E”
When as can be seen below, both 18E & -F variants are mentioned interchangeably as the “F/A-18E/F”
5 Likes
Funny enough the Navy just reached IOC on Gbu-53 with the f18s. News | U.S. Navy approves Raytheon’s StormBreaker® smart weapon for use on Super Hornet fleet | RTX
When will the aim120a and b be un nerfed… I remember when the seek and destroy update dropped, they pulled with no guidance delay off the rail and had more fin AOA. The c5s should also stop being such a pathetic sidegrade to the aim120a, they’re very useless close range because of their inferior pull.
1 Like
Sweden currently operates the AIM-120C-8, but is there a possibility that it will be implemented along with the addition of the AIM-120D?
This was not included in the report you linked, nor was the other sources below, and thus should be.
So? Are Bug report Managers not required to support their determinations with evidence? Or at least try to look into things considering comments made in the thread that point this out.
Well its not like I could considering that the report (and many others) get closed in short order after a determination so necessitate the creation of a new report, or trying to contact a Tech-Mod to have it reopened.
Which considering that it’s not my own report would be a lot of effort for a suggestion that the Dev’s are already aware of, or that would never get implemented anyway.
Because MMW obscurants don’t exist.
And said Lab was working on a 94Ghz (similar frequency to the Brimstone, Hellfire is at 35Ghz)Seeker at the time.
1 Like
Bug Report managers are actively processing hundreds of different reports every day. On a wide range of subjects. It is not practical or possible for them to have to research every single unsupported claim when the user has provided no contextual evidence, when that is very clearly a part of the rules and well established now.
Its very easy to complain retrospectively when you provide several sources to turn this into an attack on the bug report moderators, when in reality, only a single image of an F/A-18F and a couple of news articles were included into the report.
The guidelines exist to be clear to all what needs to be included. Unfortunately if someone largely ignores that, the report must be closed so the next one can be given attention. They cannot all be left open indefinitely forever more until someone corrects it, if at all.
I’m sure they do their best.
I wouldn’t say none, but it is in this case limited; sure but even a cursory read of the linked articles reveals repeated refences to the “F/A-18E/F”
But it’s a different bar to know something is wrong, and having sufficient evidence to back up a claim.
Also it’s not like there is that much of a style guide, or templates to use for reports that survived the move to the new forums, or Portal to ease issues with conformity.
As an aside is there anywhere issues with the portal, or Forums themselves should be reported since they don’t actually have a category for them on the reporting portal.
Because I have a semi-functional understanding of where to look for suitable documentation to actually meet said requirements doesn’t mean everyone does. The reporting portal is open to everyone after all I’m sure they will do their best (for the most part).
One of the referenced articles linked directly to a Press release that states “F/A-18E/F”, but sans a style guide on how to imbed excerpts into the portal (append “>” at the beginning of every line) drawing attention to any particular excerpt.
F/A-18 Super Hornets Now Carrying Stormbreaker Glide Bombs On Combat Missions
“In April of last year, the Navy announced that it planned to field StormBreaker (which it also refers to as Small Diameter Bomb Increment II) on the F/A-18E/F after declaring Early Operational Capability (EOC) in October 2023. At that point, two additional operational test events were required before achieving Initial Operational Capability (IOC).”
Is there any particular way reports are triaged, it’s obviously not using First In, First Out as a methodology? Because many seem to never get actioned to even though having someone dedicated to clearing out / rectifying the absolute oldest report(s) in the queue, even if they got though one or two every update would be a nice to have since it means we could track how far off they are from being fixed.
Also some sort of Monotonically increasing report ID that was publicly facing would be nice to have an an idea for how many report actually exit in the system.
I myself can point to my own report on a particular Air Conquest map having a Strategic bombing target under the ground thus being unable to be damaged that is somehow still open after two years, or more pressing, instantly detonating ordnance.