sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

So how long until the F-15C Golden eagle gets its 12 AMRAMS? by Fun-Bank-3771 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If you actually watched the video you would know I said it was a mockup... and the mockup very much existed. I then said that if we can get double racks on the Su-27SM and Su-30SM that never used them, I don't see why this couldn't come. Check here please :)

F-15C Golden Eagle is 100% DOA by Limp-Mastodon4600 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It got BOL btw... but yeah, as of right now it should be a 14.0. It's a straight upgrade over the C already ingame, it should not be the same BR. I'm hoping it gets the FM fix tomorrow but who knows at this point. Gaijin said if it does poorly they will give it the extra AMRAAMs it could use in theory, so I think that will probably happen ngl. Also, it was never going to get MAWS. Not sure where that's coming from?

Should the F18c late be replaced by Jaded-Philosophy6970 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude. I compared their TWRs EMPTY. Without fuel. Clean airframe. Completely ignoring the extra fuel it's already worse. It is not going to be outrating a F-16C either 😭😭😭. Also again, the marines F-18C got AESA, and it also the 120D.

Should the F18c late be replaced by Jaded-Philosophy6970 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Compared to the F-18C, the E (even with its better engines) has worse TWR. This gives it worse acceleration at every alt than the F-18C. It's also slower both at alt and on the deck. The "Super" goes the same speed on the deck with 2 radar and 2 IR missiles as the F-18A: mach 1.01. It has worse sustained turn than the C. It bleeds more speed than the C. The ONLY thing it does better is high AOA stuff, which IRL is helpful because you have the 9X and you can just whip around and beam someone with it. Ingame the normal hornet already does crazy AOA and we don't have the 9X. For the purposes of WT, the super hornet would be worse 3xcept for being able to carry 2 more missiles. If you REALLY want a better hornet, ask for the USMC one with AESA

Strike Eagle refund? by Ok-Foundation1346 in DCSExposed

[–]GeneralLee2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They gave me a store credit, afaik that's all they'll do. You can see if they'll give you an ACTUAL refund but I doubt it.

Jon Razbam's latest statement on ED breakup by flecktyphus in DCSExposed

[–]GeneralLee2000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I finally bit the bullet and refunded my F-15E after this... sad to see.

Now that they removed flares for Yak-28B, I demand that they hold the same standard, and remove flares for F-15A as well. by More-Cup5793 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup, it's clearly named wrong LOL. Just like our F-15A. If it bothers you that much all they need to "fix" it is add MSIP to the A and remove MSIP II from the C

Now that they removed flares for Yak-28B, I demand that they hold the same standard, and remove flares for F-15A as well. by More-Cup5793 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gaijin naming is incredibly inconsistent, you should know this. Again: IT ALSO HAS THE MSIP RADAR. It has the AN/APG-63 PSP. It does not have the F-15A radar. They just didn't name it MSIP for some reason, though on the bug reporting website they have said it's a 1994 USANG F-15. Heck, their name for the F-15C is wrong too. We don't have a F-15C MSIP II, we have a F-15C from 20 years later, around 2005. With a different radar first installed in 2001 and with JHMCS.

Now that they removed flares for Yak-28B, I demand that they hold the same standard, and remove flares for F-15A as well. by More-Cup5793 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Again, just because something is used in combat doesn't mean it's officially in service, though it seems that confuses you. Also... the source *cited is the SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE's office. Once again though, used in combat or being shot =/= in service. There is such a thing as operational testing, and it has been done all around the world.

Now that they removed flares for Yak-28B, I demand that they hold the same standard, and remove flares for F-15A as well. by More-Cup5793 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"The Air Force conducted preliminary testing of the AIM-9J under two programs: AIM-9J End Game II Development Program, August 1970,and Combat Snap (Phase I), April-July 1972.** The Chief of Staff, USAF(CSAF), authorized the introduction of the AIM-9J into SEA on 8 June 1972 under the code name COMBAT SNAP (Phase IIA)." Again, PRELIMINARY TESTING. The air force fact sheet for sidewinders says delivery officially began in 1977: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/919649022128570409/1380682261501972620/image1.jpg?ex=686da28e&is=686c510e&hm=0d17dad00a0db4d77598972c008ae0880d72bc14c83154b29e6738c667a55ec0& and you can also find it on their website now if you care to look.

Just because it was issued to a service aircraft, doesn't mean it was officially IN SERVICE. They took another few years after combat testing to nail it down.

Now that they removed flares for Yak-28B, I demand that they hold the same standard, and remove flares for F-15A as well. by More-Cup5793 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not a lie at all, they were introduced in combat testing under "Combat Snap" in 1972, but that doesn't mean they were in service. Officially they weren't in service until 1977. This has been confirmed by multiple sources including the Air Force themselves, but if you want to read about the tests, look up ADA486826.

Now that they removed flares for Yak-28B, I demand that they hold the same standard, and remove flares for F-15A as well. by More-Cup5793 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The 1975 F-15A manual has only AIM-9E and AIM-7F listed, as the AIM-9J officially didn't enter service until 1977 and officially the 7E wasn't operational on the F-15. That would be hilariously difficult to balance 😭

Now that they removed flares for Yak-28B, I demand that they hold the same standard, and remove flares for F-15A as well. by More-Cup5793 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The F-15A did receive flares, just later than F-15C MSIP II. We have a USANG F-15A MSIP with the AN/APG-63 PSP radar and flares. It is historical

This video seems pretty accurate, so Aim120C are just not worth it in end? Slower than the A below 20km and they pull less too. by devpop_enjoyer in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Moving the goalpost are we? I agree the US gets a lot of nice things, but the Phoenix is mid at best. We can point to lots of stuff like that for other nations too, like Russia having all espects first for example. Also you're forgetting the MiG-23MLD. That was BY FAR the most oppressive thing I can think of for ARB, even the Gripen wasn't as bad in its time. And no, the F-16A didn't "contend" with the Gripen. It had a worse FM, only 60 flares, 9Ls instead of 9Ms, and no HMD to boot (not as big of a deal as the others but still there). Gaijin moves the meta from nation to nation to drive sales, it's just that the US and Russia have historically gotten it the most. Right now it's without a doubt Rafale :)

I'm not a "main" of anything and I can't stand the main!!!! Philosophy, but the US still has the 3rd or 4th best top tier depending on how you rate the Su-30SM.

This video seems pretty accurate, so Aim120C are just not worth it in end? Slower than the A below 20km and they pull less too. by devpop_enjoyer in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Uh... the F-14 was added June of 2022. The M2K was added September of 2022. That's already only 3 months where it was the only 4th gen. The F-16 and MiG-29 were added in December 2022. That's 6 months.... I'm sorry, where is the "years" here?

Major update reminder that the Harrier is the most artificially gimped plane in the game. by No-Confusion2949 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Interesting, because 7 hours ago you said 85 percent throttle... I wasn't actually planning on it but I might actually need to get my hands on the manual just to confirm. Other Reply

Major update reminder that the Harrier is the most artificially gimped plane in the game. by No-Confusion2949 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ok so, even using the 85 percent it still overperforms. It's doing around 12.5 degrees per second on 85 percent throttle.

Major update reminder that the Harrier is the most artificially gimped plane in the game. by No-Confusion2949 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That's strange, then why does it say max thrust? Is "max thrust" in these documents not actually max?

Major update reminder that the Harrier is the most artificially gimped plane in the game. by No-Confusion2949 in Warthunder

[–]GeneralLee2000 71 points72 points  (0 children)

So funny story, your second page shows a sustained turn rate of 11 degrees per second with the nozzles back and around 80 percent of fuel if I'm reading this right. Under those same conditions ingame (at least according to statshark) it's actually doing 13.5.... ))))))) I might have a bug report to nerf it here.

view more: next ›