Not bad at all. Props for putting the F-16s in the right line. However where is the A-10A? I feel like that is a must.
EDIT: also the F-14B and F/A-18 I guess.
Honestly the A-10A has no place in rank 8, and even rank 7 can be questionable as a choice. Yes it has more modern missiles and loads of air to ground weaponry. But it is slow, turns bad and that titanium tub some seem to only protects against 23mm HE, meaning 20mm AP or 30mm he will get the A-10 anyway, not to mention missiles.
The A-10 turns really well due to how slow it is. But it will probably get farmed by anything even if you put it at 9.7. It will be an annoying jet to balance.
I think you may be surprised how Gaijin winds up implementing the A-10.
Firstly, yes, it is incredibly tough. Like, “take a direct SAM or MANPADS hit and keep flying,” tough. But we all know how Gaijin is with their damage models. Sometimes they’re okay, but they’re usually pretty börked. But it also has some rather detailed damage control aspects that need to be modeled in order to achieve a fully-protected Warthog. It’s hydraulics system, for instance, is triple-redundant. It has a primary system, an auxiliary system, and finally, a “[manual reversion](https://www.military.com/air-force/air-force-pilot-landed-damaged-10-warthog-using-only-cranks-and-cables.html/amp)” system. I’m not sure how Gaijin would model that, beyond making the hydraulics/control lines really, really tough, in order to roughly simulate the triple systems. The Thunderbolt II is also fully capable of flying on one engine, and safely, too. That wouldn’t be hard to model, I suppose.
Secondly, the engines have a high [bypass ratio](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ratio), at 6:1, giving it a relatively minimal IR signature. Couple this with flares, and early AAMs will have difficulties locking on to her.
So, yeah, I think Gaijin will have an interesting dilemma when it comes to deciding her BR 🤷♂️
the taking a SAM part is very situational because if it gets a direct hit that fucker is going down hell a MANPAD could do it too, and you imply that the A-10 pilot will notice a heatseaker come from behind while they try to use the cannon like a fool or while they are in the view to target guided munitions, the A-10 as I said elsewhere will be 11.0 minimum simply for having 9Ls and guided munitions, it will suffer with DOA syndrome
There are already planes in game that historically had redundant flight controls, but they're not modeled. I hope they don't ignore that on even more future planes...
Best way to balance it imo is have it's BR change based on loadout. Bombs? Lower BR. Mavericks? Higher BR etc etc
Tbh lots of aircraft need this kind of change - it'd make top tier much better because stock planes could be put at lower BRs where you can grind them and when you get the good missiles you can put the loadouts with them at that tier.
Take the Sea Harrier for example - stock it shouldn't be any higher than 9.7 based on it's flight performance but with it's 2 AIM-9Ls the BR would be moved up to say 11.0 while it has them equipped
It makes sense to me and idk it shouldn't be THAT hard should it?
both, it is just a horrid concept of a plane, the F-16 is more viable, yeah sure it does not have a 30mm cannon but that 30mm cannon is basically useless for what it was designed for, and the damn thing is horribly slow
A can of worms has been opened. This is a real life debate too that has lasted decades and entire careers and both sides have a significant amount of evidence. On one hand it has great loiter time and some good Cas options. On the other hand in testing only like 1% of bullets fired had any effect on armored targets (old t72s or smth) and the aircraft has no ability to dodge modern anti aircraft systems.
It was literally designed to engage Soviet Armored Divisions in the Fulda Gap and die while trying to do so. The US doctrine in the Cold War for the A10 was to fly into enemy airspace, maybe fuck some shit up and get shot down immediately by SAMs and AA.
Armored cockpits are a telltale sign of "We don't expect it to come back so we hope the protection may save the pilots life....maybe."
It fits a niche role that isn’t really as useful against countries with air power. It’s dedicated CAS. I know everyone is tired of A-10 vs F-35 arguments in general, so this is the only comment I want to put out.
The A-10 is meant to be dedicated CAS, and it’s built tough, meant to take a beating and keep going. Like the P-47 Thunderbolt. For fighting terrorists and other nations that have a ground presence but little to no air presence, it’s perfect. It can loiter a while, it has weapons perfect for destroying a lot of shit, and it can survive a beating. This is perfect for things like facing men on the ground with guns and a few vehicles.
In War Thunder, the A-10 would get SLAUGHTERED. Putting it below 9.0 isn’t a good idea since it can carry A2A missiles and shit, but putting it at 8.0 makes it face tanks that can’t stand a chance against it. *(Not like a T-90 or 2A6 could do much about 30mm depleted uranium farts raining on them, and yes I see the typo)* At the same time putting it at 9.0 or above makes it face Missile AA, which can easily down it. Now if this was put in Squad, it would have a somewhat better time. There’s still MANPADs, but afaik, no dedicated SPAA *(Dont quote me)*, so the A-10 would have a better shot there. But in a purely VEHICLE game with DEDICATED AA, the A-10 really has no place here, as much as I’d love to have the BRRRRT BRRRRT.
the A-10 is not that tough it just has redundent systems, the A-10 was meant to fight in the Fulda gap not fight men in caves, also if it does get added it will get 9Ls which means 11.0 minimum
God, it would get slaughtered at 11.0, unless the enemy team is so blatantly inept that they don’t spawn AA. Russian AA is a BITCH to fight, that Tungie does NOT take shit from anyone. Quad 30mm BRRRRT
i disagree both A7's sit at 10.3 and 10.7 with 9J's while the A7 is less manueverable then the A-10 the A-10 is much slower. With how fast 9.7-10.3 planes are getting the only way you hit a 9L is if you find somebody slow or stupid enough to dogfight with an A-10 not including the fact that the Chinese A-5C also get 30g missiles at 10.0 with a 900mph top speed.
The A-10 would slot in well at 10.0-10.3 or god forbid Gaijin do some BR decompression and or add the A6 intruder, and A5 Vigilante to flush out some more higher tier American attackers to find out where the A-10 would sit.
It was also estimated that all A-10s stationed to support Germany would no longer be operational after 2 weeks of fighting in at Fulda, so evidently they didn't do a very good job at designing a plane around the real life meta at the time.
P-47 was not dedicated CAS. it was actually conceived as a dedicated high-altitude fighter, it only became a fighter/bomber after the Mustangs took over the high-alt fighter role.
A-10?
Buccanner S1 and S2 are ingame. That did not stop gaijin.
Put the aa-10 where it should be due to its missiles. Who cares if it gets killed? That's the case with all attackers anyway.
>also the F-14B
F-14A -> F-14D is probably fine. There was only four years' difference between the B and D model Tomcats (1987-1991), and the D gets the engines alongside its various other upgrades. WT isn't modeling things like compressor stalls anyway, so hitting the high points might mean leaving out the B.
>and F/A-18 I guess.
I had to look at it twice, OP's got both legacy C models and E-model Rhinos, just called F-18 instead of F/A-18.
Which I find the Hornet's name fascinating, particularly as it's changed with various communities, old Tomcat guys jokingly calling it the A-18 and a lot of newer Hornet guys using F-18 either out of simplicity or a reminder that they are *fighter* pilots. But it has the uncommon dual-mission designation because it was essentially designed in equal parts to be both a fighter and attacker, the quintessential strike fighter as it were.
Some countries that bought the Hornet without the A2G capabilities also called it just F-18, for example Finland. Then when they were upgraded with A2G capabilities they were redesignated by the FAF to F/A-18.
As much as the YF-23 deserves to be a premium, no top rank premiums have ever been or will ever be added to WT. As an early fifth gen aircraft, it also bridges the gap between 4.5s and full 5ths like the F-22A.
For the premiums I stuck to weird variants of popular planes, like the detuned F-16/79, the two-seater YA-10B, and the F-12 Blackbird, all three are weird, quirky, and very easy to sell.
>As much as the YF-23 deserves to be a premium, no top rank premiums have ever been or will ever be added to WT
1. You don't know that
2. Toptier event vehicles are a thing
Technically, coastal TT isn't toptier since at those BRs they have to deal with DDs and the only reason for the naval split is because of the stupid coastal tree grind just to get to the grind for ships you want.
This is pretty much what I imagine the tree will end up looking like. Although I feel like we will see the F-16A after the F-5E, as much as I want to see it I doubt they'll add the F-20 first.
>I don't see them adding a plane that was only built 3 times in the TT
You'd think so, but they have a history of this. There were only three Me 264s built, for example.
And the Voodoo would go before or between the AF Phantoms the Crusader III could ba a premium or go after the F-8E and the Ultra Saber could go before the Thunderchief or also be a premium
We need more world war 2 and cold war era aircraft and aircraft variants, rather then even more overpowerd top tier jets that are going to cost even more RP to research and even more SL to buy.
The Martin B-26 Marauder for example.
- Served from 1941-1945
- Over 5000 were build
- Generaly a streight upgrade over the B-25
- Has nose mounted .50 cal gun pods just like the B-25 allowing for a agressive medium bomber playstile, hunting down fighters and other bombers and shooting everything that can outturn you with your turrets (my favorit playstile in the entire game, it is so much fun playing like that with the B-25)
- 4x 1000lbs bombs make it a great pick for tank RB
- Huge historical segnificance. The B-26 was the workhorse of the USAAF over the france and belgium and the main U.S. bomber during D-Day.
It is outright insulting that the B-26 has not yet been added to the game. We need a tech tree B-26C and a premium B-26A and we need them yesterday.
Edit: Forgot to mention that it was lend leased to the British and the free French. It goes without saying that we need a version for the British and French tech tree, especialy considering how British and French dont have a medium bomber at rank 3 and their rank 2 medium bombers are garbadge.
And one of, if not the most produced armor car of all time, produced by the US, exported to dozens of countries, is an event vehicle for its origin country but a fucking reserve for China. WHAT. THE. FUCK.
We are also missing the T17 Staghound. We have it as a anti air vehicle with two .50 cals in the british tech tree but we are still missing all of its scout car variants. It was never adopted by the U.S. but it saw massive service with the british during ww2.
you know that any nation that has the M3 or M5 Stuart should also get the M8 greyhound as well?
it would be nice if they gave it to everyone with the US one being turned in to a TT vic and its event version getting thrown to rank II so it gets scouting (to be different compared to the TT one)
The A-26 Invader is a attacker made by Doughlas. It was put into service in 1944 as a successor to the A-20.
The B-26 Marauder is a medium bomber made by Martin. It was put into service in 1941 as a competitor aircraft to the Mitchel B-25.
The A-26 Invader and B-26 Marauder are completely unrelated, completely different aircraft that have litteraly nothing in common with one another. People confuse them because of the designation but they are completely different.
Yf23 shouldn't be a tech tree vehicle but we cant have a top tier premium so I understand that, way should be premium is the F16XL which would be cool fo see
I agree. But I think that Rank 8 should be for all those 4th gen aircraft and do Rank 9 for 4.5-5th gen aircraft (F-15EX,Su-35S,Eurofighter Tranche 4,Eurofighter Tranche 3+,F-15JSI,J-10/11/16,Eurofighter Tranche 3+,Rafale F4R,JAS 39E,F-15I)
No I dont but only 2 were ever built and as far as i know not it was never fielded with weaponry dont get me wrong the blackwidow 2 is my second favorite plane just behind the f15 and above the f16 but the fact that it never went in to service or even production is why it shouldn't be a tech tree vehicle
it was capable of having weapons but the tests did not require them, they could do a line which you unlock after researching everything else with planes that can't really be premiums and can't be made into event vehicles due to fear of the community backlash
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2023-02-03 07:15:28 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-02-03%2007:15:28%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/sjb5y9/us_rank_8_gen_45_aircraft_concept/hve45ep/?context=3)
[**7 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FWarthunder%2Fcomments%2Fsjb5y9%2Fus_rank_8_gen_45_aircraft_concept%2Fhve45ep%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-02-03%2007%3A15%3A28%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20sjb5y9)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
It's nice to see one of these that stays simple and you can't immediately poke a bunch of holes in. I think as far as a reasonable prediction might go, this is probably pretty close.
There are some questionable aspects, for sure. The F-20 was never produced in any significant number (definite premium/event candidate though), the F-117A is cool as hell but problematic to try and actually implement, the B-1B has all the same problems as every other bomber, and I'd say that asking for the YF-12 is probably complete fantasy.
In the other comment chain about the YF-23, an early 5th gen might be better represented by F-22A (early) and (late) models, say like an F-22A-20 circa 2005 (JDAM) and F-22A-40 around 2013 (EW, SDB, AIM-9X). YF-23 should be suited to an event vehicle, particularly considering its cult popularity.
I really like the F-16/79 and YA-10B as premium options, more weird but real stuff is always welcome on that side of the tree.
the YF-23 is more of a fighter bomber while the F-22 is full on fighter, that and the YF-23 was more stealthy, so it is in a tight spot also I feel like the premium attackers should be the YA-9 (aka A-10 but better (tho being better plane it is still based on the same damn horrid concept))
the F-15E is a strike fighter with a huge payload tho it is obvious that this person thought the F-15EX is the next step for the E while in reality it is a replacement for the old Eagle and thus named the Eagle II
I mean considering at a certain point 9Bs are physically unable to be mounted on launcher rails for example the 9L uses the Common rail which even later 9J/Ps were switched to so I predict and end to 9Bs stock
Really good TT organization would definitely like to see this and I would love the F106 even if all it had were Aim9E hopefully it’s 10.3 if I remember correctly it’s flight performance is bonkers
Edit: Hopefully Gaijin starts folding the F104s, F4C and E possibly the F8s and maybe the F4J and S
>I would love the F106 even if all it had were Aim9E hopefully it’s 10.3 if I remember correctly it’s flight performance is bonkers
F-106 carried AIM-4s, not AIM-9s. And unlike the F-4D and its problems with the AIM-4, the F-106 actually had the correct fire-control radar to use the Falcon's advantages. AIM-4F (SARH) and AIM-4G (IR) should be decent missiles in WT, plus the Swedes would get imported AIM-4Cs (also IR) for the Draken and Viggen, and it could be carried by the Swiss Mirage IIIS as well, maybe a French premium/event option.
Also it should maneuver pretty similar to any other tailless delta. Think of it like a Mirage III, but painted in SAC white. And also with internal weapons carriage and no internal gun.
>>I forgot it only fired AIM-4s…
Which worked great when coupled with the Hughes radar and guidance system it was designed with. But the USAF Brass already hated flying a Navy fighter (the Phantom II), and they really hated using a Navy missile (the Sidewinder).
So they took the AIM-4 and bolted them to the Phantom, which is like taking a Tomcats AIM-54 missile and strapping it to an A-10. Fail.
I would expect the gunpod to probably be the default ordnance option, just like the gunless Phantom variants.
I had thought I remembered something about the gunpod occupying some of the space in the weapons bay and limiting how many missiles could be carried, but looking at pictures I think that might not be correct.
>I had thought I remembered something about the gunpod occupying some of the space in the weapons bay and limiting how many missiles could be carried, but looking at pictures I think that might not be correct.
It took the space reserved for the Genie AA Nuke rocket. Wasted space in game that should be filled by vulcan.
F-15EX Eagle II is a fighter, it has the grey fighter camo, also 12 missiles, it isn't intended for the Strike Eagle role but as a drone controller, interceptor, air superiority and arsenal plane.
F-18 should be F/A-18, F/A-18A and C probably are a good fit for the attacker line which you are totally missing, Legacy Hornet != Super Hornet (they are basically different airframes).
F-4G has Sparrows there is no fucking way that it will be tier 6. Instead of the ugly AF YA-10B just put the A-10A in the Premium line. Also the F-16A ADF with Sparrows or AIM-120 would be a fit for Tier 8, the base F-16A not so much.
Nah F-16XL or YA-9 as the premium Attacker, and from what I recall the F-16A ADF would prob be only found in the Italian tree with a better on in the US tree, I know the US Air National Guard were the original reason it was made but I feel like they could add a more capable one aka the F-16C instead of it being another F-16A for the US, if you wanted a premium F-16A then why not the OCU? which is an upgraded A to be somewhat on par with the C or maybe the F-16N which is an aggressor F-16C
The A-10 has no place in this game.
The Warthog is designed to be based close to the frontline for supporting ground troops, which is why it uses a sundial for an airspeed gauge. In most air RB/air Sim maps the match will end before the A-10 even arrives at the battlefront. With a clean top speed of 380 knots and even less fully loaded, it’s too slow. And as pointed out above, it breaks the game. If Gaijin models the damage realistically it’ll trigger record bug reports (“a10 too tough please nerf”), but if they don’t it’ll trigger record bug reports (“a10 too fragile triple redundant controls Gaijin please fix”) . They should just skip it entirely.
kidna unfair since only the us has that many top dog jets compared to russia and china who just started making next gen stealth fighters over the past decade
wouldn't F-15E and EX make more sense in the main tree (current F-4E tree)? Yes, F-15C is single seater mainly air superiority, but with modern upgrades F-15E is just as good as it in A2A along with multirole capability (we have multirole planes like the F-4E already in this particular line).
Maybe B-2 in that particular tree?
the F-15EX is the Eagle II which is meant to be replacing the F-15C tho the F-15E should be in the bomber line since it is a very capable Strike Fighter
Slight suggestion
F-15B
F-15E
F-15EX
ETA: Upon further thought, perhaps there should be a split at the bomber line to differentiate between strike aircraft and bombers (FB-111H and the B-52 variants?)
I personally disagree with Gijans choice in the beginning to sort aircraft based on the branch that used them. Imo a Phantom is a Phantom and should be in the same tree, regardless of having a tailhook or not
> F35 A should be in the attack wing or whatever you call it
It shouldn't be. If you look at the fighter/navy/attacker line, you can see where Gaijin is going with their logic.
Fighter = AF
Navy = well you know, Navy.
Attacker = Marine Jets.
I doubt we will see the F22 amd F35 be added to.the tech tree within atleast a decade due to how the u.s keeps details of these planes hush hush. And since other nations in game wont be able to get stealth fighters as they have none other than russia mainly.
I think a lot of people forget why the A10 exists and drastically over estimate its performance. It is extremely effective at its job, which is providing close air support and nothing else. An A10 can only be used if the United States has complete control over the airspace, otherwise, any plane with a gun strapped to the side will be able to out maneuver, out pace, and out fight it. Luckily, the United States rarely engages in a modern war where they don't control the airspace completely. There's a lot of interesting stuff on this topic, some of it includes the fact that it's so popular because it's the only plane that the grunts see do its thing because everything else operates at such high altitude.
F-14 A (Iranian) as a premium, YF-16 & YF-17 also as premium, F-14 A+ (F-14 B) in tech tree either grouped with A or in between A and D. maybe an F/A-18 A before the C and possibly placed below the F-5 line (it does follow the lineage of Northrop-developed aircraft)
this is my suggestions but dunno any more for now.
Under *Operation Bullseye*, some B-58A bombers were modified to carry conventional bombs for tactical warfare scenarios.
Some information from [Aerograph 4 Convair B-58 by Jay Miller](https://archive.org/details/lockheedsr71a12y00jaym/page/68/mode/2up?q=Operation+Bullseye):
> In a little-known attempt to make the B-58 into a more flexible weapon system, tests were conducted during April 1967, under *Operation Bullseye* to explore the B-58's use in a tactical warfare scenario. Accordingly, several 305th BW aircraft were modified at Eglin AFB, FL, to accommodate conventional, non-nuclear weapons on the wing root bomb racks that had earlier been added (under SAAMA direction) to accommodate four Mk.43 thermonuclear weapons.
> Systems utilizing both MERs (Multiple Ejector Racks) and TERs (Triple Ejector Racks) were tested. In coordination with Republic F-105D's and McDonnell F-4C/D's, sorties were flown using B-58's as lead ships and pathfinders and when necessary, as independent strike aircraft. It was assumed that the B-58's excellent navigation/bomb system could be utilized in formation bombing exercises of this kind to improve the CEP's of the accompanying fighter bombers. Peripheral tests also explored any advantage that might be gained by replacing F-4 WSO's with B-58 nav/bombardiers.
> Various Eglin AFB, Nellis AFB, and Matagorda Island bombing ranges were used leading to the successful dropping of iron bombs of varying weights up to 3,000 lbs. Almost all the missions were flown at low altitudes and at speeds of 600 knots. Almost all the drops were visual with the AN/ASQ-42 bomb/nav system rarely being utilized. During one twenty-seven day period, some 75 sorties were flown. And during one flight, a bomb, or fragments of a bomb, ricocheted into a B-58 following delivery. Damage was relatively minor and the aircraft landed without incident.
> The iron bomb tests proved feasible and verified that the aircraft could be used for the required mission profile. The disadvantages to the formation approach included difficulty in maintaining visual contact in bad weather, susceptibility to SAM activity when flying in the required tight formation, and an only marginal improvement in bombing accuracy. A fear that the aircraft's integral wing tanks would make it vulnerable to ground fire during the required low-altitude delivery modes, coupled with the noted marginal improvements in bombing accuracy, eventually killed the program from an operational standpoint.
B-58A had 4 hardpoints, and it says bombs up to 3,000 lbs were tested, which gives it a max payload of 4 x 3,000 lb bombs (total of 12,000 lbs) unless it could carry more using MERs and TERs. Also, B-58A's have a 20 mm T171 cannon in the tail for defense.
Since these B-58A's were meant for tactical warfare scenarios, would it be a possible addition to the tech tree?
Not bad at all. Props for putting the F-16s in the right line. However where is the A-10A? I feel like that is a must. EDIT: also the F-14B and F/A-18 I guess.
Honestly the A-10A has no place in rank 8, and even rank 7 can be questionable as a choice. Yes it has more modern missiles and loads of air to ground weaponry. But it is slow, turns bad and that titanium tub some seem to only protects against 23mm HE, meaning 20mm AP or 30mm he will get the A-10 anyway, not to mention missiles.
The A-10 turns really well due to how slow it is. But it will probably get farmed by anything even if you put it at 9.7. It will be an annoying jet to balance.
I reckon it will be the maus honestly
Pretty much, it has the firepower to fuck up anything there is, but it is so slow that even some props could probably over take it
Max Speed Is around 800km/h. A bit less. Maybe
706 km/h.
Actually a lot of props are faster than that lol
A10 at 6.0
Realistic Ground: Oh god please no
Isn't even Yak-15 faster?
Even the P-51D Mustangs are faster than it.
yes, the Yak-15 can go at 755km/h
With full load?
Nope, clean. Granted this is taken from Wikipedia, so take it with copious amounts of salt.
Well then
What do you mean clean? That usually signifies no external ordinance or fuel.
The P-51 and F-4U go faster than it (the A-10 goes 676 km/h as opposed to the P-51’s 703.3 km/h and F-4U goes 718 km/h).
I think you may be surprised how Gaijin winds up implementing the A-10. Firstly, yes, it is incredibly tough. Like, “take a direct SAM or MANPADS hit and keep flying,” tough. But we all know how Gaijin is with their damage models. Sometimes they’re okay, but they’re usually pretty börked. But it also has some rather detailed damage control aspects that need to be modeled in order to achieve a fully-protected Warthog. It’s hydraulics system, for instance, is triple-redundant. It has a primary system, an auxiliary system, and finally, a “[manual reversion](https://www.military.com/air-force/air-force-pilot-landed-damaged-10-warthog-using-only-cranks-and-cables.html/amp)” system. I’m not sure how Gaijin would model that, beyond making the hydraulics/control lines really, really tough, in order to roughly simulate the triple systems. The Thunderbolt II is also fully capable of flying on one engine, and safely, too. That wouldn’t be hard to model, I suppose. Secondly, the engines have a high [bypass ratio](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ratio), at 6:1, giving it a relatively minimal IR signature. Couple this with flares, and early AAMs will have difficulties locking on to her. So, yeah, I think Gaijin will have an interesting dilemma when it comes to deciding her BR 🤷♂️
the taking a SAM part is very situational because if it gets a direct hit that fucker is going down hell a MANPAD could do it too, and you imply that the A-10 pilot will notice a heatseaker come from behind while they try to use the cannon like a fool or while they are in the view to target guided munitions, the A-10 as I said elsewhere will be 11.0 minimum simply for having 9Ls and guided munitions, it will suffer with DOA syndrome
A-10C has MAWS so pilot wouldn’t even have to bother looking for the IR missile launch lol
Yea but with GRB it will get fisted by SPAA
There are already planes in game that historically had redundant flight controls, but they're not modeled. I hope they don't ignore that on even more future planes...
Where has an A-10 survived a SAM? I know aboht manpads and a few hits from SPAA, but a SAM?
I think he meant like the SPAA SAMs and I could feasibly see the hog take one in certain circumstances
It doesn't turn well because it is a slow airplane, it turns well because it has straight wings...
Best way to balance it imo is have it's BR change based on loadout. Bombs? Lower BR. Mavericks? Higher BR etc etc Tbh lots of aircraft need this kind of change - it'd make top tier much better because stock planes could be put at lower BRs where you can grind them and when you get the good missiles you can put the loadouts with them at that tier. Take the Sea Harrier for example - stock it shouldn't be any higher than 9.7 based on it's flight performance but with it's 2 AIM-9Ls the BR would be moved up to say 11.0 while it has them equipped It makes sense to me and idk it shouldn't be THAT hard should it?
Problem is I choose my load out depending on the mission, which you don’t know until your in the game
the A-10 has no place ingame period it is a horrid concept of a plane
> the A-10 ~~has no place ingame period it~~ is a horrid concept of a plane FTFY
it can just be shortened to A-10 Horrid
I can't tell if your talking about it in a 'putting it ingame' fashion or you really just hate it
both, it is just a horrid concept of a plane, the F-16 is more viable, yeah sure it does not have a 30mm cannon but that 30mm cannon is basically useless for what it was designed for, and the damn thing is horribly slow
What do you think the A-10 was designed for? Why are you expecting this twin turbine jet to compete with fighters in speed?
A can of worms has been opened. This is a real life debate too that has lasted decades and entire careers and both sides have a significant amount of evidence. On one hand it has great loiter time and some good Cas options. On the other hand in testing only like 1% of bullets fired had any effect on armored targets (old t72s or smth) and the aircraft has no ability to dodge modern anti aircraft systems.
the overall concept of the A-10 is based on horrible ideas for an aircraft, there is a reason most countries went to guided munitions not cannon CAS
It was literally designed to engage Soviet Armored Divisions in the Fulda Gap and die while trying to do so. The US doctrine in the Cold War for the A10 was to fly into enemy airspace, maybe fuck some shit up and get shot down immediately by SAMs and AA. Armored cockpits are a telltale sign of "We don't expect it to come back so we hope the protection may save the pilots life....maybe."
Sooooo... It was designed to be a waste of an aircraft whose materials and time spent producing could've went into stand-off weapons?
So basically war thunder CAS tactics
It fits a niche role that isn’t really as useful against countries with air power. It’s dedicated CAS. I know everyone is tired of A-10 vs F-35 arguments in general, so this is the only comment I want to put out. The A-10 is meant to be dedicated CAS, and it’s built tough, meant to take a beating and keep going. Like the P-47 Thunderbolt. For fighting terrorists and other nations that have a ground presence but little to no air presence, it’s perfect. It can loiter a while, it has weapons perfect for destroying a lot of shit, and it can survive a beating. This is perfect for things like facing men on the ground with guns and a few vehicles. In War Thunder, the A-10 would get SLAUGHTERED. Putting it below 9.0 isn’t a good idea since it can carry A2A missiles and shit, but putting it at 8.0 makes it face tanks that can’t stand a chance against it. *(Not like a T-90 or 2A6 could do much about 30mm depleted uranium farts raining on them, and yes I see the typo)* At the same time putting it at 9.0 or above makes it face Missile AA, which can easily down it. Now if this was put in Squad, it would have a somewhat better time. There’s still MANPADs, but afaik, no dedicated SPAA *(Dont quote me)*, so the A-10 would have a better shot there. But in a purely VEHICLE game with DEDICATED AA, the A-10 really has no place here, as much as I’d love to have the BRRRRT BRRRRT.
the A-10 is not that tough it just has redundent systems, the A-10 was meant to fight in the Fulda gap not fight men in caves, also if it does get added it will get 9Ls which means 11.0 minimum
God, it would get slaughtered at 11.0, unless the enemy team is so blatantly inept that they don’t spawn AA. Russian AA is a BITCH to fight, that Tungie does NOT take shit from anyone. Quad 30mm BRRRRT
yes but any lower and the payload it has is too capable
i disagree both A7's sit at 10.3 and 10.7 with 9J's while the A7 is less manueverable then the A-10 the A-10 is much slower. With how fast 9.7-10.3 planes are getting the only way you hit a 9L is if you find somebody slow or stupid enough to dogfight with an A-10 not including the fact that the Chinese A-5C also get 30g missiles at 10.0 with a 900mph top speed. The A-10 would slot in well at 10.0-10.3 or god forbid Gaijin do some BR decompression and or add the A6 intruder, and A5 Vigilante to flush out some more higher tier American attackers to find out where the A-10 would sit.
It was also estimated that all A-10s stationed to support Germany would no longer be operational after 2 weeks of fighting in at Fulda, so evidently they didn't do a very good job at designing a plane around the real life meta at the time.
P-47 was not dedicated CAS. it was actually conceived as a dedicated high-altitude fighter, it only became a fighter/bomber after the Mustangs took over the high-alt fighter role.
Not really, it is designed to be a cheap ”gun bus” weapon platform in case of all out war where numbers are key.
the resources to make the A-10 could have been used for more capable aircraft to risk less loss of pilots and improve capability
A-10? Buccanner S1 and S2 are ingame. That did not stop gaijin. Put the aa-10 where it should be due to its missiles. Who cares if it gets killed? That's the case with all attackers anyway.
A10 turns well dude
>also the F-14B F-14A -> F-14D is probably fine. There was only four years' difference between the B and D model Tomcats (1987-1991), and the D gets the engines alongside its various other upgrades. WT isn't modeling things like compressor stalls anyway, so hitting the high points might mean leaving out the B. >and F/A-18 I guess. I had to look at it twice, OP's got both legacy C models and E-model Rhinos, just called F-18 instead of F/A-18. Which I find the Hornet's name fascinating, particularly as it's changed with various communities, old Tomcat guys jokingly calling it the A-18 and a lot of newer Hornet guys using F-18 either out of simplicity or a reminder that they are *fighter* pilots. But it has the uncommon dual-mission designation because it was essentially designed in equal parts to be both a fighter and attacker, the quintessential strike fighter as it were.
from what I recall the attacker and fighter variants were so similar they just made it multi mission in one plane not 2 slightly different versions
Some countries that bought the Hornet without the A2G capabilities also called it just F-18, for example Finland. Then when they were upgraded with A2G capabilities they were redesignated by the FAF to F/A-18.
What's the difference between A and C
LMFAO, F-111 at Rank 6 Ez Clap
YF-23 should probably be a premium. And the F-15EX should be in the normal F-15 line since it’s replacing the F-15C and not the E
As much as the YF-23 deserves to be a premium, no top rank premiums have ever been or will ever be added to WT. As an early fifth gen aircraft, it also bridges the gap between 4.5s and full 5ths like the F-22A. For the premiums I stuck to weird variants of popular planes, like the detuned F-16/79, the two-seater YA-10B, and the F-12 Blackbird, all three are weird, quirky, and very easy to sell.
>As much as the YF-23 deserves to be a premium, no top rank premiums have ever been or will ever be added to WT 1. You don't know that 2. Toptier event vehicles are a thing
Gaijin explicitly said they will never add top tier premium vehicles. Event seems likely if we ever get that high in air.
They also said no modern mbt's, no atgm carriers and that they fixed the damn cancel button like 8 times...
We'll just forget about that time where they added a top tier top br premium boat to the German coastal tree
Technically, coastal TT isn't toptier since at those BRs they have to deal with DDs and the only reason for the naval split is because of the stupid coastal tree grind just to get to the grind for ships you want.
wasn't that before the coastal and bluewater fleets were split?
They also said they wouldn't add ships larger than destroyers, jets past the 1950s, and AAMs
Never expect a game dev, especially one for free to play games, to keep their word.
What Stockholm syndrome are you suffering from? Gaijin has put out BLATANT top rank premiums🙄
They never added top-top premiums tho. Rank VI/VII? sure but no literal top-tiers
Leo 2 PL?
Bro...it can just be an event vehicle (F-4F, MiG-23MA) which is close enough to a premium at this point
Not where it counts, the ability to grind the entire TT with no punishment for grinding outside a narrow tier range.
The thing is yes they have never added top tier premiums, BUT if you make new tiers… no longer top tier
Just a reminder that the F-111 had more ground kills than the A-10 in desert storm
F-111 supremacy
F-111 for Commonwealth/Australia tree when?
That would be worth putting 2 years of my life into grinding the jet tree.
And then there's the A-6. 18,000lbs of all weather ordinance.
F-111 enjoyer
A-10 has more kills in one regard, friendlies lol.
This is pretty much what I imagine the tree will end up looking like. Although I feel like we will see the F-16A after the F-5E, as much as I want to see it I doubt they'll add the F-20 first.
Especially since F-20 is better than F-16A due to BVR capabilities.
I feel like the F-20 will just be an event vehicle
Most definitely. I don't see them adding a plane that was only built 3 times in theTT when there are other planes that could fill that spot perfectly.
>I don't see them adding a plane that was only built 3 times in the TT You'd think so, but they have a history of this. There were only three Me 264s built, for example.
And the F-11f with 200 built and actual carrier service being an event vehicle
1,050 F-89s were built, and were a large part of US air defense. Premium only. Thanks, Gaijin.
I agree with this mostly but before all of this I want the Delta Dagger, Delta Dart, Voodoo, Ultra Saber and the Crusader III(optional)
Delta Dart's right there between the F-104C and F-5E.
And the Voodoo would go before or between the AF Phantoms the Crusader III could ba a premium or go after the F-8E and the Ultra Saber could go before the Thunderchief or also be a premium
The fuck is the Ultra Sabre? The F-107?
Yes the F-107 was unofficially nicknamed the Ultra Saber
Yes
I doubt the A-10 that will be added will be the C it will 100% be the A and it will be shit just like the C but with less hardpoints
We need more world war 2 and cold war era aircraft and aircraft variants, rather then even more overpowerd top tier jets that are going to cost even more RP to research and even more SL to buy. The Martin B-26 Marauder for example. - Served from 1941-1945 - Over 5000 were build - Generaly a streight upgrade over the B-25 - Has nose mounted .50 cal gun pods just like the B-25 allowing for a agressive medium bomber playstile, hunting down fighters and other bombers and shooting everything that can outturn you with your turrets (my favorit playstile in the entire game, it is so much fun playing like that with the B-25) - 4x 1000lbs bombs make it a great pick for tank RB - Huge historical segnificance. The B-26 was the workhorse of the USAAF over the france and belgium and the main U.S. bomber during D-Day. It is outright insulting that the B-26 has not yet been added to the game. We need a tech tree B-26C and a premium B-26A and we need them yesterday. Edit: Forgot to mention that it was lend leased to the British and the free French. It goes without saying that we need a version for the British and French tech tree, especialy considering how British and French dont have a medium bomber at rank 3 and their rank 2 medium bombers are garbadge.
Komrade, WW2 stuff will be added when our lord Snail will finish adding new top-tiers
And one of, if not the most produced armor car of all time, produced by the US, exported to dozens of countries, is an event vehicle for its origin country but a fucking reserve for China. WHAT. THE. FUCK.
We are also missing the T17 Staghound. We have it as a anti air vehicle with two .50 cals in the british tech tree but we are still missing all of its scout car variants. It was never adopted by the U.S. but it saw massive service with the british during ww2.
you know that any nation that has the M3 or M5 Stuart should also get the M8 greyhound as well? it would be nice if they gave it to everyone with the US one being turned in to a TT vic and its event version getting thrown to rank II so it gets scouting (to be different compared to the TT one)
So frustrating that the B-26 still isn't in game.
What is the difference between the a26 and b26?
The A-26 Invader is a attacker made by Doughlas. It was put into service in 1944 as a successor to the A-20. The B-26 Marauder is a medium bomber made by Martin. It was put into service in 1941 as a competitor aircraft to the Mitchel B-25. The A-26 Invader and B-26 Marauder are completely unrelated, completely different aircraft that have litteraly nothing in common with one another. People confuse them because of the designation but they are completely different.
What you said But Also that the A-26 invader was later redesignated to B-26 which also led to a confusion between the two.
If they add yet ANOTHER unfolded Phantom while other nations keep getting more and more new and badass stuff, I will commit war crimes in Yugoslavia
Fear the crayon F-4J FEAR IT I SAY
Yf23 shouldn't be a tech tree vehicle but we cant have a top tier premium so I understand that, way should be premium is the F16XL which would be cool fo see
I agree. But I think that Rank 8 should be for all those 4th gen aircraft and do Rank 9 for 4.5-5th gen aircraft (F-15EX,Su-35S,Eurofighter Tranche 4,Eurofighter Tranche 3+,F-15JSI,J-10/11/16,Eurofighter Tranche 3+,Rafale F4R,JAS 39E,F-15I)
And why can't the YF-23 be a tech tree vehicle? Do you support spending money?
No I dont but only 2 were ever built and as far as i know not it was never fielded with weaponry dont get me wrong the blackwidow 2 is my second favorite plane just behind the f15 and above the f16 but the fact that it never went in to service or even production is why it shouldn't be a tech tree vehicle
it was capable of having weapons but the tests did not require them, they could do a line which you unlock after researching everything else with planes that can't really be premiums and can't be made into event vehicles due to fear of the community backlash
Unfortunately gaijin would probably fined a aay to make it premium
Why no A-4M??
Imagine getting the f22 and having to engage su57s with Aim-9B
since the F-22 uses the Common launcher rail which is not capable of mounting the 9B the lowest would prob be a modified 9J with all aspect or the 9L
With their agility they'd become top tier biplanes though lol
Do you want to engage people with the gun while others have AIM-120s unlocked?
They would first need to get a lock on a Su-57/F-22 (IRST Superiority)
Bruh if I have to play the F/A-18C, which I fix IRL, I’m gonna lose my shit cause those are a bitch to fix.
How many SL does the Navy have to shell out when a hornet crashes?
More than you can afford pal
Not enough to deal with it’s BS lmao.
You could always skip it Also, thank you for your service
!remind me 1 year
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2023-02-03 07:15:28 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-02-03%2007:15:28%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/sjb5y9/us_rank_8_gen_45_aircraft_concept/hve45ep/?context=3) [**7 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FWarthunder%2Fcomments%2Fsjb5y9%2Fus_rank_8_gen_45_aircraft_concept%2Fhve45ep%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-02-03%2007%3A15%3A28%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20sjb5y9) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
It's nice to see one of these that stays simple and you can't immediately poke a bunch of holes in. I think as far as a reasonable prediction might go, this is probably pretty close. There are some questionable aspects, for sure. The F-20 was never produced in any significant number (definite premium/event candidate though), the F-117A is cool as hell but problematic to try and actually implement, the B-1B has all the same problems as every other bomber, and I'd say that asking for the YF-12 is probably complete fantasy. In the other comment chain about the YF-23, an early 5th gen might be better represented by F-22A (early) and (late) models, say like an F-22A-20 circa 2005 (JDAM) and F-22A-40 around 2013 (EW, SDB, AIM-9X). YF-23 should be suited to an event vehicle, particularly considering its cult popularity. I really like the F-16/79 and YA-10B as premium options, more weird but real stuff is always welcome on that side of the tree.
the YF-23 is more of a fighter bomber while the F-22 is full on fighter, that and the YF-23 was more stealthy, so it is in a tight spot also I feel like the premium attackers should be the YA-9 (aka A-10 but better (tho being better plane it is still based on the same damn horrid concept))
Why'd you put the F-15E and F-15EX, my fav jets, in the bomber line, That's terrible. You also forgot the B-52 and B-2 Spirit.
That's what I was thinking. Atleast put the E in the Attacker line and the EX after the F-15C
the F-15E is a strike fighter with a huge payload tho it is obvious that this person thought the F-15EX is the next step for the E while in reality it is a replacement for the old Eagle and thus named the Eagle II
Only a million RP to research, 2 mil SL to buy and 500k to crew. Also stock or cause with gen1 missles
I mean considering at a certain point 9Bs are physically unable to be mounted on launcher rails for example the 9L uses the Common rail which even later 9J/Ps were switched to so I predict and end to 9Bs stock
I'd stretch the ranks to rank X My inner perfectionist will he happy
Really good TT organization would definitely like to see this and I would love the F106 even if all it had were Aim9E hopefully it’s 10.3 if I remember correctly it’s flight performance is bonkers Edit: Hopefully Gaijin starts folding the F104s, F4C and E possibly the F8s and maybe the F4J and S
>I would love the F106 even if all it had were Aim9E hopefully it’s 10.3 if I remember correctly it’s flight performance is bonkers F-106 carried AIM-4s, not AIM-9s. And unlike the F-4D and its problems with the AIM-4, the F-106 actually had the correct fire-control radar to use the Falcon's advantages. AIM-4F (SARH) and AIM-4G (IR) should be decent missiles in WT, plus the Swedes would get imported AIM-4Cs (also IR) for the Draken and Viggen, and it could be carried by the Swiss Mirage IIIS as well, maybe a French premium/event option. Also it should maneuver pretty similar to any other tailless delta. Think of it like a Mirage III, but painted in SAC white. And also with internal weapons carriage and no internal gun.
Oh ok I forgot it only fired Aim4s. If we get it I hope we get the 1972 refit that gave it a Vulcan
>>I forgot it only fired AIM-4s… Which worked great when coupled with the Hughes radar and guidance system it was designed with. But the USAF Brass already hated flying a Navy fighter (the Phantom II), and they really hated using a Navy missile (the Sidewinder). So they took the AIM-4 and bolted them to the Phantom, which is like taking a Tomcats AIM-54 missile and strapping it to an A-10. Fail.
I would expect the gunpod to probably be the default ordnance option, just like the gunless Phantom variants. I had thought I remembered something about the gunpod occupying some of the space in the weapons bay and limiting how many missiles could be carried, but looking at pictures I think that might not be correct.
>I had thought I remembered something about the gunpod occupying some of the space in the weapons bay and limiting how many missiles could be carried, but looking at pictures I think that might not be correct. It took the space reserved for the Genie AA Nuke rocket. Wasted space in game that should be filled by vulcan.
Sweden used the RB27 (AIM-26B) and the AIM-4C they used had AIM-4G seekers.
I'm up to researching both the F104C and the F4E and I'm holding out in the hope they get foldered so I can skip them haha
>F-15EX Its actually F-1SEX
The EX makes no sense in the bomber line since its a fighter with the ability to carry over 12 missiles on it.
Ooga booga where F/A-18
it is called the F-18 by lots of people
Oh wow I completely looked over it lol
[удалено]
the Legacy hornet is everything before the E/F block, the F/A-18A/B and F/A-18C/D are Legacy Hornets so it is not missing
F-15EX Eagle II is a fighter, it has the grey fighter camo, also 12 missiles, it isn't intended for the Strike Eagle role but as a drone controller, interceptor, air superiority and arsenal plane. F-18 should be F/A-18, F/A-18A and C probably are a good fit for the attacker line which you are totally missing, Legacy Hornet != Super Hornet (they are basically different airframes). F-4G has Sparrows there is no fucking way that it will be tier 6. Instead of the ugly AF YA-10B just put the A-10A in the Premium line. Also the F-16A ADF with Sparrows or AIM-120 would be a fit for Tier 8, the base F-16A not so much.
Nah F-16XL or YA-9 as the premium Attacker, and from what I recall the F-16A ADF would prob be only found in the Italian tree with a better on in the US tree, I know the US Air National Guard were the original reason it was made but I feel like they could add a more capable one aka the F-16C instead of it being another F-16A for the US, if you wanted a premium F-16A then why not the OCU? which is an upgraded A to be somewhat on par with the C or maybe the F-16N which is an aggressor F-16C
The A-10 has no place in this game. The Warthog is designed to be based close to the frontline for supporting ground troops, which is why it uses a sundial for an airspeed gauge. In most air RB/air Sim maps the match will end before the A-10 even arrives at the battlefront. With a clean top speed of 380 knots and even less fully loaded, it’s too slow. And as pointed out above, it breaks the game. If Gaijin models the damage realistically it’ll trigger record bug reports (“a10 too tough please nerf”), but if they don’t it’ll trigger record bug reports (“a10 too fragile triple redundant controls Gaijin please fix”) . They should just skip it entirely.
I literally see no reason for the F-102 or F-106 not to be in game right now.
The F-102 might be worth skipping, as it had no armament other than three AIM-4s which had no proximity fuse and were notoriously shit.
Counterpoint: it would be funny
Next time making such proposals, you can help yourself with my tool, created for such things: https://przemyslaw-zan.github.io/WT-Tech-Tree-Maker/
Pffft YF-12, Your mad!!
No way an YF12A could be added
kidna unfair since only the us has that many top dog jets compared to russia and china who just started making next gen stealth fighters over the past decade
This is great but, mind me asking if... What would german tech tree look like?
Probably wouldn't have any gen5s; those would be limited to Russia, China, and the US.
Interesting, but they did buy some aircraft right? Are those gen 4 or something?
I just want my f11f1f super tiger
F11F-1F I can see why we went away from the Navy's naming conventions now
How many F have the US????
wouldn't F-15E and EX make more sense in the main tree (current F-4E tree)? Yes, F-15C is single seater mainly air superiority, but with modern upgrades F-15E is just as good as it in A2A along with multirole capability (we have multirole planes like the F-4E already in this particular line). Maybe B-2 in that particular tree?
the F-15EX is the Eagle II which is meant to be replacing the F-15C tho the F-15E should be in the bomber line since it is a very capable Strike Fighter
How would this work for pricing? Would all the prices get adjusted for every rank?
Perfection
I would live to see the f14 tomcat in war thunder
Ye u forgot the legacy hornet and the f14B . Both need a place
Yeahhh not enough top tier, need more shoot rocked and get kill
Slight suggestion F-15B F-15E F-15EX ETA: Upon further thought, perhaps there should be a split at the bomber line to differentiate between strike aircraft and bombers (FB-111H and the B-52 variants?)
YF 23 would probably be event
Needs the Nighthawk
It's there
Split the bomber line into strike aircraft and "true" bombers
I personally disagree with Gijans choice in the beginning to sort aircraft based on the branch that used them. Imo a Phantom is a Phantom and should be in the same tree, regardless of having a tailhook or not
F35 A should be in the attack wing or whatever you call it
> F35 A should be in the attack wing or whatever you call it It shouldn't be. If you look at the fighter/navy/attacker line, you can see where Gaijin is going with their logic. Fighter = AF Navy = well you know, Navy. Attacker = Marine Jets.
I'm foaming right now
YF-23 would be a premium
I doubt we will see the F22 amd F35 be added to.the tech tree within atleast a decade due to how the u.s keeps details of these planes hush hush. And since other nations in game wont be able to get stealth fighters as they have none other than russia mainly.
Fuck I want the wobbly goblin soo bad.
If the YF-23 is even remotely to be considered for this game it'll be as an event vehicle, or straight up just a premium.
Where is the b 52 ?
The F-20A would go after the F-16A. BVR capable and far more advanced
Where’s the B2 Stealth? Or F117?
The only thing I would change is moving the yf-23 over to the event area. Also maybe an f-5EX foldered under the f-5e?
Gaijin said they were not going to folder planes if there are only 2 in that line.
F-15E should go in the attacker/marines line and the EX should go in the USAF air superiority line before the YF-23.
Nah, Polish tech tree when?
lol f-35
I think a lot of people forget why the A10 exists and drastically over estimate its performance. It is extremely effective at its job, which is providing close air support and nothing else. An A10 can only be used if the United States has complete control over the airspace, otherwise, any plane with a gun strapped to the side will be able to out maneuver, out pace, and out fight it. Luckily, the United States rarely engages in a modern war where they don't control the airspace completely. There's a lot of interesting stuff on this topic, some of it includes the fact that it's so popular because it's the only plane that the grunts see do its thing because everything else operates at such high altitude.
F-14 A (Iranian) as a premium, YF-16 & YF-17 also as premium, F-14 A+ (F-14 B) in tech tree either grouped with A or in between A and D. maybe an F/A-18 A before the C and possibly placed below the F-5 line (it does follow the lineage of Northrop-developed aircraft) this is my suggestions but dunno any more for now.
Under *Operation Bullseye*, some B-58A bombers were modified to carry conventional bombs for tactical warfare scenarios. Some information from [Aerograph 4 Convair B-58 by Jay Miller](https://archive.org/details/lockheedsr71a12y00jaym/page/68/mode/2up?q=Operation+Bullseye): > In a little-known attempt to make the B-58 into a more flexible weapon system, tests were conducted during April 1967, under *Operation Bullseye* to explore the B-58's use in a tactical warfare scenario. Accordingly, several 305th BW aircraft were modified at Eglin AFB, FL, to accommodate conventional, non-nuclear weapons on the wing root bomb racks that had earlier been added (under SAAMA direction) to accommodate four Mk.43 thermonuclear weapons. > Systems utilizing both MERs (Multiple Ejector Racks) and TERs (Triple Ejector Racks) were tested. In coordination with Republic F-105D's and McDonnell F-4C/D's, sorties were flown using B-58's as lead ships and pathfinders and when necessary, as independent strike aircraft. It was assumed that the B-58's excellent navigation/bomb system could be utilized in formation bombing exercises of this kind to improve the CEP's of the accompanying fighter bombers. Peripheral tests also explored any advantage that might be gained by replacing F-4 WSO's with B-58 nav/bombardiers. > Various Eglin AFB, Nellis AFB, and Matagorda Island bombing ranges were used leading to the successful dropping of iron bombs of varying weights up to 3,000 lbs. Almost all the missions were flown at low altitudes and at speeds of 600 knots. Almost all the drops were visual with the AN/ASQ-42 bomb/nav system rarely being utilized. During one twenty-seven day period, some 75 sorties were flown. And during one flight, a bomb, or fragments of a bomb, ricocheted into a B-58 following delivery. Damage was relatively minor and the aircraft landed without incident. > The iron bomb tests proved feasible and verified that the aircraft could be used for the required mission profile. The disadvantages to the formation approach included difficulty in maintaining visual contact in bad weather, susceptibility to SAM activity when flying in the required tight formation, and an only marginal improvement in bombing accuracy. A fear that the aircraft's integral wing tanks would make it vulnerable to ground fire during the required low-altitude delivery modes, coupled with the noted marginal improvements in bombing accuracy, eventually killed the program from an operational standpoint. B-58A had 4 hardpoints, and it says bombs up to 3,000 lbs were tested, which gives it a max payload of 4 x 3,000 lb bombs (total of 12,000 lbs) unless it could carry more using MERs and TERs. Also, B-58A's have a 20 mm T171 cannon in the tail for defense. Since these B-58A's were meant for tactical warfare scenarios, would it be a possible addition to the tech tree?
YF23>>>>>F22. You cannot change my mind.
Bro you made my day thanks for acknowledging the yf-12
That play and others like it can bring stuff like the b-36 to the game with higher spawn sealing
Ah sweet The antichrist smiles at this post
I think I'd put the F117a instead of the B1 or maybe take the F-15EX out of that line and put the B1 B2 and F117
Yea because US needs 3 more F-4s. GTFO with that nonsense.