Doesnt mean Britain will get them. We have seen many times before that Britain only gets what it actually used. For example, Typhoon FGR4 deoesnt get GBU-48 or even its own native equivalent ePaveway II. None of the Phantoms get Napalm, etc etc.
its reasonable to assume they wouldnt be added to Britain
This has never been an issue. (for example, SRAAMs and PGMs)
Litereally a video of a AH-64E firing a Brimstone
It quite literally does. If it’s a historical loadout on the vehicle itself, that’s all that matters.
Also GBU-48’s worse than the laser GBU it has, and those specific laser GBUs’ primary purpose would be base bombing, which the British ones do slightly better at 293ish TNTe.
Also one test unit doesn’t equal cleared for use on service vehicles.
That and SPIKE-ERs are IR guided and guaranteed on AH-64Es.
Laser+GPS is much better than pure laser.
Then Napalm for the F-4K(UK)?
Then I guess PGM-500/2000s and SRAAMs need to be removed from the game.
Please, i beg you. Stop asking for gaijin to use ahistorical mechanics to shoehorn newer weapons into the game.
This is why brimestones are the way they are.
Add weapons with their irl mechanics when the game is ready for it.
If they fixed the hellfire flight path it would be much better
gaijin can just pull a Eurofighter Typhoon / JAS39 and give the British AH-64E spikes
If history says anything, its that we are the least likely to get that treatment. The only exception being the Gripen, where we got the worst A2A fit of them all.
Gripen literally has 4x AMRAAMs as all other 13.7 Gripens.
No?
SAAF Gripen has 4x R-Darter, not AMRAAM
Fact of the matter is, MMW missiles could be added literally tomorrow and function identically to current IIR munitions if they weren’t too stupid to just make smoke multi-spectral(which has existed for decades at this point) for top tier vehicles.
But they won’t do this for “‘some reason’”… Curious… Almost like this would only help every tech tree that isn’t a “‘certain nation’” .
Exactly. R-Darter is an Advance Medium Range Air-Air Missile BTW.
No. AMRAAM is a registered trademark of Raytheon
@warthogboy09 Raytheon can do whatever it wants, I’m still using it as an abbreviation for all AMRAAMs, not just their’s.
That or I can type AMRAAARHM instead. ;)
You can continue to be a moron all you want, no one is stopping you. But that doesn’t make you correct.
How did you find that out lol?
ROKN operates Wildcats with Spikes
But it is not Aim-120 and is in fact inferior to Aim-120 by quite a margin. Meaning the SAAF Gripen C has by far the weakest A2A fit of all the Gripen Cs.
Also. There is a reason why “MRAAM” or “BVRAAM” is usually used within conversation instead of the Technically correct AMRAAM term because it causes confusion. If I turn around and say “the Su-30SM carries 12x AMRAAMs” I am technically correct. But it will only cause mass confusion as AMRAAM has a rather specific conotation, especially on these forums. Likewise I would not say something like “the Su-57 can carry ASRAAMs” because that too would cause confusion even though the statement is technically correct.
Thats a maybe option then, providing korea doesnt go somewhere else. Again, not the first time Britain has been denied a loadout option found on the same aircraft operated by another nation just because its not in the British arsenal.
Hunter FGA9, F-4J(UK), F-111C, etc all are missing weapons that were used by the same airframes in other nations operation
F-111C had quite a few differences to USAF’s F-111F’s. it goes both ways too, could ask for AGM-142 on F-111F in future since F-111C had them if that was valid reason.
we could get Fakours on USN F-14A and AAM-3 on F-15C by this
Us Aussies are getting Apaches too :D