Discussion on Top‑Tier Nuclear‑Capable Aircraft

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
1

Dear Game Developers,

Greetings! I am very pleased to hear that you have made significant updates to the nuclear-capable aircraft for various nations. This makes the nuclear bomb mechanic—which enhances the gameplay and drama of Ground Realistic Battles—even more playable, and it offers a better gaming experience for all players. However, I have some personal opinions and observations regarding the nuclear-capable aircraft models for certain nations, and I would like to share them on the forum for discussion.

First, the issue with the Chinese (PRC) nuclear-capable aircraft. As you mentioned last autumn, Chinese tech‑tree players have a deep emotional attachment to domestically produced Chinese vehicles. For most Chinese players, standing out in the game and delivering the winning blow with a homegrown fighter is a dream come true. However, to my disappointment, in this update the Chinese tree received the Taiwanese F‑16A MLU—a model that in reality has absolutely no capability to deliver a tactical nuclear bomb. I hope the development team will change the Chinese nuclear carrier to the JH‑7A2 or the J‑10A, and equip it with PL‑12 and PL‑5EII or PL‑8B missiles.

Second, the issue with the Japanese nuclear-capable aircraft. For well‑known reasons, Japan was restricted in military armament after World War II, and nuclear capabilities were strictly prohibited. Yet in this update, the Japanese tree received the F‑2A, which in reality could never possess tactical nuclear delivery capability—a decision that puzzles me greatly. I trust that the War Thunder development team has a certain understanding of vehicles and their historical context, and should therefore be aware of this fact. On a minor level, this disregards reality and goes against the realism and hardcore authenticity that the team once championed. On a more serious level, it encourages right‑wing militaristic sentiments, shows disrespect for the history of World War II, provokes the vast number of victims of aggression in East and Southeast Asia as well as the victorious Allied powers represented by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and deceives the broader player base. I believe this was not the developers’ original intention. Therefore, I hope the development team will replace Japan’s nuclear carrier with the U.S.‑spec F‑16A ADF and equip it with AIM‑120 and AIM‑9L or AIM‑9M missiles.

Third, the issue with nuclear-capable aircraft for Britain, France, and other nations. Due to my limited knowledge, I am not well‑informed about the nuclear capabilities of Britain, France, and others. I sincerely request that players and the development team supplement and correct this, replacing their nuclear carriers with models more consistent with their respective national equipment systems.

Fourth, the issue with Israel’s nuclear-capable aircraft. The development of nuclear capabilities by Israel and certain other countries does not conform to the provisions of the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (signed by many countries, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council). Therefore, I hope the development team will change Israel’s nuclear carrier to the U.S. and NATO‑standard F‑16A ADF, and equip it with AIM‑120 and AIM‑9L or AIM‑9M missiles.

Finally, I would like to emphasise to the development team that although War Thunder is just a video game, that does not mean it is acceptable for the developers to arbitrarily make changes that ignore facts and history. As an ordinary player who loves War Thunder, I hope the team will take player opinions seriously, listen to player voices, and optimise and maintain the game and community environment through concrete actions. Confronting players or silencing them are not viable approaches. I trust you still remember 26 May 2023—when game changes once again harmed the interests of all players, you faced a severe backlash, and the game’s reputation and revenues were heavily impacted. I hope you will pay greater attention to development matters, and produce more vivid and enjoyable game content with a more rigorous attitude.

——A Chinese player who loves War Thunder

3 Likes
2

This genuinely made me laugh

7 Likes
3

Reminds me of that one dude who kept saying that the removal of the tiger 105 and panther 2 was oppressing German people.

6 Likes
4

They specifically choose to send nuclear-capable vehicles to Japan when the Japanese Defense Minister makes absurd remarks about possessing nuclear weapons. It’s clear that this ridiculous company is not short of remnants of spiritual fascism.😅

5

Who cares?

2 Likes
6

This is simple.

Unless you are advocating for Japan to not be able to drop a nuke in GRB. Period. They need something, anything, to carry nukes. Sure, an F-16 might have made more sense, but I think it was Gaijins attempt to just not have everyone in the same aircraft, and you are over-thinking this entirely.

Britain and Germany used the Tornado (italy probably too, but not sure about italy that much), until Britain opted for submarine based nuclear weapons. Germany retains the ability to carry nukes on their Tornados though. Britain is acquiring F-35As though to regain this ability (which some rightly consider a giant mistake and waste of money). In that absense though, the likely option would be US jets operating from RAF bases to carry out the strike. Same could probably be said for Italy or Germany in this decision, its not British, German or Italian. Its a US aircraft simply operating from one of their bases on behalf of said country. So its kinda annoying, but its okay.

Sweden is in the same boat, except they never had a nuke carrier. So, same principle.

France should ideally have the Mirage IV by now, which can be used for this role. but both the Mirage 2000N (a model not in-game) or the Rafale does carry nuke cruise missiles. As those arent in-game either, Id just propose fitting the Mirage 2000D-RMV with a nuke and them using that instead. Its a good middle ground.

Again, why are you bringing IRL into this, unless you are saying that anyone using Israel is banned from being able to get a nuke… What do you want the devs to do about it?

The only option I can think is that for those nations they dont get a nuke, but get an equal, match ending option, but to bring this level of IRL into what is purely and simply a game mechanic is just wierd.

10 Likes
7

cant imagine a world where SOME PLACES with nuclear XDDDDD

8

The F-16 is capable of carrying nuclear weapons and, in terms of game balance and performance, can hold its own against most nuclear-capable aircraft. The J-10 serves as a nostalgic alternative option, but the JH-7 definitely isn’t—it lacks the performance to compete with the F-16 or MiG-29SMT.

9

What about F-2A

10

IRL it is genuinely a Mirage 2000D (we an take the model from the D-R1) with better avionics.Since it was developed in the end of the 80’s don’t have characteristics of the RMV (2016 +).
In 1996 it was fitted with a MAW from Matra.
Those were retired in 2018 so maybe we can see a last version with very modern avionics such as the ones from the 2000D-RMV.

11

Yeah, but there are some that would be perdantic about me just saying the Mirage 2kD could have them

1 Like
12

From my personal perspective, Gaijin seems to prefer porting original assets to reduce workload. However, the Mirage IV and Mirage 2000N, as new aircraft, do not follow this pattern. The Rafale is too powerful, with performance far exceeding that of other units such as the F-16, so I agree with your views: using the Mirage 2000D-RMV as an alternative French nuclear delivery aircraft.

1 Like
13

get-a-load-of-this-guy-get-3331194998

Just play the damn game.

6 Likes
14

Just a large size F-16 I guess，but AAM-3 and AAM-4 did indeed create an advantage.The performance of the Israeli F-16D is significantly inferior. However, it can be regarded as a different size of F-16 compared to the F-16A and F-2A. Currently, the only one with a notable performance difference would be the MiG-29SMT.

As for the risk of spreading militaristic ideas, I don’t think it’s necessary to exaggerate the situation. It’s just a game. The reason might indeed be that Gaijin wants to showcase “diversity”.

15

They can’t be pedantic about it because the F-2A and F-16ADF aren’t nuclear capable allegedly.

1 Like
16

I think someone having 2500SP is a big enough advantage already

1 Like
17

balancing reasons so all nations have an equal platform

yo its a video game

well they ignore the true flag of Taiwan and Somaliland, so whats the big deal about what f-16 can drop a nuke?

3 Likes
18

son

4 Likes
19

dude thats a fucking video game hello ???

3 Likes
20

Why do we feel the need to determine that certain nations should not receive certain aircraft with certain loadouts? For some reason, you seem to not mind Japan nuking your team as long as it’s with an American aircraft.

I trust that the War Thunder development team has a certain understanding of vehicles and their historical context, and should therefore be aware of this fact. On a minor level, this disregards reality and goes against the realism and hardcore authenticity that the team once championed. On a more serious level, it encourages right‑wing militaristic sentiments, shows disrespect for the history of World War II, provokes the vast number of victims of aggression in East and Southeast Asia as well as the victorious Allied powers represented by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and deceives the broader player base. I believe this was not the developers’ original intention

You are certainly entitled to express your opinions, but I trust you understand that your personal feelings are no more valuable than the rest of the playerbase, especially if you’re in the minority

1 Like