Was it an airshow kind of thing where weapons were displayed with the aircraft?
These are accepted criteria, but they rely heavily on developer discretion.
For a report such as this, proof of integration matters no? Sources can state that weapons are intended or planned for an aircraft without mentioning a specific variant, would that fly necessarily in a report?
Find proof the KH-38MT ever existed beyond mock ups and then come back to us for that.
The SPICE-250 family is described as “Munition für den Eurofighter” (munitions for the Eurofighter), with details on production in Germany. Again isn’t covering the EK at all in brochure nor SEAD/DEAD roles. It was photo’d in front of a Eurofighter display in 2017 before EK existed.
This is enough for consideration. As I mentioned as its not a service weapon, it leans heavily in the dev’s discretion like any other non standard weapon fit.
4 Likes
Are these SPICE bombs not shown under Eurofighters displayed for Tranche 5?
Again, SPICE 250 was advertised with EF long before Tranche 5…
Right, I understand that, my overall point being could it have been displayed also with Tranche 4 which we don’t necessarily have in-game either? The overall point being for the aircraft variant in-game.
Let alone the fact that Tranche doesnt necessarily mean much. RAF is only now retiring T1s but theyve been kept on par with the T2/T3s just fine
Tranches are build standards, it does not preclude previous Tranches from getting the same software through the Phase Enhancements programs. The only thing that doesn’t fit this trend is Tranche 1 which different in build to Tranche 2 and later.
2 Likes
You want to talk about aircraft variants receiving equipment they shouldn’t have? How about the Rafales HMD and extra Micas?
9 Likes
What Variant is that?
Typhoon wasnt outfitted with Brismtone 2s until 2018. If the first mention of Spice was 2018 then the plan to intergrate has been around for as long as the Typhoons we kinda have in game already.
After T1, Tranche kinda doesnt matter all that much from what I understand
So aircraft integration isn’t a standard for receiving weaponry? I seem to recall some weaponry reports previously being rejected by developers because the aircraft that had been displayed with the weapon was not proven to being integrated despite the variant being the one in-game so I would like to know what the criterias developers use is.
1 Like
As Gunjob has already stated, it’s up to developer’s discretion. Rafale received HMD and 2 extra MICAs also based on this discretion.
[DEV] Typhoon missing ability to Fuel dump + Afterburn simultaneously
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HSAWGuHNIiat
5 Likes
If it was up to developer’s discretion then the developers would simply state that they don’t wish to add it without giving other responses such as “aircraft was never integrated with it”. Since they had used that sentence, it seems to be one of their standards.
That would be the discretion part, you can look through a number of aircraft+weapon pairs in game that do not reflect an integrated system but the developers decided per their discretion that they should have them. The advice we have always given for weapons systems, non service weapons are suggestions that fall under the developers discretion.
6 Likes
I see that the report was converted to suggestion, one last question.
Non-service weapons, do they still have some criterias even though the standards may be lower?
Such as physically mounting them under the aircraft with a pylon, or being test-fired?
It is indeed lower, your odds may increase with a large volume of examples and better ones (such as firings etc).
2 Likes