So you’re saying that it should be that the F-5C and any other F-5 in the American tree should be excluded from using flares, even though the F-5A, F-5B, and F–5C all had provisions to use them?
Ignoring the fact that ALE-40 was used widely in American service, should it also be excluded from the F-4E for the same reason?
Someone explained that to me but can’t recall who… Dutch F-5s were upgraded, Norwegian ones were not. So Norwegian F-5A with ALE-40s is closest to F-5C with flares in game
Also, French Mirage 3Es never had flares either but Swiss 3Es did.
they remove CMs without moving BR. But this would kill the aircraft and no one would buy it, Gaijin won’t do that
remove the CMs but drop it’s BR down. Nope again, they can’t do that. It would destroy everything at a lower BR, even if they removed the AAMs as well.
That’s funny, Harrier should (well, not really sure but logic… Which might be flawed. Anyhow.) have colder exhaust because it should mix exhaust from both cold nozzle and hot nozzle, right?
But IRL you could angle the nozzles to turn a rear aspect shot into a side aspect shot when defending against a missile but it doesn’t work in game either I think.
Just a dry engine or dry power should probably have a smaller heat signature than the giant plumes of flame
The F-5C is already at a BR where it can be seen at 9.7 I do not understand the fear you people have when it’s already present ingame, except it also has flares.
Once again, the Mitsubishi T-2 is at 9.7 (+Faster, +Better missiles, -Sustained maneuverability) and is just fine. You think a flareless F-5C, giving anything that gets on its tail the ability to actually take it down, would break the game somehow?