Get the Iranian F-14A IRIAF in the ‘Persian Tomcat’ event

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
1808

Here a big difference.
You just try play words.

I want a Tomcat with current nomenclature of armament.
But US cannot take THIS F-14 (IRIAF), by your logic (they be friends with IIAF, not IRIAF).

So your argument about Canadian Leopards is invalid just as Australian Abrams.

Both Canada and Australia (to a noticeably greater extent) are much better suited as a minor subtree of Britain. (Canadian ADATS, Ram, etc., Australian Sentinel (A.C.4), and others).
(This if even don’t mention old relationship (Commonwealth))

1 Like
1809

Tell that to your mother!

1 Like
1810

Now germany only needs the full revolution kit.
To have all german developed 2a4 modifications.

1811

This addition is consistent with the guidelines we have set out and what I have reposted multiple times in this very thread. It doesn’t change any rule.

1812

Sounds like:
“I am out of arguments, so shut up, or be banned.”
Ain’t it?

1 Like
1813

Tell me how a Ukrainian Abrams or leopard in the Russian tech tree connects to an Iranian F-14 in the American tech tree

1 Like
1814

These countries are in approximately equal relations with each other.

1815

How does it connect in war thunder, ya know, the game this forum and discussion is about

1 Like
1816

You provided zero arguments so far tho.

3 Likes
1817

Better you answer me, how is this connected with logic?

1818

Us aircraft goes to Us tech tree, cope harder

Stop deflecting and answer me now

3 Likes
1819

I do - you just neglect them.

If US want Iranian F-14, because they sell it to IIAF - they can have only IIAF version, without all this juicy stuff.

If we want F90, Sedjil, R-27 etc., someone other must take this Tomcat. Because Islamic Republic of Iran isn’t in a good relationship with US (Diplomatical awkwardness? Nah, ain’t hear.).

So, as me, we can set it to any country, which is in good relationship with Iran.
This is:

Italy (because have Turkey as subtree, and Turkey is in good relationships with Iran).

USSR/RF, for same reason, but without intermediaries. Like Syrian TURMS-T (Soviets ain’t have Syria’s subtree, but still have this tank with Italian FCS).

China (one of biggest importer of Iranian oil).

So… I prefer Italy.

1 Like
1820

I am not here to argue. Just provide the facts as they are.

However when someone is repeatedly spamming in an off topic direction because they disagree with the facts, that’s not something that’s ok to carry on.

It’s entirely fine to disagree and voice your opinion. Going down the spam route isn’t going to change anything or help get your point across any louder.

4 Likes
1821

It’s not US planes, from the moment, when it been sold to Iran.

US can have IIAF Tomcat (which a copypaste), but not the IRIAF ones (Iranians been forced to make/buy this new missiles/avionics, ONLY because US maintenance teams, when they left, ruined everything they could reach).

1 Like
1822

If those, with which you talking don’t hear (or don’t want hear) your arguments, spamming their narrative - it’s not easy to be diverse.

Just as me.

1 Like
1823

since we have turkey patton in US TT, by your very own logic, iranian tomcat can easily go to US TT 🤡

1824

Usa still would have the biggest claim over all those you named because they are the original owners and developers doesnt matter the politics behind it

1825

Here you shit yourself.

Because US have ONLY AMBT (which they have by some unknown reason - Italy need it more), while Italy have Turkish Mangusta, AND Starfighter (which not in US tree, bozo).

1 Like
1826

Why mad bro

1827

So?
Who give a “quack”?

We have bunch if vechiles, in foreign (or even opposite) countries, “just because”.

As i said - US lost any rights and claims at this planes at moment, when they sold them.

IRIAF not friendly (even opposite) to US, so US can go… further, even without fact, that they have enough F-14, and we can calmly take it to someone else.

1 Like