Tbh the soviet top tier stuff was kinda necessary for it to not top of at the Revenge and Conte di Cavour class ships. Still crazy how Soyuz is a jumble of 3 separate configs iirc.
Yeah I know, I’m saying that the same necessity doesn’t exist in the American air tech tree of all places, it’s got more than enough aircraft that haven’t been added yet that I’d love to see (AJ-1 Savage, XA-2J Super Savage, F-101, F-94 off the top of my head).
3 Likes
Fair enough
FH-1 Phantom, FJ-1 Fury, F7U, F5D, F-11-1F/F-11B are some more examples
3 Likes
Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK, B-45, A3D, F-4B, Cessna A-37 Dragonfly, XTB2D Skypirate, A-5 Vigilante are also some examples.
2 Likes
-1 Still a no
no matter how cool they look these stuff have no place in war thunder fake stats and will ruin realism in WT
As example look at the R2Y2 and 105 tiger II / panther II these are fake with made up stats.
the XP-69
there are something like it this
(XF-108)
the xb-70 valkyrie it’s really bomber
2 Likes
“Realism” even tho War Thunder wanted to be a Digital Museum. I already made terms that these aircrafts will most likely end up in war thunder once the barrel is scrapped in terms of US Aircrafts. Someone already said the Aircrafts I mentioned could be implemented and qualified for suggestions due to the suggestion guidelines.
Nope. We have too many experimental or prototype aircraft as it is.
1 Like
Thats your opinion. But unfortunately I won’t back down and stand on this hill that these aircraft should be in the game. I may be a hopeless romantic for wanting these but someone already gave me hope that these aircrafts could be implemented someday.
1 Like
Hey fair play as the saying goes “god loves a tryer” but at the same time prototype aircraft have a horrible habit of being broken and always in an overpowered way. Plus seeing them in game ruins what little immersion the game has left.
we already play a game where you have stuff like modern day F18s from allied countries fighting each other over falklands or leopard2s vs abrams in ww2 japan. muh ‘paper/prototype vehicles arent historical’ was kinda valid back when historical matchmaking/maps was a thing but in 2026 nope trash argument
2 Likes
The problem is that instead of focusing on fixing the issues to the game you’re just adding more fuel to the fire. You’re also completely opening the floodgates for more nations with bullshit paper aircraft to filter into the game.
Spending time on aircraft that might as well be fiction is also wasting time and resources that should be spent on aircraft that are missing and actually did see service. Adding crap like this is a dreadful idea but hey if you can get it added best of luck to you.
there is no ‘fuel to the fire’. adding a vehicle that was built vs on paper doesnt affect the game. whether or not the vehicle is fun and balanced is what affects the game. do you seriously think ANY of the modern vehicles function even remotely accurately ingame vs irl? they can add a baneblade from wh40k tomorrow and it would probably be more interesting than the 5th copy paste leopard/abrams/whatever
2 Likes
They act more accurately to life than a fictional aircraft that doesn’t exist. To make changes or to add an aircraft the devs ask for multiple sources to confirm vehicle performance. So yes the devs care about authenticity/realism.
The issue with fantasy/prototype aircraft is that they almost always overperform because they either don’t have their many issues modelled or they choose the absolute highest estimates in regards to performance which aircraft never truly make in reality once they’re actually flown with equipment on board.
Meanwhile your paper plane will fight aircraft that have had to be built more conservatively as they’ve had to think about airframe longevity etc and have actually been tested with true numbers instead of a rough overly generous estimate. It’s unfair to actual aircraft that have seen service.
Case in point the B-I, XP55, XP50, Yak-3U, I185’s, Yak-2KABB, JU288C I can go on and on. Every single one of them broken. No more please.
1 Like
its literally impossible to authentically model classified planes
paper aircraft ‘overperforming’ is not an issue if they are put at balanced BR’s
none of those are broken because they are prototypes. theyre (or were) broken because their BR was too low
2 Likes
They are broken because you cannot fairly put prototype (especially paper vehicles) into the game.
The aircraft you’ve chosen for instance apparently would have a 2000mph “cruising speed”, have IRST and was estimated to fly up to almost 90,000ft and supposedly carry a 100 mile range AIM-47 which it could lock at will thanks to its lookdown/shootdown radar.
No matter where you put it it’ll just float around being completely untouchable in the atmosphere at Mach 3 launching long range missiles. As a 1950-60’s design if it fights modern fighters people will scream it’s underpowered but if it fights early Phantoms/MiG-21’s it’ll be completely broken. Every production (and some in game prototypes) aircraft in game has some sort of limitation in its FM. How do you apply that to something that never left the drawing board?
2 Likes
Please don’t tell me you’ve not even researched the aircraft you want added to the game.
Some statistics for the XF108 (Just a quick reminder once again this aircraft might as well be a work of fiction and these are only official estimates… because it never flew…)
Top speed: 1980mph (Mach 3).
Max altitude: 80,052ft, (100,000ft in zooms apparently…)
Sensors:
Radar: AN/ASG-18.
Maximum range: 300 miles.
Tracking range: 100 miles.
Pulse doppler/Lookdown shootdown.
Track while scan capability.
IRST.
Missiles: AIM-47
Seeker: SARH
Range: 100 miles.
As mentioned you can’t take any of these numbers seriously as it never flew, we don’t know how it was in flight because it never flew, we don’t know what its structural limitations were because once again it never flew.
i dont think ive ever mentioned the XF108 lol, youre getting me mixed up with someone else. if you want to talk about it though, XF108 is basically a slightly better mig25 (which despite us main REEEEing before release has not broken the game at 10.7).
if the XF108 was put it at 11.0/11.3 or a similarly fair BR it wouldnt break the game either. once again, its the BR that determines if a vehicle is going to be good or broken not a vehicles irl capabilities
1 Like
One of the aircraft mentioned in the thread is the XF108. You’re largely defending adding the XF108.
The XF108 is even faster, flies even higher and has missiles with over double the range. Even in maps like Denmark (128km x 128km) The XF108 could literally snipe players from one side of the map to the other after they’d barely taken off. As a side note some sources say the AIM-47 was Mach 6 capable.
The only downside of the XF108 is that it doesn’t have an RWR. Even at 11.0 it’d be completely toxic. Imagine celebrating finally getting the MiG-25 to then get effortlessly swatted out of the sky by an almost completely fictional wonderweapon.
1 Like