I mean I agree, the tree should only contain what was at least partially constructed/used in some way and only represent how it would have been had it been completed, at the most. The Ho-Ri as we have it now and the F-16AJ can go, and I welcome more proper additions
2 Likes
eh wasnt the trial tank still russian or something? like when Boeing does their advanced eagle stuff its still under USAF.
Russia never equipped them with thermals unles sit was a command model like the UK. So the version in game is from their model they attempted to sell to sweden before it failed in the trials. Thermals were a requirement of the trials.
nice history, but point still stands, it was still a russian tank they tried to sell and it failed.
export advanced eagles have a MAWS (idk why usaf doesnt put them on operational F-15E and EX), but they are still American jets
Money, maws may just be too exoansive to run constant maintenance or its just not scene as necessary
i mean that same logic doesn’t matter, again you have Italians that want the Patria 120 because Patria bought the Hitfact turret. Italy sold them the turret does that make them entitled to the vehicle if they had no hand in it? I mean France got the Ito 90M under that logic
i guess? i mean army has the same MAWS on a bunch of their helicopters, and F-15EX retained the bulge where the sensors were. maybe they are making some next gen MAWS or something but for now, they dont have it which is annoying for when later USAF F-15 get added.
well they did have a hand in it if they supplied the whole turret. but if there is really no other italian involvemnt i guess it goes to wherever patria is from, idk
Okay so if the US makes a gun and sells that gun for export does that mean the US made that vehicle
no, not necesarily
So how does Italy selling the turret somehow entitle them to the Finnish Patria? Again it doesn’t but that same logic gave the Ito 90M to France. I guess if we go with that logic whoever dug up the metal is entitled to the vehicle also. Its a silly thing. I guess all the harries belong on Britain because Britain sold the chassis even if they didn’t have a hand in making the AV-8B
werent those made by McDonnel Douglas?
why didnt you lead with finnish patria. then it goes to sweden since that is subtree host nation.
Based upon a British design and modified with direct help of BAE in cooperative development. Fully uses a British designed and built engine
1 Like
didnt BAE only rejoin the project later? after MDD did a lot of work
I literally did, i said Patria! Lmao they are a Finnish company and were showing off how modular the Patria is. Its why Lockheed has a few Patria chassis since its popular. Its why they showed off the Patria 40mm to the UK as a prototype.
1 Like
I literally say it at the top lol
my bad lol. i only really know Saab and Kongsberg for north europe defence companies lol
Patria has a big hand in ground vehicles and are the ones responsible for the most unique BAE Hawk mk.51A since they redid the hud and everything. It has an entirely unique HUD not used in any ither vehicle.
2 Likes
From waht I recall from the Harrier 809 book. The US wanted a far more extensive upgrade called the AV-16, but needed the UKs help developing it, but it was too extensive and so instead they went for the AV-8B but the UK was simutaneously developing the Harrier Gr5. Im not entirely sure on the details of how much overlap there was.
want to take this to harrier thread? i think Ixtav knows about this