Yeah, hence the “sort of”. It definitely wouldn’t’ve been my personal choice to add it. Though I would’ve probably added a lot of foxes by now…
Then they shouldn’t have gotten anything, we need to stop giving nations fictional stuff because they can’t fill that gap lest we give that ability to all nations
So there is an Israeli RWR on it. Still no mention of MAWS though
1 Like
Real
Yeah like I personally don’t mind it being added so long as Gaijin can just be clear and say that they are now willing to add paper vehicles like the IA.
So long as something is either in active development with some stuff known about it like the F-15IA or was being developed but cancelled with a lot of information on it like the F-15SE (my personal hill to die on Gaijin add the SE) then it should be fine.
But Gaijin just needs to clearly explain stuff which I feel they fall short on more often than not.
1 Like
I’ll try and provide a list, but much of this stuff is TBC,
Kit that’s unique to the IA by some margin goes as follows:
Spice 2000/1000/250/250ER series of IR glide bombs
RAMPAGE Cruise Missile
Derby/I-Derby/I-Derby ER Fox 3 missiles
Python 4/5 IIR missiles
ELISRA EW/RWR/ECM Suite (Replacing EPAWSS, Roughly comparable)
Choice between DASH III and JHMCS Helmet sights
LITENING 5 Targeting and aperture radar pod
All other changes are misc avionics changes like flight and mission computers
While the crossover with the US one is pretty much everything else you see on the EX
Tiger West has a net as well
Which ones?
The general consensus everyone seems to have from what I can gather reading these last 2 days is this is a brand new precedent that needs to be addressed and clarified more so than the vehicle itself being the problem which imo is a fair take.
Aka where is the line? Money exchanged? Intent to buy? Specified number of provable serial production? Etc.
Yep, they need to be more clear now on what could be allowed in the future or not. If they do allow similar paper vehicles (although most will be closer to reality than the IA) then they need to explain the new rules and requirements.
1 Like
If they are going to add ordered vehicles then they need to be held to a harsher standard for their specifications imo
This can either be 1. a new can of worms or 2. just “these can now be considered” basically
I would wait for the IA if the ETA wasn’t 2030, 4 years is an unreasonable wait and it’d be long DOA by then.
Generally this precedent should be kept to a minimum, but it is a necessary evil since we’re moving into the realms of highly classified and generally undocumented stealth fighters, so creative liberties have to be taken
2 Likes
- It’s removed
1 Like
I just personally wonder if this opens avenues for vehicles pending delivery that already exist, such as the Thai JAS39E. AFAIK that doesn’t have any modifications that we know of (or that I know of).
I personally am not a super big fan of “shared technical capability” or “Country inventory doesn’t matter” it eliminates a lot of the uniqueness and nuance of a lot of these things.
probably does