Still outranged by the 27ER RIP
would have needed to say Aim 9L in this case xD
1 Like
This is a real F-4F moment
1 Like
imagine… a F-4F with Aim-9L this would be so OP…
I’d rather them not take from non-in-game nations and stick to more unique/gimmicky vehicles from nations that have a tree.
Things like the Churchill Crocodile over things like the Cent Mk 2 or the Aussie Cent.
Basically, things that don’t really fit as a tech-tree vehicle(Like you aren’t missing anything without the Croc) over ones that should be(Cent Mk 2) or take away from future trees(yes I know the Aussie Cent is not the best example but it’s the first one that came to mind.)
3 Likes
Would easily beat F15 and Su27
according to Gaijin, yea… somehow…
1 Like
Fair take, though I thing that things from nations that are quite obviously attached to something else can be added, especially when no tree is available.
Pulqui II for Germany as an example
Is that in the book? I know they were looking for an F-4 replacement, but was this part of that?
Agreed, Gaijin has unfortunately opened up many “Pandora’s boxes” throughout the past, but at this point it’s clear that, as much as they might try to suggest there’s some logic or some certain criteria that should be met before adding a vehicle, it’s clear that ultimately they will add whatever they want to, and find the justification later.
The F-16AJ was bad, but it wasn’t as bad as the helicopters they gave to Sweden, or the mistakes they were making when the game wasn’t going to progress beyond the Korean War, by adding purely experimental or paper vehicles. The F-16AJ was another terrible addition, mainly because this along with the Swedish choppers and British T-90 have meant that basically now, people can wishlist for whatever they want with the flimsiest of reasons.
That being said, I’ve always been a proponent of there being gaps in tech trees if there were gaps in real life, so I won’t ever support adding vehicles without clear and meaningful connections and to the nation in which they’re being added.
1 Like
I mean is it even a question at this point? Tornado F.3 is obviously on par with F-16 so why ICE would be different?
It says it before the photo of the su20
I thing some Mod even (confirmed) a new german fighter for 2024 will search it however…
Edit: Found It
So, that seems to confirm what I was initially saying, that it was part of a research program or the general familiriazation NATO countries have with each other’s aircraft, in this case to look to other types to see what can be learned for future aircraft design.
F4 ICE and suffer
i kms
But the F20 they were seeing if they should get it it not really clear if those were just looking at cockpit and i don’t think you to test fly a plane to know the cockpit lay out
So I think we can agree that the source is actually not very good, at least for what we’re trying to establish here.
why is it not good? lmao
you decide it isnt or what?
The thing is you actually do. JA37Di version of the Viggen (for example) existed for this exact reason. It featured english cockpit specifically for interoperability with NATO.
Cause it sort of vague if the F/A18 testing was to see how it worked verse buying it
one page is says the testing was to look at the cockpit the other says the F20 wasn’t fit for the Luftwaffe its not concrete