The thing is that there’s no consistency, take for example the F-15A & -C (no report, since the -15A one stalled) getting access to the GPU-5/A Gunpod.
Of Which the report i made was “knocked back” due to the image being of one the TF-15A airframe later used to prototype the F-15E, even when other supporting evidence states that it can be carried by the generic “F-15” and that the video states it can be carried on unmodified MAU-12 Bomb racks, which are shared across all F-15 variants.
Or the potential report that I did not proceed with for the A-4E “Early” to get the GPU-2/A, which even though I could prove the unit in question operated the A-4E Early, -E Late and A-4F at the time of the video (and aside from the fact that some A-4E’s were later modified with the Spine Electronics Bay)
Just had a look at it as it isn’t my normal area of interest, why don’t we just add the vehicle that beat it at trials in the AS21? if we have to have an Australian IFV, at least make it unique and actually Australian xD
These are however different airframes. The supporting brochure is also not specific about what F-15 that may be and again could be referring to F-15B.
The F-4F manual is a clear cut specific manual for the F-4F and is demonstrated on F-4F airframes in the US. So these two matters don’t really compare.
And the functional difference in ordnance capacity between the F-15A and F-15B, is? It’s generic because it’s a promotional video / Brochure so could be made to work regardless of what the client had in inventory.
If it was limited in some way, it would be mentioned.
Also is it at all likely that the STINGER reports will be actioned anytime soon, it’s been months (8, since they were accepted) at this point and considering how many nations are stuck with the Current (erroneous) implementation as a top-Tier system?
Any news on the sensor fusion of the Rafale/Eurofighter? Or even signature reduction as well? The two most important features of these two aircrafts, surely the devs might have something to say about it after all this time? They are the new aircrafts from the major so I’d appreciate if a developer could provide a response.
I sure did forget the Abrams. I’ll try to put a comprehensive list together. I’ll mark all of the vehicles that are not developed by the UK or indigenously with *.
CAN and AUS (and the one cheeky NZ)Vehicles in the UK tree:
Beaufighter
Beaufort
Boomerang
Boomerang Mk II
F-111C*
Wirraway
ADATS M113*
Ram II
QF 3.7 Ram
Skink
AC I
AC IV
Centurion Mk5/1
Matilda Hedgehog
Haida
Nepal
Tobruk
Leander
Terra Nova
Brantford
Arrow
Fremantle
CAN and AUS vehicles in other trees:
C2A1* (DEU)
2A4M* (DEU)
M4A5 (USA)
Stuart VI* (USA)
Skink (USA)
M1A1 AIM* (USA)
So there are two non-UK or indigenous vehicles in the UK tech tree, and four outside of it.
While these numbers show a trend of export vehicles being represented in their manufacturer’s tech tree, as you suggest, it’s a gap of just two vehicles. That’s not exactly the kind of ironclad evidence that guarantees a specific trend from Gaijin going forwards.
If anything, the fact that there’s more than double the amount of AUS/CAN vehicles in the UK tech tree than outside it would seem to lend a lot more credence to the idea that they are an “unofficial” subtree.
