Was it clear? Subsonic twin seat trainers/light attackers have been added to the game for 6 years at this point.
IIRC they used t80bv’s hulls so we are saved
2 Likes
A Soviet/Russian MBT with more than 4km/h reverse speed?
What’s next? One with 10 degrees of gun depression?
3 Likes
the humble BUK with infinite reverse gear, if only we could have some of that XD
1 Like
Thats heresy
1 Like
219M is indeed a T80BV hull, you remember good
1 Like
2022 T-80BVM you say ?
1 Like
I forgot about the 1400hp, that thing is eating good
2 Likes
infinitely prefer it over the T80BVM, really sad cheaper won at the end of the day
1 Like
I’ve been begging Gaijin to no avail since they removed the IRST21 sadly :(
Gaijin give me the T-80BVM obr.2022 and my wallet is yours.
Ah, that’s fair then. In the meantime I think there is a lot of other things that can be added first then.
For Malaysia this could mean expanding further down with rank V options like the CL-41G or MB-339AM, and looking at the tree as a whole there’s still an ominous Indonesia shaped hole in the fourth line
2 Likes
We seem to just be moving goalposts over and over at this point for some sort of point scoring or “gotcha” at this stage. The actual constructive purpose to this topic or discussion I’m not really sure of.
Yes, it was quite clear by the aircraft I listed, all of which fall into the same category and typing and all arrived from the same time period onwards. These Swedish aircraft above were some of the only strike options for the Swedish tree in its infancy. The same is not true of the British tree with the Hawk. Which has a plethora of strike capable aircraft around that BR.
The Hawks were perfectly in line with all the rest of the similar advanced jet trainers of a similar age and category, which were all planned to arrive over a similar time period.
6 Likes
We will be looking to further expand sub tree options for the Japanese tree using its newer nations at all ranks where possible yes. Mostly to fill roles or gaps that domestic Japanese aircraft couldn’t or perhaps not as well.
3 Likes
One of us is.
The point of my original comment was that it is hardly surprising that there is high demand across multiple nations for more Hawks when people have been waiting 10+ years for the aircraft to be added, and saying ‘eh we’ve done 5 so we’ll call it a day for the moment’ can’t be expected to be a hugely satisfactory answer when in actuality those 5 aircraft only really cover 2 variants, and one is essentially a direct copy-paste (which I support as a premium, but using it to bump numbers is a little disingenuous).
Definitely not right off the tail of adding 5 F-16s to a single nation (France) in that same time period with no apparent issue.
complaining
There’s no surprise at all. But equally there is higher demand from many of those nations for other aircraft too.
We also sadly cannot base our demand for future aircraft additions solely on the opinions of those within this topic, which I’m sure you can appreciate, can often be a little skewed and not representative of the wider playerbase as a whole. Even just taking the British playerbase on this forum for example, which can rarely not often agree with itself on what it wants.
People also waited 10+ years for many other vehicles too of even larger popularity than the Hawk. But the Hawk itself has seen 5 examples added over the space of just over a year. More than even some of the larger aircraft series receive in the same period of time. So to say its somehow not had sufficient treatment of some kind compared to everything else is not quite right at all. Its precisely because of said demand we have had what we have had. But that also doesn’t mean that because there is a warm reception here on the forum, we can continue with the same aircraft in quick succession constantly. As not everyone agrees or appreciates that at all.
Its entirely reasonable to have a break between some. As too many over a short period and the warm reception quickly wares off and turns into “your just copy / pasting / spamming”. When approached from this perspective and not simply more of a personal opinionated one (which I appreciate everyone has for any given vehicle), its actually quite logical to understand why we wish to space them out a bit.
Particularly as you yourself point out:
Its in addition to the above I mentioned, this is another consideration as to why we do not wish to “spam” Hawks.
8 Likes
Unrelated topic, I hope to read about expansion of ECM to more aircrafts, particularly NATO vehicles as well in the upcoming CM disclosure blog.
2 Likes
Better as in more mobile and better gun handling ? Very narrow options
1 Like
that felt a bit targeted