uhhh- F-18C? As far as I know, neither Canada nor Australia used the “C”
It’s CF-188(F-18A/B) or Also A and B for the Aussie.
I hope it’s the Canadian one myself.
1 Like
Unhinged
You cant go a part was made by X country so it should go their
It like small amount of German mains saying that they should have the Challenger 3 as the gun is German (Then they have to retracted that as the Leopard 1 gun is British)
1 Like
Ah i was remembering the finnish F-18 models not canadian
2 Likes
It’s fine we are talking about all 4 nations the could get one. So someone was bound to mix up one.
I have a gut feeling that dev add F/A-18A (USN/USMC) for USA tech tree but older F/A-18C from Finnish and CF-188 from RCAF
3 Likes
Except in this case the ADATS/MMEV aren’t used by Britain or the US, therefore it should go to the country that made the most systems that it uses (as Commonwealth is a trash tier argument for implementation, especially for the MMEV which is far after Canada’s independence).
Challenger 3 is actually going to be used by Britain, which is why it went to them. The Challenger 130 mm on the other hand, has no business being in the British tree, like so many suggest it there. It isn’t intended for Britain, wasn’t made by Britain or has anything else related other than the hull originating from Britain - but that doesn’t matter because the modification is made by a German company with a newly built turret.
Same goes for all foreign F-18s. There is not a single one that should be in the British tree, ESPECIALLY after they received the JAS-39, which also shouldn’t be there. There should be no F-18s in the Swedish tree either - even if you argue the Finnish subtree, Sweden doesn’t need it, the JAS-39 fulfills the exact same role while being the exact same type of fighter (great dogfighter with high speed bleed), while possibly being even better than the F-18.
2 Likes
Their is line there for it will get the F/A18 that how the game is
And what is the problem with having two aircraft that do the same thing
2 Likes
My god you are very deluded
The 1300mm is a test bed made to show what Rheinmetall could do with the challenger 2 it is the same as the TD the only difference is that the 130 was decided to go further and was made in mind by the British and made by a German company which doesn’t mean it should go to German
2 Likes
Everything apparently despite in real life nations would make more then one plane to do the same thing.
Also, there is this for the Finish stuff:
So no matter what they say there is no changing the fact Finland is a sub-tree in the Swedish tree and all things sub-tree go to the nation it’s in. The Finish F-18 will come to Sweden no matter what.
1 Like
oops. I did it again where I typed something else over what I was going to say.
1 Like
welp edit time
Fills a gap, CW additions will be used to fill gaps in the British tree at Gaijins discretion, not me saying that, its Gaijin. The UK has no top tier AA without the ADATS as the UK doesn’t really use land based AA for expeditionary purposes. Also NATO means we didn’t need it.
Its a British tank, modified by an Anglo-British joint venture, on top of a British turret. It can always go to Germany, but there is other possibilities for Germany with 130mm guns.
Furthermore it was part of the marketing strategy for the Challenger 3, notice how all of the imaging systems and the blowout rack are the same or scaled up versions of the CR3 ones? Yet they aren’t RBSL products, nor does the Leopard 2 use them? If it was marketed to the UK there’s that point too.
I can respect that argument in regards to the British tree to some degree.
You are aware the UK has a SAAF sub-tree? You are also aware that BAe helped with the design and upgrade and maintenance and marketting of the Gripen and until BAe had to leave for their money laundering it was publically acknowledged as a BAe-SAAB/SAAB-BAe product? Hell BAe still market it as their mid-cost option for fighter aircraft with the Hawk being their low-cost and the Eurofighter being their High-end. Even if the UK didn’t get it through SAAF as a nation which aided its development there’s a loose claim.
Finland should not be denied their own vehicles. Its just a fact that they are a tree represented in-game and should therefore get their own vehicles.
4 Likes
You all want F/A-18 → but most of you forgot that Gaijin can Still add F-14D in between
Well… Apart from new radar and questionable AMRAAM capability, F-14D wouldn’t bring much new to table. Maybe 9M, ok.
Hornet on the other hand (while 18A may be outdated on arrival, can be rectified with addition of 18C which is AMRAAM capable and has F404EPE engines) would be completely new airframe to game.
I don’t think its wrong to ask for something different, is it?
1 Like
It is not wrong,… but by simple logic,… it would be added prior to the F/A-18,…
By what simple logic?
It’s an already existing airframe?
Yeah, sure. But you’re forgetting that it had vastly superior radar to both Eagle and Tomcat since it combined tech from Strike Eagle’s and already existing Tomcat radar (not sure on that one). F-14B on the other hand has AWG-9 of F-14A but also has the TISEO like system (camera for visual ID) plus it also has the BOL rails which allow it to carry ton of countermeasures.
I don’t see it happening before Hornet’s arrival.
Remember the Hornet didn’t replace the F14 that was the super hornet
2 Likes
I know
Legacy Hornet replaced A-7s and F-4s
2 Likes
Meanwhile, in Canada, they replaced the:
CF-166 Freedom Fighter
CF-111 Starfighter
CF-101 Voodoo.
Does anyone know what they replaced in Australia, Finland and Switzerland? As I don’t. and would like to know.
1 Like
I believe Swiss Hornets replaced the Mirages IIIs and Hunter F.58s
Australia bought both Legacy Hornets and Super Hornet later on with latter replacing the Varks (F-111C).
As for Finns… I’d wager a guess that it was the MiG-21bis and Drakens?