Ohk thanks!!
In this case, not only does it offer the US nothing, but it can also be added to another tree as a unique variant to the game that does offer them something. Since the RAAF did not operate the E. The US tree would not gain anything from the addition to the research tree, though as we said previously, there are other means of deploying aircraft and if there is serious demand for it, it can be considered for the future.
Other aircraft are planned for now for the US tree.
These are entirely different cases. In these cases, each tree did not already have something directly comparable. They were new / unique to the tree. The F/A-18F doesn’t bring anything new to the US tree that the F/A-18E already added last major does not.
3 Likes
I find the 18F to be more Iconic than the 18E, and as I said, there are plenty of examples where identical aircraft (with the exact same loadout) are in the same tree but foldered.
Ah my bad. Forgor about the different targeting pod. Not that they exist on WW2 planes.
F/A-18F is not copy paste, its a different model.
Other aircraft are planned for the UK tree too in the future. This addition doesn’t stop that, but this was also directly requested by the British / Commonwealth community too. So there is no reason to not include this aircraft.
If / when the missile ever came to the game, the Rafale M would be a top consideration for it.
Like what ?
I hope so, cause grinding for another hornet is not fun, when this version is heavier than the one in the US tree (which is already suffering how slow it is with it’s 404 engines)
1 Like
This would be much less of an issue if these planes actually received naval ordnance, ESPECIALLY in the Rafale M’s case. The new targeting pod does not matter in the slightest because it has the same exact stats. So saying “ oh look it gives you the option of new targeting pod,” is just a scapegoat PR response. Furthermore as I previously mentioned, the majority of these planes do not receive naval weaponry such as magnetic mines, in the Superhornets case AGM-84A/B/C/D Harpoon, Quickstrike, and in the Rafale M’s case the Exocet. Now here’s the coolest part about these naval munitions: Modern jets cannot even engage in player vs player battles in naval. Your only option is to use them almost exclusively in simulator battles vs defenseless AI ships, and killing these ships never has an impact on the game, so there’s really no reason not to add these.
2 Likes
They would gain an aircraft variant that people have asked for. What’s the harm in adding it into a folder? If players want it they can then go for it and if they don’t they can just ignore it. The same questions came up with the F/A-18D and the F-16D, some players just want to see the twin-seat versions added to the nation that built them alongside the addition to other nations.
2 Likes
Only way to get the chance of double seated fighter is to give them advantage.
Like better and faster cas target selection.
Or auto track and correction of target of the radar
We all know they are not going to folder it.
why couldn’t Rafale M get them on release when many other planes such as F-2A and F-5A(G) both got ASM-1/2 and Penguin on release respectively? Is the addition of the Exocet is a tough consideration for it to be added to not make Rafale M a “copy & paste” plane that much?
In this case they would, let’s be real
The Rafale C would get it too, all French variants have identical weapons systems
Supersonic more than 300km range when we have like 100km missiles.
Kh59 cant even lock at 50km
this is not the point, the idea is to add unique and niche weaponry to variants that would be considered “the same” without it, if Rafale C and M both get Exocet then what’s the purpose of the Rafale M?
There and only 1 rafale carrier capable.
1 on 1 so its unique
1 Like
Such an issue when your fighting AI ships
Exocet won’t hurt any balance when there’s simply no balance to be considered.