So shouldn’t JAGMs going to non V4.5/V6 Apaches. technical feasibility seems to be the standard now.
IIRC the A variant is what the 120s were tested on.
I do not know how this is relevant to the F-14A/D
The F14A-65-gr is a testing vehicle that tested AMRAAMs FOR the f14D the f14A-65 lacks the apg71 to be able to use apg71 unless someone has proof it did
I said the F-14A should have it as the D never tested it iirc.
Sources:
[The AIM-120 AMRAAM on F-14 Tomcat: tested but not integrated]
as proven before in this game
if the A fired it, then any other tomcat can get it
proof?
mirage 2000D rmv has hammers because a Mirage 2000N (which is basically 2000D before modifications, quite literally the same case as the F-14A testfireing aim-120 and F-14D getting it) testfired or carried inert hammers, therefore snail said "alr give hammers to the 2000D RMV)
examples like this are scattered around the game among every single nation probably.
just because the F-14A was the one testfireing the aim-120’s does not mean F-14D cannot get them.
(as to if it should, its not my place to comment cause i never played the F-14’s)
3 Likes
Lol you posted that as your source here let me you show mine that the f14D w/aim120 is more realistic than you know
7 Likes
Oh I also forgot
4 Likes
Yeah, F14A120 was a play on F14A + AIM120.
Because the dev’s standard when it comes to a weaponry being added to an aircraft is about technical compatibility, not if the specific variant actually fired it. I just used the Apache as an example.
As long as technical compatibility can be proven, then anything else shouldn’t really matter
1 Like
What that fast? They checked all those links out that fast? And they lie that the f14 wasn’t implemented with the tech those link describes which they were? Bruh
And I can’t even argue back thats some bullshit
4 Likes
Except when it doesn’t. Compare
GPU-5/A 30 mm Gunpod for the F-15
The attached videos and photos show the F-15B-4-MC aircraft with tail number 71-0291, which is the prototype of the F-15E Strike Egale. This aircraft differs significantly from the single-seat fighter version of the F-15A.
[DEV] GPU-5/A 30 mm Gunpod for the F-15E
The attached videos and photos show the F-15B-4-MC aircraft with tail number 71-0291, which is the prototype of the F-15E Strike Egale. This aircraft differs significantly from the single-seat fighter version of the F-15A.
Can you anywhere spot an issue with the response?
I’m pretty disappointed that the response was clearly a C&P job, after being overturned. And besides wouldn’t one expect the F-15 prototype to be similar to a production F-15E
Im not saying it shouldn’t not have it outright, Im just saying if one were to get it, the A should. I’m willing to be wrong on this though.
1 Like
And yet the Yak-141 gets planned systems and ordnance. None of the airframes even have an IRST blister and yet.
Honestly it’s like they overlooked the “F-14B(U)” (I know that the current F-14B is in a similar configuration (sans cockpit) ) if they wanted a premium counterpart for the F-14B
4 Likes
then at least put the asf14 in game as a tt plane the only tt plane in usa war thunder that flys okay is the f14 so asf14 aim120s easy peasy
it was close enough to being in service that it should be in the game in some capacity it was a software thats like saying oh man i cant use my pc that has windows 10 on it even tho i can update it i have to get a new pc the only reason the f14d didnt get amramms was because dick Cheney and the navy was to busy kissing boeing’s ass
3 Likes
Do people care that only prototype vehicles should be able to get weapons that it tested yak141,ho229,kh38mt,etc or should production vehicles should be able to use weapons that it tested successfully and that proof of the weapon works and works with X vehicles or had/is capable of using X armament?
bump
wouldn’t mind f-14d not getting amraams if aim-54c+ gets amraam seekerhead + 25 gs
1 Like