Oh yea we will get the Gripen by the end of the year if not the next update.
Tbh that is why I think they are holding back the Hungarian aviation sub tree.
And the UK could get either the Gripen or the CF-18 before the end of the year which I think makes more sense and is a lot more fun than another F-16. Like we haven’t seen enough of them already
1 Like
That is more than clear. The point is that when they deny you something, they bring up ridiculous arguments like
“KF-41 is not used by Germany, it is exclusive to Hungary” said by Smin himself.
There are thousands of examples like this, depending on what suits you, it is technology, or used by the army, or tested, or borrowed, or there were some plans and… etcetera and more etcetera.
1 Like
with South Africa missile A-Darter, YES
2 Likes
Okay guys…but now for real.
Mig-23MLD will get Kh-29T:
2 Likes
Mhm and the SAAF Gripen can lead the UK to have the Cheetah too.
1 Like
second part of Discussion roundup and second ban, keeping it consistent it seems
still no sign of gnat even on the second dev server
I find it hard to believe. Tell me where is the Finnish technology in the Swedish TT?
Gaijin will introduce AESA radars at the same exact time they’ll introduce XF-2. That’s their known behavior, any deviation would be a change of behavior.
Same with limited armament, leaving AAM pylons empty would be a change of behavior.
You mean like how the F-4C and F-4E came without SARHs? Or the British FGR.2 being released without PD mode working? Or even now where stuff like the A-10 premium can only carry 2 9Ls despite having the double-rail launchers?
They absolutely release things in a semi-to-non-functional state if they feel like it
2 Likes
oh hell no the infamous APU-60-3
1 Like
I mean it’s called a sub tree. there is a Finnish air tree, a S. African ground tree and a Hungarian ground tree. It’s not that complicated.
It isn’t like the KF-41 was randomly given to Italy, Hungary’s ground tree was put in the Italian tree and the KF-41 is a Hungarian vehicle.
1 Like
You mean FGR2 that was introduced as the first ever PD-capable jet back in 2019?
2019 isn’t the year anymore, and hasn’t been for 4 years.
2020 for F-4E; Again, not 2023.
No, they don’t release things with missing AAM pylons.
Less than 6 months of additions like that doesn’t make that the rule especially when the rule has been “add things with all their AAM pylons filled that have them filled IRL” for the passed 3 years.
And “add things with correct radars” with one exception every now and then, for the last 2+ years.
Gonna nut…
Except the F/A-18 only had it’s inner wing pylon filled with A2A missiles after the introduction of the AMRAAM, so until it is capable of carrying AMRAAMs the F/A-18 should only have 6 A2A hardpoints. Right?
damn missile arguments been going on for 17k messages already
1 Like
A bit arbitrary isn’t it? There’s a big difference between rear-aspect and all-aspect. The fact of the matter, is EJ Kai was artificially nerfed on introduction with an advanced radar. The funny thing is the F-16 radar has been tweaked and updated since its introduction back then (when it was fairly simple). Also, isn’t it interesting that the XF-2 would be doing the same thing but with an prototype AESA radar.
To be fair again, F-16C Block 50 being introduced so soon is a change of behavior. Heck, the F-14A introduced a year ago would be qualified under the same standards. Same can be said for the F-16A last December. What I can surmise is we’re accelerating into Gen 4 and Gen 4+ so that every nation can get their vehicles instead of slowly getting there over multiple years.
As mentioned above, that’s an arbitrary limitation and you know it. I have not seen anywhere stated by Gaijin that all pylons must be filled as a rule. As such, missing armaments is the same as missing pylons for all intents and purposes. It’s a balancing tool.
I assume you can’t notch it at all. But I also assume that SARH/ARH non-AESA seekers can be notched anyway, so all an AESA radar would do is give good situational awareness with their TWS displays and “sweeping”. In other words, no meta shifts to worry about.
That all being said, an important thing for all of us to consider regardless is, it’s a video game first and foremost. As such balancing is first, realism is second. Gaijin is free to simulate realistically or modify realism however they see fit to make a fun game. I’m not saying this to say the game should be unrealistic, rather, Gaijin will have to simplify and make educated guesses as we get to more advanced technologies and we should let them do that instead of trying to make everything perfect to reality. Especially when such information to make things as realistic as possible is most likely classified.
1 Like
The far right line in booth the air tree and ground tree
The only manuals I have involving F-18C show 8 AAM store positions.
And I ain’t sharing those for obvious reasons.
if you really do you shouldn’t be so public about owning them either
and then using them in an internet argument about a game is even less good of a choice
Why does Germany have C2A1? If there are more Canadian vehicles in the UK than Hungarian ones in Italy (not to mention the Italy - Hungary connection) it sounds ridiculously arbitrary.
Those speeches full of inconsistencies, like the one gaijin has to justify some things, are useful to be able to adapt them to different situations, according to your own personal/veiled interests.
The argument about the KF-41 is inadmissible