Now you relativise and stultify a valid point.
Your point was it’s possible, well of course it’s possible, so what is the point of saying it?
It isn’t reasonable or likely which is the much more important point as people are asking for it to be in the German tree and it really doesn’t belong there.
In the interest of switching subjects here and getting back on topic… do we think the Barak II will have a devblog?
Probably not, it’d mostly be the same as the F-16C devblog.
Before certain things were done in game I did consider them not reasonable and unlikely.
But KF-41 in German tech tee at SOME point is diffreent than F-22 next patch.
When saying possible I am not refering to the technical possibility that Gaijin adds flying Unicorns or other mythological beasts.
It is just as likely or unlikely as some things implemented in War Thunder over the years.
And I emphasize it’s origin is what makes it possible and regarding some things added so likely it’s uncanny that the Lynx could be added to Germany while seeing the now often mentioned other implementations it is not a reasonable arguement anymore wether it was a service vehicle or not.
Theer you go.
A shame if true, I was secretly hoping to see a surprise Python 4 mention in its own devblog, but we’re all accustomed to a little disappointment.
1 Like
What? If it wasn’t a service vehicle then there should at least be another really good reason to add it.
Yes we established that…
I think we’d have seen the P4 in the last dev server if it was coming to the game, I’m still hopeful for next patch but I think we’ve got to make do with the only minor nation 12.3 this update.
OK good.
There isn’t another good reason to add it to the German tree so case closed.
True, my top tier Swedish air certainly won’t be getting much love from me until the JAS-39 but I am happy to see something new in the Israel lineup.
1 Like
Case is that Gaijin does not need a good reason, while the whole discussion revolved around wether being a service vehicle was a requirement which it clearly isn’t no matter wether a vehicle is needed or not.
Which was a point repeated so often that it became annoying.
Case closed?
It’s not bad but if it is true that it never had AIM-7 I would have rather seen it with Python 4 now or at a later point. It’s just another F-16 otherwise.
1 Like
The AIM-7 addition was welcomed, I just know the Python missiles will really begin to show their prowess when the 4 is added. And I do feel awful always asking what’s next in this game because it feels like that’s what most of us always do, it’s just hard not to be excited for it when it’s in the files.
2 Likes
Yeah the AIM-7 makes more sense on the F-16D than on the F-16C
they could also just add the Barak 1 as it’s just an f-16c as well
While I am all for historical loadouts, I do understand what they are trying to do with balancing the game via different missile additions. I always thought that much like certain armament costs different spawn points in Ground RB, we could possibly have somewhat the same in Air RB. An aircraft has a set BR based on its flight performance and technological features, and then if it has access to certain missiles, i.e. (Python-4, AIM-9M, R-73, and later the ARMs) it would go up another .3, .7, or 1.0 in BR. This would allow for more varied BR decompression and keep things more dynamic. But that’s just my opinion and there are plenty of issues with that idea.
1 Like
So? That means EJ Kai had limited armament choice. Not just that, it still does, AIM-7Ms are in the game, yet it doesn’t have them. The XF-2 would be fine if it carried AIM-9L and AIM-7F as well, being the same armament as the current EJ Kai on a better airframe.
It would also not just be the best in game, since in early configuration only a two seat XF-2B was armed, making it a lot heavier. This would create a dynamic between the faster F-16s and the more agile F-2, withput the difference being excessively great.
The british Phantom wasn’t implemented with PD radar either, and only received that when it was formally introduced a bit later, so implementing the radar as PD until AESA introduction would have been possible. Even more so, since Japan acquired an APG-58 radar for testing of the XF-2, in case the AESA wasn’t ready yet. This would be just like the situation in game.
And please consider the F-16AJ you consider historical. The real YF-16A it was based on according to the brochure had two additional Sparrow hardpoints not present in game, and could even mount Sparrows on the wingtips and outer wing. None of that is in game, what makes it different from an early XF-2 being armament limited?
2 Likes
For the Gepard 1A2 they would only have to remove the Stingers in that case
AIM-7F & M are identical in-game currently.
XF-2’s AIM-7Fs would be better than everyone else’s due to the AESA radar.
Again, citing 2019 is irrelevant due to current behavior of Gaijin overwriting the past.
The real YF-16 didn’t test Sparrows on the gear doors, and for something that can be replaced by a sub-tree F-16A in the future, adding a feature that’ll never be used again is a waste of money.
Also no, the YF-16 couldn’t mount Sparrows on the wingtips.