Ever since the Chinese air tree got the F-16A Block 20 MLU (F-16A MLU in tree), I was excited for it to receive AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. When the new update was announced almost a month ago, I was excited to see that Fox 3 missiles were being added to the game. I played the dev server and found the PL-12 and R-77 added to China air, but no AMRAAM for the F-16. I figured that the dev’s had simply forgotten to add it to the MLU.
Imagine my disappointment after finally updating the game after work today.
I log on and immediately check the MLU.
No AMRAAM
Gaijin! Why? Why is there no AMRAAM for the plane that was LITERALLY DESIGNED TO CARRY AMRAAM!? (Also acknowledge the text explaining that Taiwan received 150 of these aircraft.)
And don’t try to pull out the “no photographic evidence” like you did on the flare pod for the Q-5L. I brought proof to support my claim.
This is IREFUTABLY the Block-20, here’s the in-game model for a comparison:
Notice how the intakes are both the same, the fins on the back near the engine, everything down to the external fuel take is the EXACT SAME apart from the paint. And obviously, the inability for the in-game version to NOT carry AMRAAMs.
I am majorly disappointed at the fact that a plane that literally went through a redesign SPECIFICALLY to carry AMRAAMs doesn’t have them. Gaijin, please fix.
8 Likes
Here’s an actually photograph of the AMRAAM missile, just so people don’t say I confused it for an AIM-7 Sparrow (Forgot to add)
3 Likes
That a C amraam though, that’s too OP for current game. And if they added aim-120a it’d get bumped to 13.0
Sweden: Gripen could use AGM-65G, so they will receive AGM-65G though they dont use it in the real world’s Gripen
China: F-16AM could use AIM-120A after they received AIM-120C and unlocked AMRAAM in its FCS, but they don’t receive it instead of change it to F-16A Block 15 with less CMs
3 Likes
Because china NEVER used this jet…
This is what happens when Gaijin gives china a jet they never used, they never had pilot training for nor had the contract for. Taiwan used this, only Taiwanese pilots got trained by the US for this jet and the AMRAAMs were meant for Taiwanese use ONLY (not china)
I can only suspect this is why they havent given the MLU 120s, yes the jet “can” use them but its not a question of the jet but the nation, this is why me included and others had a huge stink over china getting the MLU considering the conflict with China and Taiwan but also the actual disagreement that transpired when Taiwan got the deal for F16s without China knowing about it.
You can argue all you want that it should get them but if it got weapons for a jet that china never used let alone the equipement china never used because they didnt use the jet, it just then becomes a mess and tbh should be left as is. China has other jets with there own Fox 3s that gaijin should prioritise over the MLU imo
2 Likes
Stupid thing is that they nerfed the CM’s to half of what it really has.
Only thing historical about its weapons are its dumb bombs, AGM-65B and AIM-7M.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lpCQ2S85z6ok
Taiwan is part of China in the Chinese tech tree so the whole argument you brought doesn’t make sense.
China never used F16s but they were given as the MLU. if your argument made sense Taiwan should be a unique nation or a sub nation of any techtree that isn’t china, which of course for obvious reasons isn’t.
Plus your argument has the danger of spiralling into political issues which are not supposed to be taken here. Once again, Taiwan is part of China in the Chinese tech tree, your point makes ZERO sense.
12 Likes
Republic of China(they official call themselves) should in China TT
Just like German Democratic Republic in German TT
2 Likes
You do know that Taiwan exists in the Chinese tree in more than 1 vehicle right? Taiwan and China share a tree because both claim to be the real China, as well as if it was just a CCP tree, it would start at 5.7 like Israel.
3 Likes
Exact same for the italian F16, wich didn’t even carry AIM7 irl, unlike in warthunder
Gaijin doesn’t like using Wikipedia as a source, so let’s use wiki.warthunder.com
the problem now is that Gaijin doesn’t intend to respect history at all, but rather look at their own falsified data to fake the F-16MLU
3 Likes
You need to under stand that Chinese tech tree does not mean PRC tech tree, the Taiwanese vehicles come under the banner of RC flag and there is no reason for the ARAAMs to be neglected.
4 Likes
There’s a very simple and consistent reason why this F-16 didn’t receive AMRAAMs. If it got AMRAAMs then it would be moved up to 13.0. Gaijin doesn’t add weaponry to vehicles when it would create a hole in the tech tree. In this instance 12.0 is fulfilled by the F-16A MLU. If it was moved up to 13.0 with AMRAAMs then there would no longer be a 12.0 aircraft to play that role in the TT. This is already seen with other F-16s in game, such as the ADF models, and even other vehicles like Mig-29 with R-60 instead of R-73, or F-4E with 9J instead of 9L. The only realistic option would be a new F-16 variant after the MLU in that TT line.
I’m very tired of seeing people talk about this like it’s an oversight or mistake, when this was very predictable based on years of evidence by Gaijin.
1 Like
I’d rather they just added a new 12.0 then used leaving gaps as an excuse
3 Likes
Well, what about Chinese SPAA? Leaving a gaping hole of 2.4 BR without a single vehicle, and Air level 4 has 5 vehicles? The ROCAF line literally have an empty level 4, so leaving a blank is not an excuse since they already did that to this line at level 4 when they moved P51s down to level 3. F16ADF are not ARAAM carrying because they are replaced by MLUs, Block20s should be ARAAM capable, so being realistic is more important, as GAIJING always reiterates, as they reject a billion bug reports for Chinese vehicles.
1 Like
I don’t know nor care about other parts of the tree. I just know about what I already wrote about. Regardless, you shouldn’t use instances of bad design to justify new problems.
Well neither can you use the excuse of an already non standing fact, the logic of realistic and tech tree balance should be applied consistently rather than selectively.
1 Like
Yeah that’s fine, I would agree, but that’s not the point I’m trying to communicate. I’m just saying the reason why this F-16 doesn’t get AMRAAMs is very clear and predictable based on previous vehicles and weaponry.
