The thai JAS-39C’s AGM-65H has US air force markings; i have reported this already on bug reports; does this problem appear when the JAS39C is in flight or not? I can only see this in previewing secondary weapons;
If possible, can somebody also find a photo of an actual thai JAS39C with the correct markings?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/s7tp6IGWJmEE
1 Like
This isn’t unique to Thai JAS-39C. It’s pretty common for USAF markings to appear on exported American munitions. Just from planes i own :
Harrier GR7’s 65D’s & 65E’s say it
SAF JAS39C 65B’s say it
Netz’ 65B’s say it
Ra’am’s 65D’s say it
etcetera etcetera.
It’s kind of hard to track down if these AGM’s were actually exported with USAF markings, and if they were, whether or not they were changed / removed in their new country of service. Ultimately it’s such a small detail that I guess it doesn’t really matter enough to make a second model without the inscription.
It also get’s complicated in the sense that, Some countries never actually used these missiles (I.e Israel never used AGM-65D’s on F-15I), but because the plane is still technically capable of using them, it was given them. So it’s kinda difficult what you do there in regards to whether or not it should have a USAF inscription.
Snail just likes to copy paste this sort of stuff. Like for example, in FGR2 / FG1, if you look directly behind yourself at the head rest, there is a metal plate which says ‘‘US army’’, which obviously shouldn’t be there. (Copied over from F4C). I guess to snail it just never felt like a big enough deal to correct.
6 Likes
Oh ok.
Best solution is, if they never used it, it should not be added to other nation’s variants.
E.g. F-14A fires R-27 on IRIAF variant, but USN F-14A should not have R-27
However though for ones that are used we should track down whether USAF markings are used.
What Gaijin goes by is technical capability. (I.e if you put ‘x’ weapon system on the aircraft, will it work?)
So for example, IRL, The Luftwaffe never purchased AIM-9J’s for their F4F Phantom, but the F4F manual states that it could use them. So Gaijin gave it to them.
F-14 is a different situation. The Iranians modified their F-14’s to have the technical capability to carry R27’s, but the US did not. So it’s not possible to give them to US F-14’s. (They physically lack the systems / wiring / pylons to use them)
The reason we settled on this logic was for balance. Lots of countries buy exported vehicles from countries like US & RU, but they often don’t buy all the weapon systems the planes are technically capable of using. If snail ignores that, and gives them anyway, the game is generally more balanced.
There so many examples of them doing this, so it’s impossible to change course now. It would require so many planes getting weapons removed, and require tons of BR changes as a result.
3 Likes
This is honestly very hypocratic considering the removal of paper vehicles. this is basically the same situation.
2 Likes
Basically their real standard is something along the lines of
“A vehicle can be armed with anything we see fit for it. Only technically incompatible armament can’t be added”
And even then they are highly inconsistent with that, like the Thai F-16A Block 15 OCU having AMRAAM and HMD, neither of which were implemented with it and require physical changes to the aircraft to be made compatible, or the South African MS19 Gripen C getting SDBs only integrated with MS20 standard. Meanwhile these same rules aren’t applied on (for example) the J-11B to give it dual missile rails.
I’d personally hope for more clear and less arbitrary rules that are used equally everywhere. Ideally (but this is just my personal opinion) it would be:
Spoiler
- Armament used in service by a nation is added to the nation’s aircraft
- Armament tested by a nation is added to the nation’s aircraft
- If a nation didn’t use or test an armament, it is not added to the nation’s aircraft. Exceptions can be:
- Armament offered as compatible for export is added to the exporting nation’s aircraft, even if they don’t use it. This actually gives a benefit of more versatile armament to exporting nations.
- Armament that’s compatible (without needing modification) and in inventory of a nation, but not used on a specific aircraft can be considered
- Countermeasures as a balance case, similar to what they did with the F-5A/Cs
1 Like
Yeah, give the gripens spice
No, not really at all.
Paper vehicles are proposed ideas that have not been created, tested or put into any functional capability, claiming they would work with no issue is like saying the Lockheed Cl-1201 paper project and is perfectly realistic because documents exist for them.
For Gaijins Idea of
It is very simple. for these, its not really a hypothetical,its rather, if you walk over and smack the munition onto the pylon, would the Jets FCS recognize it and allow the munition to be used with no extra modifications? If the answer is yes, which is often is, they give it to it. Its not a hypothetical of “would it work if everything functions as this blueprint says it will.” its just straight up, “Will it work”
Now how consistent they are on the implication of this… is uh, yeah I’ll give you that one xD
1 Like