ok mr “gibs me meteor”
only on the F-35 where there is extensive photo and written evidence.
and realistically, the F-35’s will end up like the Typhoons regardless of our opinions, all basically the same except for maybe the F-35I
only through gaijin laziness.
if you wish to ignore the private venture aspect of this you can only get an inert meteor missile for the US, the same argument for why we cant get EAP, its not a real missile mounted but a test dummy
fair enough. in time though
idk, part of the F-35 is commonality. so there is a case to be made for them all being largely the same.
The US working to integrate the Meteor in the F35 is far more involved than a couple Brits sitting in an M1A2.
American F35 flying with a Meteor missile. That makes it feasible, which is the basis for adding weapons to the game. Therefore, the US should get the Meteor.
theyre not gonna like this lol
1 Like
we literally bought an abrams as well as the more often mentioned tank crew driving one around in germany
INERT
and overseen by the british
1 Like
Who cares? It’s feasible, so add it to the game. I can’t wait to fly the F35 with Meteors and AIM-260s. That would be a lot of fun.
not until one has been fired.
America needs to actually make it properly first, also needs to be fired from one
probs not. these BVR missiles are gonna be a waste of hardpoint in arcade or realistic. only the extreme ranges in sim are gonna see these do much.
running a 9X or ASRAAM is going to make them pretty obsolete
AIM-260 exists and there is very strong evidence of live firing having happened. Idk about F-35 though id imagine it’s a priority
Yes, it should be placed in the British tree, and the current situation is a misrepresentation.
What is in the US tech tree right now is not the Australian M1A1 AIM. It is a US Marine Corps export variant that is being labeled as “AIM” while lacking multiple features of the actual Australian service vehicle. Calling this “representation” of the Australian Abrams is simply incorrect.
The Australian Army’s M1A1 AIM is defined by its specific upgrade package and service configuration, not merely by the fact that it originated from US hulls. Australia operates the tank independently, with its own doctrinal use, equipment choices, and integration: exactly the same justification used for every other Australian vehicle already placed in the British tree.
The argument that “it’s American-built so it must be US tree” does not hold up, because War Thunder already ignores this logic when it comes to Australia (M1A1 AIM vs F/A-18A).
If Gaijin were consistent, Australian vehicles would be scattered across US, UK and German trees, but they aren’t. They are grouped under Britain for all but 1 vehicle:
“Need” is very subjective in Smins/Gaijin’s argument, so are “suited” and “appropriate”.
Right now we have the worst possible outcome:
- The US tree gets a vehicle that isn’t actually theirs
- The Australian service variant is not correctly represented
- And Australia’s ground lineup remains incomplete despite already being tied to Britain
If Gaijin wants a USMC AIM, fine: keep it in the US tree and label it correctly. But the Australian M1A1 AIM belongs in the British tree, alongside the rest of Australia’s equipment, as a distinctly unique vehicle, not a mislabeled placeholder.
Anything else is just inconsistent tree logic and poor historical fidelity.
8 Likes
The Brits never fired the M1A2, so they can’t get it.
The AIM-260 has been in low rate production since 2024 and full production was authorized this summer. It has been test fired by the Air Force and Navy.
Can you post the said very strong evidence?
What you just said is nonsense. King has no actual power. The Monarchy stopped having power years ago. The Prime Ministers are the ones who enact these laws and such. So once again, you are not making much sense.
It was produced in the United States upon an order that the Aussies paid for. I don’t know how any of what you are saying makes actual sense.
It was produced and built in the United States based on a design produced and built in the United States.
The only thing that makes it “Australian” is where it is being delivered.
So this argument once again makes no sense.
Again show me that rule where gaijin states that US export must endup in the US tree otherwise you’re just keep going to lose
Please show me that it has to go to another tech tree, despite them never producing it in their own country.
Sir are you aware that Pakistan exist ?, even though it’s not yet a confirmed sub but everything Pakistani is in the Chinese tree and Smin already said that things go where they’re best suited not always 100% a guarantee to be added to it’s produced nation.
So again find me that specific rule that states “The country that have exported should 100% have a right too it” as I’ll be waiting
Ok, and Pakistan is related to this thread, how exactly?
Every Pakistan tech atm is inside the Chinese tree even non chinese stuff like the Mi-35 and the Oplot, literally the same status Australia was before the AIM’s. From my view there is no such rule of the produced nation should 100% automatically should have a right for it’s export tech. Gaijin has shown they’re willing to add these tech in the bases of who should be more suited to have it.
Now that after the Vickers line is literally a place where they openly said they’ll dump Commonwealth things there along with exports it just make sense for the AIM’s to come to the British tree so it can go along side it’s running mates.
3 Likes