I do not think either the A or C should get Meteor at this time, but all the Bs… maybe, which would include the US F-35B, but mostly to ensure that the UK’s only 5th gen isnt defacto the weakest because they denied its IRL weapons.
(Though at the rate the US is dragging their feet, Meteors replacement will be in service before meteor is intergrated, but Meteor MLU hopefully wont need much in the way of re-intergration)
Tbh I hope only the brits get it
It would make no sense to give meteor to USA
if they added IIR missiles, which they kind of have to for the other gen 5’s, then wed probably get an HMD+9X F-22
just like it made no sense to add the F/A-18 to the UK? or F-16 to France?
the US has more justification to have Meteor on at least its F-35B’s than any of the countries i mentioned have for those vehicles. take a long hard look at the F-35 in the Meteor testing pictures
✨sub tree✨
Of course, the alternative was Rafale and Su-30MKI for GB which I’m sure one of the two might come in the future.
But srsly, there’s no other jets that aren’t American or a mix of multiple nations (India) that wouldn’t upset someone so there’s really no reason to be mad at people having basic versions (with some variance in weapon choices) of another nation’s jet.
Any? xD
Would be weird for the country who had it first to not “have more justification” to have it on their F-35B.
“Yeah but America tested it on their F-35” and then you remember literally every F-35 barring Israeli ones are 1:1 copies of the American F-35s so that really wouldn’t fly… Because if it were U.K. testing Meteors on their own, people would then make the argument “well, they’re all the same so really all F-35s can use Meteor”.
See how that’s problematic?
the US always get leeched off of by parasite nations, what about US players who are sick of seeing almost all our stuff get spammed everywhere? subtree doesnt mean they have to add all that stuff, you admit it yourself with the Su-30 and Rafale example, there was literally no point to add the F/A-18’s to the UK (which they dont have a subtree to “justify”) besides like a .3 BR gap that didnt even matter.
so should we get AIM-120’s on our F-4’s since we had the AMRAAM before anyone else?
thats a completely valid point, US F-35’s have carried it, no one else has and the updates to carry Meteor havent even been sent globally if integration work isnt done, end of discussion
…because nations are heavily incentivised (read: forced) to buy American irl? This isn’t new information lol
Yes, the GB air tech tree is one of the few whose sub tree lines aren’t as defined as others (like France or Sweden), and for the most part sub tree additions are usually for filling in gaps because Harrier → F-35B wouldn’t make sense, something has to go in between.
That’s more of a balancing thing and AMRAAM with F-4 radar or airframe wouldn’t be a nice experience, but in the future that could be a thing so you never know
So you’d be okay if everyone else had AIM-260 on their F-35? Despite the nation never having ordered or even shown interest in ordering it at all?
Like 0 paper trail or whatever towards any possible AIM-260 acquisition?
This is one of the more touchier subjects regarding cross-nation C&P with munitions. Gaijin is already testing limits with the whole Malaysian Su-30 carrying Kh-38s, this will definitely upset quite a few people either way
you understand the exact same thing is going to happen to the US with the AV-8B+ and F-35B but no one is whining about that because it doesn’t really matter that much for the US or UK.
that still doesnt justify the F/A-18 getting copy pasted to so many nations. did you know that not one of the actual tech trees in game operates the Hornet except for the US? the same thing has happened with the F-111C, there isnt even a subtree and there wasnt a gap since they had the Tornado GR1 at the exact same BR, yet they still added it to the UK.
im talking about the F-4F ICE
what? no other nation is doing the integration work for those so how is it comparable to what the US is doing with Meteor on its own F-35’s
so US stuff can get spammed everywhere to nations that never even operated it for years on end, and we are in the wrong for complaining about it, but one missile that only the US has tested on the F-35 shouldnt be added to the US because people might get upset about it?
US used/has something similar to F-4F ICE?
Fair enough
Australia, Finland.
GB and Sweden.
I can’t speak for Sweden, but for GB it isn’t just “UK”, it’s essentially a Commonwealth tree so technically it would, even if Australia bought it after independence (and is likely one of the few nations in the world being represented under the GB tree with little to no problems).
Tornado GR1 is goated, but it also lacks in CAS a bit and the F-111C was a heavily requested aircraft.
(They’re also not at the same BR anymore iirc)
Fair, but the US didn’t have a Phantom with AMRAAM, no? They went straight to F-16/F-15 and Germany couldn’t cause they didn’t have either of those so had to do a “in the meantime…” with their Phantom.
Fun fact, the US isn’t paying for it. Their planes are only doing the work as testbeds because:
but also, it’s cheaper to do it on US soil than UK/Europe because all of Lockheeds technicians doing the integration work lives in the US.
It’s like expecting French Mirage IIIs to have Israeli Shahir missiles because they were used as testbeds. It just doesn’t make sense at all
You keep saying this and then conveniently ignore the idea of subtrees. It doesn’t matter if the “main” nation didn’t, the sub-nations in that tree did. What’s so hard to grasp here?
The US isn’t the one actively funding nor is it even entertaining the idea of using it themselves, why should they get it?
Yeah, I agree. But they will complain too much, besides it would be the only American aircraft with a good fox 3
This is only because the US broke their contract and thus forced the UK to let them do the integration which is about a decade+ behind schedule now
not a sub
not every vehicle from a subtree needs to be added as we have seen before
the US does have at least one F-35 that has carried Meteor though, which is more than anyone else.
doesnt change the fact that US F-35’s are to date the only ones to carry them, and Lockheed is doing the integration work for them like you said.
still should not happen, not every subtree vehicle needs to be added
like i said, it doesnt change the objective truth that only US F-35’s have carried them. its just the matter of fact.
still doesnt make Meteor magically appear on UK F-35’s lol
Whether you call it a “subtree” or a “representative line,” Australian (and others) jets exists in the GB tree to provide variety and fill performance gaps. Saying “it’s not a sub” doesn’t change the fact that Gaijin uses these ties to give the GB tree unique platforms like the F-111C or F/A-18s.
Just like “every weapon tested by another nation” doesn’t need to be added?
This is the “testbed” logic again. Being the manufacturer and providing the lab space (the airframe) for a client’s integration test doesn’t mean you own the weapon.
Lockheed is a private contractor being paid by the UK to do that work. It’s a “service-for-hire” for a British requirement. If you pay a mechanic to install a custom engine in your car, that doesn’t mean the mechanic gets to claim that engine design for every other car he works on.
The US Air Force and Navy haven’t spent a single cent on Meteor integration because they don’t want it. Using a US-owned airframe as the “test bench” is just a matter of convenience and cost-saving for the customer (the UK), it doesn’t grant the US military “ownership” of the capability in-game or IRL.
Of course, this would also mean (by your logic) that the US could also get Python 5’s (as an example, there are others) as they’ve tested it for Singapore’s Air Force? If the US got every single missile ever tested by their aircraft (as they routinely do…) it would be a balancing nightmare.
That’s not really up to us anyways, though it doesn’t matter either way
Refer to the reply 2 quotes up.
It’s too early to say that. We still have 0 info about AIM-260 which could be very good or decent enough for war thunder. Even AIM-174B can be good enough especially against stuff like AWACS (Which would be placed very far away) and Tankers (If they ever add those)
“unique” haha
but if the UK’s F-35B got it along with the AIM-120D-3 then all of a sudden its perfectly fine?
of course our F-16’s could. i dont think there is really a balancing reason to do it like the with the F-35B, but if there was why not? you know, the first aircraft to fire ASRAAM was an F-16C iirc. and the US actually was interested in the program until it dropped out in favor of the 9X for cost and stockpile reasons.
not comparable, for WT they will usually allow weapons if it has been shown to be carried/used and it doesnt bring up balance concerns. either we get it too, since our F-35’s have carried them which is what matters, or no one does because of balance concerns
is there a precedent for specifically the expense on integration and nothing else being the reason for denying a weapon?
Parasite nations…
Serious, mate?
Thats called an export market, not parasite
for WT purposes it absolutely is a parasite, its not like we get paid in GE for every US vehicle in another tree lol
And, no one else gets “compansated” when their stuff ends up in other trees why should the US be special
