I mean, a handful of B2 bombers flying half way around the world and striking highly defended nuclear sites in a precisely coordinated operation that only 1 nation in history could pull off is pretty dominant.
Coughing baby
Hydrogen bomb
Wont waste time with you.
To think that a strike plane could dominate air is just… wrong.
Could Britain have pulled off that mission?
Yeah, South Africa is our main sub tree, yet we are missing the Mirage III, Mirage F1C, Atlas Cheetah (Mirage with R-Darters), plus a few helicopters, multiple tanks, plus the fact the TTD has a 120mm cannon that for some reason is nit in the game, plus a 140mm cannon that was made, yet that isn’t there either. Meanwhile America gets a bunch of OP experimental tanks, and half of Japan’s Rank 3-6 is just prototypes.
You seem to have forgotten, Britain dominated much of the world, while fighting peer adversaries. America still loses wars against people using equipment made before 1960.
they only got the r-27R. Not the t variant. not the er variant. the FCS isn’t compatible with them. yet those nations still get them. The nations didn’t “buy” the entire family of r-27. the nations only bought the r-27R. not the t. not the ER.
unlike the american f-35 that literally is the only nation that uses the meteor rn lol and is compatible with them.
america not buying meteor doesn’t matter, the other nations didnt buy r-27er/r-27t. yet they still get them.
America getting meteors is complete fair game
1 Like
And what near peer enemy has Britain defeated in the last 100+ years entirely on its own?
1 Like
Ottoman Empire was on par with them, Britain was fighting Germany, Italy, and Vichy France by themselves for two years before the Soviets were attacked, Argentina had advanced fighter at the time of the Falklands War, plus Britain beat up Vietnam.
Oh, and we could talk about how successful the other Commonwealth nations were in their wars, like Rhodesia and South Africa.
The Boers were also near peer adversaries since they were trained by the Brits prior, the Zulus were also one of the most oppressive empires in Africa at the time, shall I continue?
Meanwhile, who has America managed to defeat? They had to beg for a truce in Korea, Vietnam became Communist, Afghanistan is still free from American puppets. The only “wars” America has won is the Persian Gulf war, which was due to half the world helping them, while America was more focused on TKing half the UN.
That was the only aspect EFT was struggling on ARB.
AESA radar literally fixed its sole problem so dont tell me EFT’s are struggling. Especially while using a radar that didn’t even enter serial production yet.
I’d love for you to publicly ask what the response from Gaijin would be on this, because it is my understanding that the “rule” you’re clinging to doesn’t actually exist in the way you think it does.
The USA has no need for the Meteor when they are getting their own comparable domestic tech in the AIM-260 anyway. Likewise, European nations won’t need the AIM-260 (if they don’t purchase it) because it isn’t what they use or intend to buy. A slight of this is the Australian Super Hornet, which IMO won’t need it (or the AIM-174B) either as it would be one of the worst airframes in 15.0+ matches where it would be placed with such missiles
There would be zero point in playing any other nation for the F-35 if the logic you swear by, that compatibility always equals inclusion was actually applied here. It would essentially make the USA an “all-in-one” nation, removing the variety needed to differentiate these trees when the inevitable F-35 copy-pasting happens. Spoiler: that “rule” isn’t going to fly here.
1 Like
What rule.
I’m just saying technical compatibility means that America can get meteor
I mean anyone can get anything if you stretch it far enough, but imo the idea is to try and keep some uniqueness in each tree. If USA gets AIM-260 only and UK gets Meteor only, it’s also fair game isn’t it? While keeping uniqueness and a reason to grind both…
You and I both know nothing is added (or considered to be added) solely on this reason.
So many examples of vehicles being technically compatible, but not receiving anything. The latest example are the AESAphoons or JAS39E with AIM-120Ds.
Oh yeah I’m definitely stealing this
XD isn’t that what everyone calls them? What do I look like spelling “AESA EUROFIGHTER” every single time?
1 Like
I call them aesa eft, idk
1 Like
Scammerphoon because no way that thing worth more then 100mil a unit
1 Like
you forget that technical compatibility only works for adding weapons to non US aircraft
according to these people it doesnt apply for planes in the US tech tree
4 Likes
I’d remove them from the game.
I get GJ’s attempt to balance the top tier when there was anything else, but now, ERs and ETs should be removed from Mg29s, as well as other weapons that don’t belong to the planes that aren’t top tier anymore.
Not anymore. GJ nerfed EF’s AESAs and Gripen’s PS05A, after the 9th wave (and maybe others but I didn’t notice). Not only in notching, but in tracking in general, as the contacts disappear, tracking brackets disappear, so you don’t know whether the radar is tracking or not and then randomly reappear, etc.
True, but that was the bone, for disallowing active Brimstones, for which was no need, as the Brimstones are radar guided with lower accuracy than IIR weapons with a small warhead, which, along with chaff smoke, could’ve make actual Brimstone playable against.
You see, that’s the problem. When GJ attempts to “balance” something, it almost always ends up worse than if they didn’t touch anything. For starters I’d be happy to see MICA and 120 fixed, by the book, but not GJ’s book, but Electromagnetism book. Then, there wouldn’t be even the need for Meteors, except in some future.
This is another issue the GJ refuses to fix.
2 Likes