Sometimes, buffing some American/Soviet jets with ahistorical loadout which was granted on ‘export version’.
Sometimes, nerfing some British/French jets by removing historical weaponry…
It all feels like quite bullshit.
If mighty Americans can get their petty ahistorical flare pod on their silly F-5C,
Because the manufacturer said they could.
Then there is no reason to not give AIM-120 on JAS39(SAAF) or 750lb on F-111C.
We also can discuss napalms on British Phantoms as an example too.
What about J-11A?
Just tired of the illogical unpredictable bouncing of Gaijin’s standards.
Unfortunately the same is true for the F-4F. It should have 4 Aim-9Ls, but is stuck with 4 9Js, one of the worst stock grinds ever, at a BR where Germany doesn’t need a plane.
Show me one, a singular example, of a military agency without aid of manufacturer, programming an aircraft we have in-game to use a missile that’s also in-game.
That is the claim of your post, and I hope you intended that claim and it wasn’t a mistake.
Every single weapon on aircraft was either programmed by the weapon manufacturer to be compatible with the aircraft’s systems [Python 3s], OR programmed by the aircraft manufacturer to be compatible with the weapon systems [JF-17’s IR missile compatibility; Yak-141’s R-27, and R-60 support; etc.].
Stop moving the goalpost and digging quote for f***'s sake.
That is not a point.
You even know my claim wasn’t meant that. Right?
And I hope you were mistaken and did not intend to pick apart.
For Example,
F-4J(UK) is AIM-7F CAPABLE. because it is just F-4J from USN.
We bought them because we were running low on phantoms after the Falkland incident.
Gaijin didn’t give us AIM-7F and napalm just because We didn’t buy those weapons.
Just what I told you before(a few days ago maybe?)
Why we would waste extra dollars for an inferior conical-scanning AIM-7F when we have Skyflash with a superior inverse-monopulse seeker?
According to your claim
There is no reason that F-4J(UK) isn’t armed with AIM-7F or napalm bombs.
But Gaijin refused to give it because AIM-7F on F-4J(UK) is unhistorical.
While F-5C on USAF service never installed CM pod before retirement from USAF, but Gaijin granted then because CM-less premium jets will be not popular.
Ahahahahah. What a joke.
including Yak-141, there are quite much of vehicles which are having ‘intended’ ahistorical loadouts.
(better than historically they did)
On the other side, there are quite much of vehicles which are even not allowed to have their full historical loadout and got limited.
I am telling that their illogical double-standard is nothing but full of bullshit.
@Stockholm_Blend
Me since 2019: “War Thunder uses manufacturer proof. Military agencies’ actions and claims are not used for War Thunder.”
Your post portrays you as not knowing what the words moving or goalpost mean.
The manufacturer of F-5A says all F-5As are capable of countermeasures. And yes, F-5C is an F-5A electronically, as proven by the manufacturer.
Your post also portrays you as not knowing what the words double or standard mean.
I highly suggest you breath down, as it’s probable those 4 misused words could be linked to emotion.
Also, “full historical” is a subjective personal term.
That’s not what is specified. A countermeasure dispensing suite was eventually designed and produced for the F-5.
The F-5C & F-5A configured F-5’s in US (USAF) service (As an F-5, is arguable if the T-38 counts, but is besides the point) were not equipt with said dispensers, only select airframes acquired by the USN as F-5N’s were.
The USAF never operated the F-5E in a combat role.
As such since the configuration and operator as specified, no the F-5A nor F-5C should have the AN/ALE-40 mounted. Could it have been mounted maybe, was it no.
“It can be installed on any MAU-12 or “Aero 27” Bomb rack”, "Aircraft like F-4, A-7 and F-15 "
It should be fairly obvious that the Video / Brochure being referenced is attempting to solicit sales of the Gunpod to Clients with existing inventories of relevant aircraft.
Although they were bought unarmed, in 1948 they were armed in multiple places by gunners with 7.62mm machine guns, and in 1956 during the war, they were upgraded with .50 Cals in the same places as the American ones, although the turrets and placements were slightly different between the B-17Gs Israel operated. It’s not completely ahistorical, and it’s fairly accurate for the 1956 standards applied to these bombers.
Wasn’t Yak-141 real payload just wooden mockup weapons to test aerodynamics and for weight studies? Its said the pylons weren’t even wired. The radar was a wooden block as well, just to simulate weight.
All pics I can find confirm that. Just mockup missiles without even openings for the rocket engine.
What is this thread about?
This Panther has a wooden mockup weapon as well. Can we please upgrade it, too?
That wooden mockup weapons doesn’t means it is a not go payload. Thats is a normal way to use the weight and aerodynamic of particular weapons form to test stress in the airframe. Me and everybody, with minimal aeronautic knowledge catch that in a glans. You are not in that knowledge group.
Doesn’t change the fact that it never carried real weapons. It lacked all neccessary internal systems and all wirings to control ordnance. This also applies for the gun. This jet was just able to fly as a test bed.
The entire fire control system of Yak-141 was functional, it was just <2 months from being installed all in one package for testing before cancellation.
It’s equivalent to the Kikka where the Kikka guns were there ready to be installed, but weren’t cause it was cancelled before.
