Smin1080p

We literally work together

You are confusing things.

Suggesting hypothetical / test armament = suggestion

Missing historical / operational main armament or configurations = report

Again, this is your view and take on this, but ive already explained whats needed. The F-4F manual specifically and clearly states AIM-9J. Thats whats required:

You asked whats needed, thats whats needed. You do not need to keep asking if I or the devs "know how this works". We all do, but this is how things are based.

Im not going to keep repeati

Most of which are not standard ordinance, but theoretical / test ordinance which is perfectly fine as a suggestion.

Not the same im afraid. The F-4F manual specifically lists AIM-9J. I understand what perspective you are looking at this from, but its not sufficient or the same to get the J for the F-104S. It will need to be something linking it in the same way as the F-4F for it to be considered. Not only that, but the F-104S and its variants can carry even better than the J in future.

Because theoretical and foreign weapon options are not for repo

Not really. Since we have the F-4F manual actually stating it which backs it up. If you can find a similar source that says the same for the F-104S, then as we have already said, feel free to report that.

But this discussion is about as far off topic as it can be now.

One magazine photo in which couldnt really be verfiied which F-104S variant it is.

Not only that, but as has been explained, we don't have all aspect IR A2A right now.

Nobody disputed that. What we are saying is, we dont have all aspect A2As right now for any

Giving the Italian F-104S AIM-9L as your trying to suggest is not the same as a German F-4F getting AIM-9J thats listed in its manual.

There is no need for a statement because literally nothing has changed. Its always been this way.

Its just dramatic news to some people.

We are a game. First and foremost. Historical accuracy is at the heart of everything and always will be. When something is possible and is supported by sources or grounded in realism, it will be considered by the developers. This is not anything new.

Most of the tanks and aircraft in game never saw combat, never got armed or never used the shells / bombs they have. People seem to forget that.

AIM-9L is beyond the capabilities of what even Sparrows can do and are far more useful in the current meta. F-104S is not even the worst of all the F-104 variants and itself can carry Sparrows and has some of the best CAS loadouts.

As we already mentioned today, further loadouts can be considered from suggestions and reports when the time is right. But often many people confuse the F-104S variants.

The quote was referring to the F-104S, which is a jet. Jet and Helicopters have entirely different mechanics, loadouts and gameplay.

I really d

Again, a helicopter. Which is not a jet

A picture of an AIM-9B with a protective cover on is not cause to consider AIM-9E on the F-104S. You would need to present an actual valid source with it clearly shown.

The front is longer because it has the blanking protective cover on it. Not because its an AIM-9E.

This also has no relevance to this topic.

As above. Helicopters yes because its their only means of self defence against jets.

We dont have them for any jet aircraft in game right now.

Your talking about the F-104S, which last time I checked, was still a jet. Unless Italy has the first rocket powered helicopter.

Helicopters yes because they are another matter. Its basically essential for them to defend themselves against aircraft.

Currently jets dont have them yet.

We have not had any confirmation or denial from the devs on this missile. Like many other suggested ordinance spanning all nations, its just a case of a lot of suggestions to be considered.

We (Community Managers) have had no confirmation of any denial. So the weapon has not been officially denied at all.

Thats not a confirmation, im just saying we have not rejected the idea entirely like you assumed.

AIM-9L yes. An all aspect missile which we dont have in game yet for any nation.

The developers have not made any offical comment on this missile.

Nobody said this at all. You just made this assumption. Those things have already been suggested / reported among many other ordinance options people want to see.

It doesn't mean they have been ruled out entirely.

ICE was a 90s project to extend the life of them until the Eurofighter could enter service. They had other upgrades over time before ICE.

What about them? We never said its entirely ruled out. But it has nothing to do with this subject.

They have been reported and suggested and could be considered for the future. We recently had AS.20s added for the R/4, historical related matters just take time to review and gather all the necessary data.

Each vehicle is judged on a case by case basis as gromvoiny said. Provided its backed up by some sort of historical basis and grounding it can be suggested (if its more hypothetical) or reported (if its a straight up missing ordinance option).

We said a future patch. Nobody said soon on a GR.1A.

Indeed it wont be the ICE 90s upgrade but still a later Phantom and better than the one in the event.

Because in this instance, the F-4F manual makes it clear its possible on that aircraft.

A source would be required linking the F-104S and the AIM-9J.