A good amount of us want decompression just got to keep pushing for that because one plane isn’t just the problem it’s multiple anyways
1 Like
Literally the message I was replying to lol
Compression and decompression, real proper decompression, happen vehicle by vehicle. Hoping for Gaijin to come around and just do some magic decompression that fixes everything is, frankly, ridiculous. It’s been the strategy of the community for years but we haven’t had any significant top level decompression for air since around 2022, four years ago!
Meanwhile, compression has been slowly chugging along. Take a look at the worst offenders- these aren’t mass amounts of OP aircraft added or existing aircraft dropped in BR. It’s one, or two, a few aircraft here and there that have been added at a BR too low or had their BR moved too low.
All because people shared your sentiment that “oh it’s just one aircraft and there are other broken ones too, I’d rather this be broken than mid and I still support decompression”
It’s because of people like you, who surely mean well but aren’t thinking everything through, that decompression is the absolute mess that it is. Asking for massive decompression in one breath and then advocating small compression in the next is how we get so many aircraft that are more overpowered than they were at release! Do you remember when 12.0s never faced Su-27s, when 11.3s never saw F-16s, when F-14s were long-range monsters but at least your F-4 had a chance at close range because they lackeed IRCCM, when AMRAAMs could only be found on subsonic 13.0s? Because I do. But people complained, comparing their favourite aircraft to the most overpowered ones it faced, and these aircraft were moved down or buffed. And so the community that supposedly loves decompression is the number one driver of compression.
Tbh I don’t think it is ridiculous it happened before it can happen again I also don’t expect major decompression to happen ever year as well either way I hear you i wouldn’t mind it going to 13.7 either
If it’s stupid why are you engaging with it?
AIM-120A, no
pre-AIM120 dummy YAIM-120 with no seeker or warhead separation test, yes
The F-16 XL has the APG-68, which has never been installed on the F-16 XL.
Just wait until the F-14D (VF-11) come out, and suggest an NF-14 that can shoot AMRAAM with APG-71. F-14 can release, fire, and guide an AIM-120A to the target in STT mode with the AWG-9 in the 1987 and 1989 2-on-2 and 4-on-4 AIM-120A trials, where the F-15, F-16 and F-18 were all capable of firing AIM-120A and hit their target in TWS mode.
As a japan player and main: the F-16AJ could/SHOULD be removed entirely if they made the thai F-16A OCU non-fictional and removed its AIM120s, lowering its BR in the process
alternatively adding XF-2A which could be without AAM-3, or an Early model of F-2A similar to premium one
1 Like
now that I realize they don’t need to change the designation of the tech tree VF-11 into the (R) they could just give AMRAAMs and move it up as well
They could also give AMRAAMs to the premium f14D instead since USA doesn’t have a 13.3-13.7 premium yet
By in game practices, there is no rule against F-14D getting AIM-120.
It is held back to boost attention to the current event, where they add AIM-120 to an even less relevant vehicle
1 Like
the APG-71 was ready 10 years before the F-14D or amraam entered service? or 6 years before F-14B entered service?
“currently in operational test The F-14D (avionics/raciar) first flight took place on November 23, 1987.”
And the AMRAAM Initial Operational Test & Evaluation started in 1985 iirc
supposedly awg-9 had block variants where one was a An/apg-71 use to be called An/awg-9 Block V although I still need to verify this
F14D never carried Aim120. One modified F14A carried Aim120, we should be asking that.
Look at the comments above
I just wonder why we need to gatekeep ‘fully-historical’ F-14D behind that damn paywall.
You lads and Congress invested money elsewhere instead of investing in a software upgrade for the AIM-120
but you lads keep yapping about ‘why we need to have AIM-120 even though it is unhistorical’
Because ‘Yak-141 is armed with planned weaponry’ and 'so we need to get our planned weaponry too’.
Okay, okay, alright, having a what-if version of the F-14D idea itself might be a neat idea. (even though I dislike it, but well.)
But, honestly, do we really need to limit the historical F-14D behind that damn 80-quid paywall?
So, long story short.
I need to pay 80 quid for F-14D ‘BECAUSE’ you want to have an unhistorical AIM-120 on F-14D?
Hell no.
I might be agreeable if it goes like
- Tornado F.3/ F.3(Late.)
- Tornado GR.1 / GR.4
- JAS39A / C
- JA37C / D / DI
- F/A-18C (Early.) / (Late.)
But with the current idea?
I have no plan to waste 80 quid on your fun.
1 Like
Couldnt XF-2A technically carry AIM-9L?
I think it’s better if they just remove the 9Ms and move it down to 13.3, since it has no HMD and MAW pylons. 12.7 with only sparrows is a bit much given that the current AJ is one of the worst 12.7s to play right now.
Like, it’s literally just an ADF with 9Ms, why is it 13.7? May as well get its 9Ms removed and just run full 120s, wouldn’t change a plane much but gets a way friendlier matchmaker.
That’s what I mean, XF-2A would lose AAM-3 and instead carry 9L + 7F or M.
No, the AIM120s are FICTIONAL and should be removed first before any other changes are considered.
1 Like