for F-15E*
definitely not, the only aircraft I could see getting aim9x and not being wildly overpowered and breaking the game in the next few updates would be AH-1Z
i said “Im using the AIM-9X and the F/A-18C as examples”
Not once did i say that other top tier nations shouldnt get their own respective missile, nor that the game should be “Balanced in Favor of the US”
i play multiple top tier nations and USA is the nation i tend to avoid playing when not in a squad because it feels abysmal to play against aircraft with control canards and thrust vectoring while being stuck with an airframe that hates low speeds, the SU-33 at 13.0 can massively outperform even the f-18 in a dogfight, The inclusion of the AIM-9X would make the USA more competitive as a filler to otherwise un-maneuverable aircraft.
Adding the AIM-9X to us aircraft that are indeed less maneuverable in a dog fight would level the playing field and make it so that us aircraft have a tradeoff to play. instead of having the maneuverability of a Eurofighter it makes up for it by having missiles that are a little more aggressive then the ones we have in game
Nobody here is “Crying for” anything, the USA needs something that can keep up with things like the Rafale, Eurofighter, SU-30SM, JAS39 (Less so) and the new F2 platform. i was simply suggesting that instead of adding something people were gonna cry about being “overpowered” like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, that they balance the bulkier playstyle of the US aircraft by adding more aggressive missiles to the airframes that exist
I was unaware of this because i don’t watch dev streams, as i feel its a waste of my time
Also, Please quote the whole sentence next time, so that way people are not potentially deceived by an out of context quote
Can you link this? Seems very interesting
If you wanna talk generational gaps, Look at the first flights of the
F-16 (2nd Best US Dogfighter) 1974
F/A-18 (Best US Dogfighter) 1978
SU-30SM (Best USSR Dogfighter) 2012
From the F/A-18 to the SU-30SM a gap of 34 years
From the F-16 to the SU-30SM a gap of 38 years
You’re joking, right?
2 Likes
Wait until this guy learns that the first flight of an aircraft’s test derivative means absolutely nothing.
10 Likes
No.
:P
15 Likes
Is there a link to this? I remember seeing it but I can’t find it.
I was making an intentional point to the “15 year gap” statement when it came to missiles, INTENTIONALLY
if we wanna talk about them actually entering service
" SM for Serijnyi Modernizirovannyi - “Serial Modernized”. Announced 2011, a specialized version of the thrust-vectoring Su-30MKI for the VKS to be produced by the [Irkut Corporation] NATO reporting name Flanker-H." AND
“The Su-30SM attained [full operational capability (FOC) in January 2018, by a resolution of the Russian president.”
and the F-18C
“The F/A-18C and D models are the result of a block upgrade in 1987”
Which is still a gap of 24-31 years, SO YES, i believe that the USA should get at least its missiles from the early 2000’s if not the aircraft.
I love how quotes such as this exclusively follow suggestions that are not balanced in the first place.
A) 9X is miles ahead of current IR A2A missiles aviable to planes
B) other advanced IR A2A missiles would be even worse (EFT with IRIS-T or Rafele with IR MICAs) to balance
C) US airframes arent as bad as to need 9X
9 Likes
And? The AIM-9M-1 and R-73 were both finalized in 1982, there is no “gap” in the date of either nations’ missiles.
In terms of capability, you have missing guidance enhancements on the 9M that aren’t reflected in the game (have fun trying to dictate an IRL missile’s PID analytics) while the R-73’s FM is gimped.
Both have their strongest attributes slightly misrepresented in-game, giving them pretty equal playing field.
And? Your current F-16C-50 was first procured in August of 2004, the exact spec of Su-30SM that you have in-game was first assembled in June of 2002.
Congratulations, you’re nitpicking the details of a third-rate aircraft that never received extensive modernization and funding.
Must have sucked to lose ACF, eh?
The current top-tier aircraft are an Aug '04 spec F-16C, an Aug '99 spec F-18C (not '87), and god knows whatever the hell the F-15E is supposed to be… I couldn’t care less, half of them don’t exist anymore so it’s irrelevant in my mind.
Why in the world would America get missiles from the '00s if not a single other nation would get them? No R-74M '750? Hell, that was the same date as the 9M-9. By this rate we should have the R-74M before the AIM-9X-1, giving us another 3 R-73 variants to go.
4 Likes
Even though the introduction of AIM-9X is too early and it will doom US mains eventually, for arguing’s sake, if we consider that AIM-9X is needed for F/A-18C because it is awful.
‘Finnish F-18C which still stucks with AIM-120B just passing by’’
Why OP completely ignore the ‘other hornets’ but claimed that [F/A-18C for USA] is needed to get AIM-9X to USA?
I just wonder.
This topic somehow reminded me about another topic about ‘USA needs to grab AIM-120C-7 exclusively to maintain superiority’
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/the-new-version-of-the-american-tech-tree-f15-e-f-18c-late-should-get-aim-120c7-to-adapt-to-the-current-wt-air-combat-landscape/
3 Likes
I would agree if we didn’t already have the MICAs and R-73s- both of which are significantly better DF missiles than the Aim-9M.
Actual competition against the Rafale/MICAs.
If you get AIM-9X, french will have access to the IIR version of MICA.
and will use it against you with the AAM version of MICA, which you are already seeing.
Then things will be even worse to ya guys.