you mean a basically unflairable (from behind or the side), 360 degree capable (for example because of the 90 degree gimbal of the seeker and lock on after launch), 50 G missile would be by far the best?
I think you forgett that the missile guidance and IRCCM is significantly better than any ata missile in game.
Similarly the R74 isn’t in game and shouldn’t for similar reasons.
Yes, there will come a time, where everyone will have AIM 9 X Block 2 and R74, and IRIS-T and ASRAMM etc, but not with the regular Hornet as the best of that tree.
Similarly how an F15EX would also be overpowered (just look at the tests the US did comparing it to the F15E)
BVVD already said on the stream: IIR missiles for aviation will be added only when adding 5th generation aircraft or when aircraft have modern defense systems
No, just no. The 9X is way better than any other IR missile currently on a plane. We don’t need even more difficult to flare IR missiles, the current ones are well balanced and can work for essentially every plane that we’re getting in the future. Let me ask: what benefit does adding wildly more capable IR missiles bring to the game?
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
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
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.
