If Li is superior as people say to M’s seeker, then I don’t care.
I only care if it’s inferior.
Asking for inferior missiles or missiles that would make the platform 13.3< in BR isn’t something I want.
Which is why for example when I talk about F-15J, I only want AAM-5 [first one] if it’s equivalent to R-73 or 9M seeker, otherwise I don’t want it cause it’d cause an unnecessary BR increase.
It’s also why I’m adamant on 9Ms for these options for Britain over ASRAAM or IRIS-T, as I know for a fact IRIS-T would cause highest BRs, and am concerned ASRAAM would as well unless there’s one equivalent to the R-73 seeker.
I’d like unchirped 9Ls for the current Tornado. Would slightly make up for the randomly worse engines on the GR.1 and help distinguish the F.3 from the Italian ADV which, as far as I’m aware, never even had SuperTEMPs in real life, much less the BOL rails. Feel free to prove me wrong on that last part
From what I understand, for the most part no difference, maybe a slightly better IRCCM and it wouldnt have smokeless motor. So overall the same performance. It would just be more historically accurate for a number of airframes. Like F4F-ICE and later German Tornados
I beleive you are right about this. Im guessing it was just easier to C&P the F3 and to not worry about balance without those.
Yeah, Smin hard denied dechirped 9Ls and 9Ms. most likely because they’d be an unfair advantage for the Britain. Even though the extra lock range is of debatable use.
Tornado Gr1 should get BOL though, which would make up for that, especially if we are no where near CM overhaul to add the missing 1200 chaff to all Tornado IDS. That would mean Gr1 would have 376 CMs vs their 56 for now
99% of what would happen would be players locking and thinking they could launch only for the missile to fizz out 5 miles before the target. The main utility would come from being able to lock targets with lower heat signatures at a longer range, such as pesky F-5s. I really don’t think it would be earth-shattering, but if they’ve been denied for now then it is what it is. BOL for the GR.1 is something I’m dying for, might even let you skip the rather useless BOZ pods, though I doubt it’s a huge performance loss to carry them.
yeah, most probably would. But does line up nicely with the overall A2A strategy you have to employ in the F3.
So hopefully sooner rather than later, providing they dont drag their feet on it.
Its a tough call, depends on how much drag they account for. They may also not add them until Chaff count is also added so its a relatively speaking, a smaller buff.
Though I do fear Tornados getting BR increase, especially the Gr1 that already has the PGMs as well. I think the IDSs may end up at 11.7 when finished, but certainly need more than just 2 BOL rails. we’d need our full kit.
All this talk of a top tier, and I would trade it all for a Gr1 that was 100% finished
The PGMs kinda suck and are super gimped but that’s besides the point. I’ll give a small shoutout to the amount of work community members have put into getting more info about the Tornados - I remember how they behaved on release…
Oh god yeah, they werent even close to what they are like now. I remember wing ripping instantly if you tried to turn.
But yeah, PGMs are totally meh and i’ve never used them. Been meaning to now that we have better controls for swapping straight to the TIALD pod. In SB I had terrible issues I think because you had to cycle through the TV sight. But without a decent T-Pod their true usefullness is limited
I’m on a warpath to test PGMs with T-POD cause I found out that people are locking from beyond 20km T-Pod range limit for TV/IR munitions utilizing the T-Pod, and I find that interesting.
So I want to see if I can do that with T-POD.
However, the in-match render range issues needs work for it to be functional outside test drives if it functions there.
I could make do with TIALD, the problem is in testing I consistently locked targets with TIALD and then had to get way closer to lock with the PGM’s awful TV seeker. This is only going to get worse with all the bad weather games in RB right now. I understand not giving the PGM its datalink and LOAL for standoff capability, but having the infrared seeker version more akin to the AGM-65D would make them more useful. At this point the LGBs are basically more useful
I have found, that even when using CCRP to target a base (which can be done cross map in SB) it wont let you even fire the PGMs until you are within a certain range. In theory they have a max range of about 20kms ( I think)
That was a while ago though, so things might have changed
Yep, even using them like a Pseudo Cruise missile in SB is simply not worth it. Would be great if they could be reliably fired at their max range. But its usually half that range before it will even let you fire (and thats providing it doesnt randomly blow you out of the sky, had that happen more than once, no idea what happened)
I jsut stick with LGBs and lofting to attack targets in SB, rather than using PGMs.
That is also not even mentioning how often they miss something like a Destroyer if used as a Pseudo ASM
I just want them to upgrade to TIALD 500. Litening II pods are Gen 2. TIALD 400 we have right now is Gen 1. TIALD 500 is Gen 1.5. So will be slightly worse, but closer.
Owing to SuperTEMP looking essentially identical (unless you are stood right next to it) this is very hard to prove. Wikipedia claims the SuperTEMP wasn’t exported to Italy, but doesn’t cite any sources IIRC.
I’d rather a decent commonwealth vehicle rather than another rubbish Harrier/Tornado.
Typhoon will probably come after F-22 at this rate. I don’t even want to think about how much they will gimp it. I thought we would be safe because Germany is one of the favoured nations, but they were happy to make the Tornado trash for Germany too, so the Eurofighter isn’t safe.
2026 update “Next Gen” is released with the F22, F25, SU-57 and J20 the art they produce is 3 aircraft. the F22 the SU57 and a Trache 1 Eurofigher being the first eurofighter in game
