You do still need to achieve a soft lock and wait for the aim54 to accelerate and get to Mach 3.8 because I’ve never seen it go Mach 4.0 or even sustain it and plus the f15 can put the f14 in a defensive as well once the f14 gets 30 miles close to the f15
1 Like
I mean, i just don’t know how to fly an f14 as I’ve never had one, I just stated it is really easy to defeat and can’t think of a peer plane that I’d easily lose to one in. What’d be a good tactic do you think to beat, a semi competent f15?
The thing is, if he wants to kill me, he’ll have to maintain lock-on, and within the AIM-7M’s range, the AIM-54 doesn’t need soft lock it reaches the Mad Dog very quickly , So the F-14 is much quicker to respond to aggression
Positioning, I think, is essential for the F-14 to deal with the F-15,
Yes he has to maintain a lock but it sill possible to put pressure and notch and the aim54 does need soft lock to fire the missile as it should be know awg9 can be blind and it has a long pitbull range but it’s still a slow missile unless it gets a chance to get up to speed but then their the fact that we’re talking a aim54 witch can be notch easily
Let’s say both take off at the same time, won’t the f15 get to altitude much quicker? And can then just notch as the f14 keeps getting closer and then pull in. Makin short work of it. I really can’t see a realistic way f14 can beat it.
How about you guys fix the armor of the israeli tanks?? Are you really not going to do anything about it? Like, come on, this is unacceptable!
So all our Merkava Mk. 4 tanks, Both the Namer’s and the Eitan, are still gonna have their nothing armor that doesn’t do anything? what about these??
- Merkava 4 (all) armor values too low and mislabeled
- Namer incorrect armor type/layout/thickness
- Merkava tanks Radiador openings missing armor
- Namer 30 incorrect side armour thickness and composition
- Eitan (P) IFV missing some internal armor walls
- [DEV] Israeli Eitan Prototype Armor Incorrect Still
Is this reoccurring Issue with the armor of the Israeli tanks, really gonna simply be ignored again???
14 Likes
F14 beats F15 in a one circle (nose to nose) fight and can technically compete in the two circle figh (tip to tail) but if you are flying the tomcat (Any variant) you want to keep it nose to nose and remember you have more nose authority so you can make quicker pulls of the nose at slower speeds. As far as BVR they are pretty evenly matched depending on loadout, If you have the altitude advantage try and keep it and if they have it, make him come down to your level. If you are fast and high, get a pheonix off as soon as possible to force more of a defensive reaction from them.
Altitude isn’t just about positioning it’s a combination of factors, and with the Fox-3 you can control where the F-15 goes
Thanks Merrick and cofcof, when I do finally get a tomcat, might get the d version as i think it is very cool. I will try and remember this. But perhaps we should conclude our discussion here before we get nuked with the off topic lol.
2 Likes
Are you considering adding other Cv 90 variants in the next major updates?
1 Like
That would be situational as I literally fought against people who know how to notch and have no problem notching a aim54 at any range or any number of them. especially in the F15A
they probably find another 30mm bushmaster cv90 to add
Congratulations - your team entirely missed all the points.
For starters - the fact that the F-14D, the penultimate historic version anyway, is getting locked behind a paywall. People don’t want that, end of story.
Adding on to this is the absolute stubbornness your team has shown over the weapons. How much fighting did it take to finally get you guys to add 9M’s to that, and now also the 14B? Cool, finally on par with the F-15A which is still over-BR’ed in Arcade for having no ARH missiles. And don’t give me some line about the fact it has IRCCM missiles is why it can’t be 12.3 in Arcade - you got 12.0 planes with IRCCM missiles in the tech tree, and there needs to be a broader discussion about the lack of AIM-9L’s, or similar all-aspect missiles, on the upper end of Rank 7 - especially in the US tech tree where the only aircraft to have them are the A-10’s and the F-111F, which at least makes it the only one of the two with correct missiles, but pretty much any line with a MiG has all aspects and SARH, with a couple none-MiG’s having them too. And at a point where you might as well at 12.7, on the most advanced F-14 - be handing out the AIM-7P’s, like with the premium F/A-18 especially considering on the F-14’s as built and operated, it’s a choice between the AIM-54’s or AIM-7’s, not like they can have both, and there really isn’t any point for SARH once you hit 13.0 where ARH takes over on missiles literally designed to replace the AIM-7.
And then finally - people wanted the better version of the C - so it’d actually be worth something, also, maybe, finally accurate. As it stands, in Arcade, AIM-54’s, doesn’t matter if it’s the A or C, are trash. More so if you can avoid the Su-30 premiums being in your match you have a better chance of getting kills with SARH and sidewinders than an AIM-54. With the C+, aka the ECCM/Sealed - people were hoping that you would A: finally give the AIM-54 it’s proper speed around Mach 5 instead of this 4.3 nonsense, and B: maybe, finally, with all the extra modern stuff, have an American F-14 with a ARH missile on par with the Iranian F-14A’s Fakour 90’s - a plane still at 12.7 in Arcade despite the dramatic overperformance of those missiles. We don’t want a renamed AIM-54C with a change that makes no impact - we want an AIM-54C that can actually do some work and compete.
If all you wanted to do, was give us the F-14B, but as a premium - all you had to do was give us the F-14A+, which is the B without the precision bombs but same air-air weapons, or depending on whether what you guys put in is the actual B, or what it seems more to be the B (Upgrade) - give us the other of those two, with the electronic differences - and no one would have caused a problem, it’s the B - but premium, other than the obvious copy paste that some people get angry with. Instead - your pay walling the last version of the F-14 produced, and giving it a crap armament that at least for us Arcade players, means were still better off buying Su-30’s and playing Russia or China than US that we might actually want to and usually play, cause F-14’s that aren’t the Iranian variant, see almost no play time in Arcade due to their inferior weapons against what they see and how the plane handles.
Straight up - give the 54C+ it’s Mach 5 capability, and adjust it to be closer in performance, if not matching, the Fakour 90 when it comes to this plane.
In regards to settling the other matter of not having this in the tech tree, I will propose another solution that should not take you guys that long to implement, and at a fairly low cost. Using the Arcade BR’s for planes, as that’s what I’m most familiar with -
- Add the F-14D(R) to the tech tree at least, or if you take some issue with that a squadron vehicle, or rename the premium F-14D(R) and make the tech tree one the true D model, instead of the re-built airframes in to D’s that the (R) is. Same weapons and all as the F-14 premium (regardless of name) with the only possible difference being G-limits, at the same BR as it.
-Add the F-14D with the software upgrade for the AIM-120’s, namely here the AIM-120A, to the tech tree at 13.3 in the same line as the F-14’s, if not 13.0 to match the MiG-29N Japan has. This was a real upgraded, that had funding, and even has documentation that others have shown for the provisions on the aircraft, but simply had the funding shifted elsewhere for reasons - which is more than a lot of other aircraft can say like the Yak-141. And even if it did not have the on hard paper copy provisions list with how many it could carry and where - the AMRAAM was designed to take the spots the AIM-7 did so you know very well either way how many it could carry and where. It’s just as justifiable as the F-15C Golden Eagle you added - which was an upgrade package that was not implemented, and that you still have shorted 4 missiles, more so actually because the software upgrade actually made it to the step where it was funded.
- F-14D (pick a name, ROVER, 14D ‘late’, whatever) - essentially the F-14D at the point it was being retired, based on the upgrade to software, as well as the use of the dual racks it could use that are the same or similar model to the F/A-18, there is in fact photographs of an F-14 with the dual racks with AMRAAM’s on the wing, meaning it would carry at least 8x of them at 13.7-14.0 but have to trade it’s 2 sidewinders for the extra AMRAAM’s - which I’m sure most people would be fine with.
Implement the first 2 at least, you mostly solve the general grievances the community has over this. You have the plane model, you have the AMRAAM model, it really should not be hard to put all those together and change names to even put it in this patch, or as a mini-patch after much as that’s not usually something you do.
8 Likes
Am I missing something or where did the Challengers even get turret baskets from?
and again why is it called horizontal drive?
8 Likes
Gaijin, to give you an idea of how cracked the AI SAMs are in your Nuclear Thunder mode, AI Tunguskas are intercepting literal TOW missiles fired from Bradleys on the ground. This is out of control.
3 Likes
ItO 90M being almost unkillable cuz they only use their radar when activelly tracking you AND shutting it down if you die or they lose the track making impossible for AR missles to actually kill them AND being pretty much unavoidable due to the SACLOS guidance being on absolute crack and keeping lock while you go above clouds and/or low enough for the trees to be infront of its radar or eye idk, only way to kill it is to get in range so they shoot at you, you shoot back, pray for the spaa not to intercept your missles and hope your hit it first then pray again not to die cuz you aint outmaneuvering the missles shot at you
Are you adding on to my comment, or are you disputing that the ItO is just worse? They are all equally as cracked and unkillable in terms of missiles, but in my opinion but the Pantsir and Tunguska having the 30mm cannons just push them over the edge of being unplayable against. I launched 20 GBU-39s at a BUK battery, and after the BUKs intercepted about 10, leaving another 10 that broke through, the Pantsirs defending the battery intercepted the remaining 10 with their 30mm cannons like terminator robots. Again, I’m not here to say it’s worse for one team than the other, but seeing the entire kill feed occupied by “2S6–> TOW-2” is so comically stupid that I can’t even believe it is real. Bottom line is all of these SAMs are operated by the same ridiculously all-knowing AI, the platform they are using just makes some better than others.
im just adding, i think the pantsir is actually way worse than the ITO, but at least you can chaff the missles fired from the pantsir if you have time
1 Like
You’re right that is fair, does that even work on the AI though? Don’t they just track SACLOS?