Guys, I have bad news…
AIM-9Ms might not be able to be brought with the MRMLs once Gaijin catches this issue:
They’ll just have to add the 9X then :pppp
Dude, you have no idea the existential crisis I went through when I spotted that.
Of course MRMLs will stay and should stay.
“AIM-9X would fit, but that can’t be added.”
“AAM-3 might fit, but that’s Japanese.”
“It’s sitting too high but even if that was fixed the actual missile mounts on the standard pylons are also sitting slightly too high, and there’s no guarantee that’ll allow AIM-9Ms if only one of those is fixed.”
So yeah… screwed.
The only solution once this is noticed and fixed is an asymetric loadout if I still want 8 AIM-120s and AIM-9s.
Honestly they should just add Next Gen ir missiles but only the flight characteristics and keep current gen irccm for the sake of gameplay.
i don’t think next gen ir seekers are ever gonna be fun to play against in game as they don’t offer the same counterplay a fox 3 missile has and ir seekers as they are now are kind of perfect for the chaos of air rb.
My guess, F-15C GE and Superhornet will be kicked up to rank 9 and receive 9X somewhere in 2026, just like F-16C and Mig-29SMT were retrofitted with AMRAAMs almost two years ago. So temporary clipping issues with 9M probably will be ignored, at the same time, I can see it being used as “nice” stock grind feature of stock 9M cockblocking you from installing extra AMRAAMs.
US Rank 8 is already very bloated, then didn’t Gaijin set goal for themselves of only two vehicles in line for high ranks, rest get foldered in aftermath of reviewbombing drama? And US already can folder A-10s and Aardvarks in Rank 7.
Just hope they don’t find it out :(
@PyroAddict
Me: “They won’t remove missiles.”
Also, this is what the R-77 looks like on Su-27 currently:
Bugs get fixed, Pyro.
he’s desperate for MRML to be removed because he said it would never be added
If that’s your stance, there’s no reason to bring mediocre fearmongering like this one:
And,
I’m absolutely not suprised. I was once very skeptical for a very different reason, and it was that I tend to know how Gaijin works around US additions, but thankfully they proved me wrong this time.
@Papa_Daniel
Me: “MRML should stay.”
Daniel, your post is exclusively your opinion. As I never once said any of that.
@PyroAddict
That’s not fearmongering, that’s setting up expectations.
No, you literally said they would remove missiles due to visual clipping, only to back up saying that ‘bugs get fixed’, only to get back to square one. Figure yourself out.
@PyroAddict
Me: “The missiles will stay, and it’s likely we’ll have restricted loadouts to compensate for clipping.”
I always said the missiles would stay.
Oh wow, me saying the missiles will stay in-game, just that they might restrict them similar to how GBU-15V2B prevents weapons from being used in-matches.
Might is not even a guarantee, it isn’t my opinion.
Classic Alvis moving the goalposts after the written fact. I insist:
And edit your original post if that’s what you originally thought.
I think the next thing that should be added for air is ECM pods and functional integrated ECM antennas
I think that’ll be next year for sure.
The jamming squads are something I await.
it would work if the 9M was on the MRML instead of the upper pylons
which can be done as we have multiple images showing aim9 on MRML mounted to f15ex stations 1 and 9
That’s been on the back of my mind as well, but I haven’t thought deep into that idea much.
Granted, I would much rather have AIM-9L/Ms restricted on the top but AIM-9L/Ms allowed on MRMLs personally if that’s the solution to this conundrum.
I do need a photograph of AIM-9s on MRML.