Now, I want you to patch the ADF or MLU so that it can be equipped with Amram missiles. If you can mount Amram missiles, more users can adapt to the new missiles and attract more users. But you have to balance it out, but you can add more users faster than adding new aircraft
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/f-16-adf-pool/152004
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/more-capable-and-historically-accurate-weapons-for-rank-viii-aircraft-and-corresponding-br-changes/148921
The Taiwanese F-16 MLU definitely uses arhs and 9ms. F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference
And Italy and the U.S. are also known to use Amram together
you won’t have that, as it means to BR bump those F-16’s creating a Gap in BR,…
just saying.
Taiwan’s F16 purchased AIM120C5 and AIM9M, as well as the “Sniper” thermal imaging pod and other ground-based weapons. Why doesn’t Gaijin add them? It’s completely historical – much more historical than the F16AJ!
I think the C5 version is still a long way off
We need to balance things like this historical armament
For example, increasing the limits of BR
In fact, the 120A in the game is now better than the 120C that comes out of unpacking
BR decompression is already needed, but just put Most 13.7 to 14.3/14.0 and 13.3 to 13.7/14.0… that’s all the game requires currently
that’s wrong btw,…
The Italian F-16ADF must receive the armament for which it was modified, and anyone who writes otherwise is acting in “bad faith”.
It is tricky…
There are 2 valid arguments.
Historical accuracy.
Aircraft like the Italian F-16 were acquired for the sole purpose of giving Italy a AMRAAM equipped fighter as a stop gap to the Typhoon as they did not want to invest in the Tornado ADV like Britain did. So they leased F-16s instead. Same with Sweden and the Viggen D. It’s entire purpose was to intergrate AMRAAM onto the Viggen airframe. On these grounds, these aircraft could and perhaps should get the weapons it actually had IRL
but then there is the game perspective and what Cpt_Bel_V is getting at.
BR Placement
Are these aircraft needed at the increased BR or will they even be any good. In the case of the Viggen, probably not and probably not worth the BR increase. Maybe a second airframe and give people the choice, but its unlikely it would be an effective platform and few would play it.
In the case of the F-16, it could be fine, though the limited CMs are certainly something to pay attention to. But it does create a Gap, though one mitigated by the presssence of Hungary. But without the F-16 at 13.0, you would basically jump from BVR trucks like the Tornado and Harrier and straight into fightrers like the F-16 and Gripen with nothing to really bridge the gap except for the Mig-29.
At the moment, that isnt really felt much, because the F-16 is so close to other ARH slingers, but in a year or so, when 14.3s enter the fray, you may be thankful to have an F-16 at a BR where it cant see them.
TLDR: There are 2 valid arguments that are directly polar opposites to each other. What is really needed is a solution outside of just adding and then moving. Like a variable BR, where everyone is happy.
Enable Advance weapons. F-16A ADF moves from 13.0 to 13.7 and has access to Aim-9Li and AMRAAM.
Disable Advance weapons. F-16A ADF moves back to 13.0 and is limited to Aim-9Ls and Aim-7Ms.
No gap created, no additional grinding needed with second airframes, everyone can play what they want, when they want and where they want it. Easy.
you know that Gaijin Ruled against it, on every possible suggestion.
there can’t be Adaptive BR.
i suspect also that it can’t be added to avoid people demanding a BR change for every modification parts possible,… which would create an even bigger mess than today.
They did say the same thing about having seperated BRs for and air and ground for aircraft. So I wouldnt say never.
But thats why I limited it to “advanced weapons” and I would perhaps for now limited it to ARH only (with IR AAMs upgraded at the same time) limiting it to that narrowing of requirements, should mitigate it being too messy, whilst still being fair.
In the future, maybe consider other cases on a case by case basis, like the Soviet Mig-29 to toggle between R-60s and R-73s for the example. But for the most part, it to be for those handful aircraft “designed” for ARH, but havent recieved them because it would result in a BR change. Like the F-16 and Viggen.
what i’m saying is that Adaptive BR to weaponnary/modification is not possible.
Having those for Ground and Air missions makes senses, but it can’t be achieved for weaponnary, as it would result in at least 4 BR setups for one aircraft. (2 in Air + 2 in Ground)
as well as people going to demand a Stock Status BR [flares/chaffs] (+2 BR for both Air and Ground)
See the problem?
Gaijin will not go that way.
For that simple Exemple of F-16ADF, currently sitting at 13.0 in AIR, and 12.0 in Ground:
AIR RB
Stock Status BR: 12.7
AIM-9L+AIM-7M+Chaffs: 13.0
AIM-9L/i+AIM-7M BR : 13.3 [chaffs not accounted]
AIM-9L/i+AIM-120A:13.7[chaffs not accounted]
AIM-9L/i+AIM-120C:14.0/14.3[chaffs not accounted]
Naval/Ground RB
Stock Status BR: 11.7
AIM-9L+AIM-7M+Chaffs: 12.0
AIM-9L/i+AIM-7M BR : 12.3 [chaffs not accounted]
AIM-9L/i+AIM-120A:12.7[chaffs not accounted]
AIM-9L/i+AIM-120C:13.0/13.3[chaffs not accounted]
[chaffs not accounted] - to avoid having a Mixed BR while having to good Weaponnary
That’s already 10 BR setup for a single aircraft,… all to be balanced out,…
now imagine the same for EVERY OTHER aircrafts,…
Italy also had F-16B in service, so it can be added to 13.0, problem solved.
If you’re talking the Italian IDF I’m 100% on board, with 9L(I) for it and 9Ms for the MLU. The US one, not so much. That would make it identical to the 16C which would create a BR gap while also providing nothing new to the tree, plus the 16As were less often fitted with AMRAAMs anyways so it’s arguably a decrease in historical accuracy as it doesn’t represent the main configuration, but instead only the latest.
But many aircraft do need new armaments…
I think we need to re-evaluate the equipment and get historical armament unconditionally
J-8F exist at 13.0, J-11 at 13.3 and J-11A MLU at 13.7, your argument has no ground to stand on. they got no 12.0 because they don’t want to add more J-7E variants, it’s on them wholly for this stupid decision.