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
3 Likes
that’s wrong btw,…
1 Like
The Italian F-16ADF must receive the armament for which it was modified, and anyone who writes otherwise is acting in “bad faith”.
1 Like
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.
5 Likes
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…
1 Like
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.
Taiwan also uses f16b’s. Gaijin doesn’t seem to like the B model.
Gaijin:
“A, C, D, E, F, G…”
1 Like
Isn’t Taiwan using an upgraded F-16V?
Most American B models are trainer aircraft and not combat. The A is a single-seat fighter, the B a dual-seat trainer, the C another single-seat, and often by the D it would be another trainer but the aircraft has evolved to a multirole so the extra seat is used for training but also for a mission officer. The vast majority of American jets follow this rule, with heavy fighters like the F-4 and F-14 that were designed around radar missile interception (thereby always needing 2 seats) being exceptions.
While these trainers are almost always combat capable in theory they’re not really designed for it and are almost always designed and operated concurrently with the As, so despite having a higher letter they’re not more capable (or less for that matter) in any way. So adding them doesn’t make sense in most situations, being simply a waste of development resources that could be much better spent elsewhere.
You’re currently wrong on this,…
The J8F and F4F KWS are 13.3 only because of their Flight capability, same goes with advanced AV-8’s → those are late 3rd gen aircrafts, not early 4th alike F-16A’s,…
Btw, as for F-16C’s the upgrades to AIM-120’s we’re discussing doesn’t only bring 2xAIM-120’s ability, but 6 at best,… making them completely similar to the F-16C variant (which is 13.7)
Therefore,… any AIM-120A/B for any F-16 ADF or MLU, should result in a BR bump to 13.7.
And taking into account the ability of the AIM-120C-5 you’re asking for most of those aircraft (notably the Italian ADF), this would mean a new BR of 14.0
1 Like
They’re actually upgrading their block 20’s to block 70 standards, but they still have the A engine. They’re also getting some proper block 70’s along with them.
Gaijin has added a lot of trainers, and an aircraft being “combat capable” has never actually mattered.
1 Like