With the exception of Italy. They aren’t needed. Otherwise I want Aim9M on the Sea Harrier FRS1. (Yes, it could get them)
1 Like
First of all, I want it.
Second, that’s a goofy ahh gun mount… a turret of some sort, I presume?
Edit: I found this, and it’s beautiful.
If this son of a gun can track aircraft then it’s gonna be a bit cracked. Of course it depends on what BR it ends up at.
3 Likes
That’s completely different discussion and way out of scope of this debate.
So you want the missiles NOW and once in a future, when decompression is achieved and when Amraam arrives, this would be justified?
Gotcha.
Sama argument as up
This is, primarily a game, and fun and balance should always precede realism.
If we wanted to push proper realism, this game would be destroyed, you realise that hopefully.
“argument”
Factual statement
What is the reason for the plane not to have access to its historical weaponary
“it’s 12.0”
I agree, we should raise its BR to 12.3 and the F-16C to 12.7 both supporting BR decompression and better balancing both planes.
1 Like
Battle Rating is the primary balancing factor in War Thunder. Gaijin used to erroneously apply repair costs for balancing, they have since fixed this error.
As battle rating is the primary balancing factor the addition of historical equipment becomes solely under the scope of whether its addition can be balanced if added using battle rating.
There are already planes at 12.3 with the missile, thus it would make sense that the F-16A’s gaining the same exact missile would not unbalance the BR range if it was also 12.3 .
Your primary argument against this is that the F-16C would become “pointless” as it wouldn’t be justified. This is factually incorrect, the F-16C has different flight performance and will gain access to different missiles as more advanced technology is added. The F-16C’s existence is justified with or without the F-16A, on the other hand the F-16A is facing planes without its historical missile. Why?
1 Like
It appears that our superiority is once again the subject of controversy.
1 Like
The tree who does not have a single 12.3 jet with the only AIM9M carrier being a subsonic CAS does not need an improvement.
I agree about decompression but that’s not the point. And it’s cute that we have discussions about M missile while sabres are facing L’s at 9.7 and half of US lineup has no flares at 10.0
So you want two very close machines at same BR that may be more distinct in the future. Do you realize that US would be the nation with three planes able to launch IRCCM AAM’s, RUS would have 2 and most of other nation would have one or none.
How is this fair?
Again, just no.
It needs a 12.3. an F16A with Aim9L/I would be one possible aircraft to fill that role.
“it’s cute we’re talking about compression when there’s this other problem directly related to compression”
Yes I know, hence decompression is the solution. You can’t decompress lower BRs without increasing the max BR.
