F-4F ICE was also one of the testing carriers for the IRIS-T
2 Likes
Even without afterburners it would still niff people, it was 100% performing better then (first implementation) instead of now.
Example:
The MiG-23 also has large countermeasures on the shoulders - If needed I could show a demonstration with my friends to show the difference then and now (later tomorrow since its 23:02).
1 Like
I miss those days…
2 Likes
We have images of them with the IRIS-T somewhere. I’ll see if I can find it. I believe it was one of the platforms designated for testing.
Even better we have a video about it getting testet on an F4
2 Likes
Much better
I made a suggestion for a tech tree F-4S/L actually so it could be possible. Honestly though I would rather the current F-4S be changed to be like an F-4J or something, it feels weird otherwise you know?
Personally it should only be one of them, and not all three. To still allow playing a Phantom at low BR. Alternatively they could just add a new tech tree version of any of the three with 9L and maybe a better Skyflash or something, assuming any of the Phantoms got those mounted. I was going to make a suggestion about one of those but last time I tried they said it was a “loadout issue” and was not worth to be a suggestion. I might try again sometime but idk.
All in all, its sad that there’s only one F-4 with 9Ls and its the EJ Kai. The other three operator countries represented in game did use the Phantom long enough to at least get AIM-9Ls, and potentially AIM-7M (the Americans only, rip), but none of those are represented in the game.
I know, I agree, and as I commented on your amazing suggestion the F-4N (F-4B upgraded to F-4J) would be ideal to replace the S.
100% agree, meant to write that only 1 of the FG/FGR should get 9Ls so the other can stay 11.3 and somehow forgot, so thanks for reminding me!
While this is true, I feel like the contemporary would be more like the AIM-9P-4 or something (which sadly isn’t in the game very much). The AIM-9J/G contemporary in my eyes is the R-13M1, after all they share the same genesis, and perform very similarly. The all-aspect version is the really obscure R-14, which would be closer to the AIM-9P-4 and AIM-9L. Assuming this is true, anyway.
The R-60M is hard to find a really good contemporary for because of its rather short range, especially when compared to the later Sidewinder variants. It entered service at around the same time as the AIM-9M (1982), ironically, but it is nowhere near as good. So its got the rather unfortunate position of either being put too low and being really hard to deal with (especially in sim), particularly in downtiers, or too high where it is functionally useless. It makes a menace of things without flares, but anything with flares can - if the pilot is attentive - easily dodge it, and it makes it really hard to figure out where exactly it should go.
China, on the other hand, would probably be fine with the PL-5B. Its basically in the same camp as the R-13M1, except China also has the potential to get the PL-5E (the all-aspect version) that could probably compete pretty well with the AIM-9P-4 and the AIM-9L. Also apparently there was a PL-5A that was SARH and basically the Chinese R-3R but it never made it to full scale production. Chinese Missile Thread
Idk about the F-4N; last I checked, while upgraded it didn’t get the AN/APG-59. So it would basically just be a Navy version of the USAF F-4D, because it did get flares, but no good radar. It does retain the IRST from the F-4B and F-4C (which is missing from the F-4C). See here.
Although I might be wrong about the AN/APG-59, will have to look into that one more. I never really looked too hard at the capabilities of the F-4N, sadly.
Actually the operators got up to the 9M lol. So the 9L isn’t even a hard question here. It’s just what Gaijin feels like adding.
The J and S variants both carried 9Ms.
No, that is simply wrong they are far better, and have a significantly more useful ability to actually track a target at higher Tail off Aspect Angles, they don’t need to get behind them to launch and have a larger range at which they will acquire the track.
And the -9P-4 would maintain the relative performance of the AIM-9J / R-60 to the R-60M. Which makes it a strictly worse AIM-9L.
The large FoV when combined with somewhat the recent flare adjustments allowed them to more frequently regain track after the flares burn out.
And have the option for an IR seeker (Since protoypes like the Sparrow-winder, or AIM-7R aren’t going to be added) which helpfully negates the need to utilize the radar (and this denies the utilization of the RWR, of which the AN/APR-45 can’t detect anyway), and they have a greater range than Sidewinder.
They are much simpler to get off the rail and are hard to deal with if used properly, where you can deny Sparrow launches by simply being at a lower altitude than the shooter and so deny the the ability of the radar to track entirely.
Relying on the SARHs so heavily to retain that performance is not.
R-3R’s, like the AIM-9C have a specific use case, and have a very short minimum range which might provide a hint as to what you should be doing with them, let alone the fact the the MiG-21 has a Higher T/W ratio, and so can easily leverage flight performance to turn things in its favor once it merges and the F-4’s tend to have no ability to respond in kind.
So its at this BR due to its flight performance then? is it worth pointing out that the F-111A is also somehow remains 11.0. Anyway the PL-5B at least gives it options once it uses said flight performance.
Its an F-104? There is no fixing the F-104 its just a trash non competitive airframe, with a specific usecase which doesn’t align with non Sim EC modes, and even then only a subset of interception objectives; and even then does poorly. Unless the BR was reduced which subsequently causes issues with abusing the climb rate in downtiers.
Any form of Look Down, Shoot Down capability is better than not, and still has the option of Long range IR seekers to alternately deal with the issue.
It has the Same issue as the F-5C, they weren’t actually ever fitted to the MiG-23M, and still benefits from them being Large Caliber Flares.
So what exactly were they fighting in Vietnam the whole time then? It wasn’t just MiG17s and -19s right?
Also since the Slat kits were retroactively fitted to a number of aircraft there are a number of potential configurations that could satisfy said requirement, it doesn’t necessitate that it’s a Block 48 or later and so had them off the production line.
Also technically the F-4E in game has several features(TTI counter) that were only fitted in ANG service so puts it potentially as late as a '88 refit.
2 Likes
If US *F-4s get AIM-9L/M, EJ Kai should get AAM-3s :D
1 Like
You mean US F4s?
1 Like
US Tornados? what unholy source did I miss out on now?
1 Like
Yes, I should have mentioned that I would have wanted an F-4N with 9Ls
So sacrificing PD and Agile Eagle from the F-4S for 9Ls, so the fully kitted F-4S could be tech tree.
Maybe F-111s? :P
1 Like
I’m sorta detailing the topic but F-111Es had 9Ls and maybe Ms, Fs and Cs had 9Ms, and most interestingly the 111D had P-4s
Ah, yeah, I did. Fixed, thanks :D
1 Like
I know they both had 9Ms but I think that giving them 9M would make them too weak at their new battle ratings cause the 9M is really good. I would rather not have to fight a MiG-29SMT with an F-4E just cause I got 9Ms.
1 Like