F111a getting new missile

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
1

The f111a in war thunder is placed at 10.7 while using the most awful of missiles. sure it can carry 6 aim9b, 8 without a gun, but they are aim 9b and borderline useless at 10.7. The f111a was capable of taking the aim9b, aim9e, aim9j, and aim9p. I believe it would be more appropriate if the f111a could carry the aim9p. it is plausible to bump it up to 11.0 if necessary, but its only fair that it can carry its in real life loudout. here is proof of it carrying the aim9p.
I have heard that it the f111a was limited to 2 aim9j, so i think 2 aim9j and 4 aim9e would be a fair loadout. any amount of aim9b is useless.
Do you think the f111a should get better missiles?

  • Yes and remain at 10.7
  • Yes and be bumped to 11.0
  • No but it should go down to 10.3
  • No it should remain the same
0 voters

https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air-Force/General-Dynamics-F-111A-Aardvark/963723

8 Likes
2

Its meant to be used as a bomber not a fighter. Far better to keep it at 10.7 where it can easily outrun everything and bomb, than be 11.0/11.3 with better Aim-9s where it then begins to struggle to do its main job.

1 Like
3

meanwhile f104 with napalm taking every base before f111

11 Likes
4

Thsts just Napalm needing a nerf.

But when it comes to mud-movers, Id take a lower BR over better AAMs anyday of the week. For Example I think Id rather enjoy a Tornado Gr1 (early) with Aim-9Gs instead of Aim-9Ls at like 10.7/11.0 rather than being 11.7 with Aim-9Ls or 12.3 with Aim-9Ms even though the 9L/9Ms are better.

1 Like
5

Technically napalm is nerfed, iirc it rewards you less and gives less score as well, but it does take out a base much more efficiently.

1 Like
6

You’re bringing too much fuel and too many bombs if you lose to a 10.7 F-104.
In bomber mode, all you need is 50 minutes of dry-thrust fuel.

Which nerfs strike aircraft as a whole.
Also what Basher said.

7

9B at 10.7 is just, kinda bad tbh
9E would be more in line
9J would be great, but only 2(historical)

2 Likes
8

f111a could get 2x 9j and the rest 9e or just all 9e without raising its br

9

It would be better to remove his AIM-9B and reduce his BR so that he would only engage in bombing.

10

Eh… there is a limit.

Too low and its approaching the BR of subsonic bomb trucks like the Buc S2 at 9.3 or transonic trucks like Jaguar Gr1 at 9.7. 10.3 is not an unreasonable BR for it just based upon its speed and potential bomb load.

11






No?

Nerfing of napalm could affect ‘some’ ‘eastern’ strike aircraft as collateral damage.
But don’t exaggerate things.

3 Likes
12

Well. Buc is missing Napalm. So it already is nerfed in that regard :P

1 Like
13

Exaggerate?
F-111A, F-105D, AV-8C, AD-2, AD-4, F-84F, A-4B, A-4E, A-7D, A-7E, AV-8B, AV-8B+, F-84F Germany, Mig-23BN, Alpha Jet, IL-28, Su-22UM3K, Su-22M4, Do-217 [4 of them] IL-28 Germany, He-111H-16 & H-6, Ju 87 D-3 & D-5, Su-25 & K, Su-25T & 39, Su-25SM3, Su-17M2 M4 and M3, Su-24M, [Britain lacks napalm from a quick look], A-7E Thai, Alpha Jet A, Alpha Jet TH, A-5C, Q-5L, Q-5A, Q-5 early, H-5, AMX, F-84F Italy, AV-8B+ Italy, IL-28 Italy, F-84F France, AD-4 France, Ayit, A-4H, A-4E, F-84F Israel…
And strike aircraft not given the strike aircraft role in-game:
Mig-27M, Mig-27K…
And I’m not even counting all strike and bomber aircraft, that’s just the ones I have time to look up.
Over 54 strike aircraft and likely far more than that that have napalm and benefit heavily from the weight decrease; especially the props with napalm which I guarantee I haven’t even found half of.

2 Likes
14

Only because they wont add it.

Bucs and Sea vixen should 100% have napalm (actually listed in the manuals)

Hunter FGA9 probably did too (video online somewhere of one dropping some)

Harrier Gr3, Jaguar Gr1/Gr1A and Phantoms all probably could and Britain reserved the right to use it. Just didnt necessarily keep any in stock. Though was eventually replaced with BL755 CBUs which could be added for the same effect.

But none of those aircraft listed would suddenly suffer and be rendered unplayable because Napalm wasnt quite as OP as it is currently.

For example. AMX can take out 4 bases with its 8x Napalm. Would it be a travesty if it could only take out 2 or 3 bases instead?

But I do just fine with 4-6 1000lb bombs in aircraft weaker than many of those that run 2x Napalm for an easy base kill. So I think they should just get better at the game.

15

the F-111A also depends on napalm to go fast though

16

This I believe.
Also at least half of the aircraft listed would no longer bomb a base, and in the case of the AV-8Bs: Without losing all but 2 of their AAMs.

You are also a simulator player, and ALL of those aircraft would suffer in air sim not being able to damage bases and airfields as effectively in simulator.

17

How many does it take to destroy 1 base currently in the F-111A?

18

B-15 and F-111F should get napalm too :P

19

you only need 2 which lets you be a lot faster and more survivable

but becuase of F-111 you can carry minimum of 4 if you dont want asymetric so you can get 2 bases while still being very very fast for BR

20

You have a minute arguemnt for ARB, But bringing ASB into this just destroys your argument entirely. Its easy to max out activity time with a single base kill. I play the AMX A-1A and easily kill 4 bases with a full loadout of Napalm. Id have no issue with it take 3 or 4 per base and Ive never suffered in something like the Buc S2 with 16x 1000lb on my wings and realiably take out 3.8 bases per sortie