Give AIM-9M to F-14B

[Lolman345]

@tripod2008

Why does the M60-120S only have the 750hp engine and not the planned 1200hp variant, and yet has the planned Gen 2 Thermals not the as built Gen 1 system?

The 120S / MBT 2000 never had the GPPS as it was export restricted, the GPPTS which was gen 2 and the standard sight was not export restricted, there is also no actual evidence bar “we used a standard M60 for the setup” that the 750 hp engine was in the prototype. Indecently there is actually more external evidence that the 1200 hp engine is present as the final drive is the upgraded variant for the stock model and that was only ever mated to the 1200 hp engine, and the engine bay is visibly expanded for this.

It should have the 1200 hp engine as that was not a “planned” feature, it was the stock option as was the GPPTS.

[Gerhard_bar]

Make it 13.0(yes 13.0)

[_ShadowFang]

13.0… why?

[tripod2008]

@AlvisWisla

Cause we have an early F-4E for one before all that.

If it was an Early Block why does it have the GBU-15(Block 62 and later), AIM-9J(produced starting 1972, so at best could be carried without refit by Block 45 and later, refits required the use of the Areo-3A/A mounting rail, not the basic Aero-3/A rail so pends wiring changes for effectivity) and AGM-65(Block 46 and later) let alone access to the Sidewinder( prior to Block 44 used the AIM-4D), the ALR-46(V)1 (Block 46 and later) and Agile Eagle slats(incorporated into production with Block 50, refitted to some airframes ) among numerous other features that make it a Franken-plane, that doesn’t follow any specific configuration?

it doesn’t help either that the cockpit is borrowed from the F-4C and so frustrates further determination of the correct configuration that the plane should be modeled after and so assist with efforts for correct it, its not as if there isn’t a Gap for a counterpart Early / Late F-4E or F-4G to be added in the future.

@AlvisWisla

And it’s not 11.3 [AIM-9L].

There is no hard cutoff for All-Aspect missiles otherwise aircraft wouldn’t be running around with All Aspect missiles at lower BRs like the A-10A, Su-25, MiG-21 BiS and MiG-23ML, etc.

@AlvisWisla

Also the fact you want F-4F to be 10.0 with only AIM-9Bs

Where did i claim that? The point i was making, was that; if that Gaijin was at all consistent about ordnance as you claimed they have a number of revisions and adjustments to make that are outstanding.

@AlvisWisla

with only AIM-9Bs

They would still have the AIM-9F (of which the seeker isn’t modeled correctly in game), also its not as if there aren’t F-4s at 10.0 either just look at the F-4C it somehow makes it work, without countermeasures either.

@Lolman345

It should have the 1200 hp engine as that was not a “planned” feature, it was the stock option as was the GPPTS.

That is partially the point though, there is enough uncertainty about the configuration of the prototype, and Gaijin Seems to favor implementing the Prototype as built, not in the in service configuration, but then went and added an as planned Yak-141, not as built so there is a discrepancy.

I wonder when they are adding an armed variant of the X(F)-29 / F-16 SWF to the game, its only fair, right?

[AlvisWisla]

A-10’s not supersonic. Su-25 and Mig-21/23 don’t have 9Ls/flares.
Look at Kfir C7 dude.

[tripod2008]

@AlvisWisla

Su-25 and Mig-21/23 don’t have 9Ls/flares.

So the R-60M & R-23T / -24T Somehow aren’t All-Aspect Missiles, at a lower BR than the F-4E, available on Supersonic capable Airframes, that have access to flares?

@AlvisWisla

Look at Kfir C7 dude.

It has Python 3’s?

I don’t get the point?

[AlvisWisla]

Python 3s are 9L variety.
R-60Ms are the most flare hungry missiles in War Thunder.
And no, they’re not lower than 11.0 supersonic platforms. Su-25 is very much mach 0.81 only.

[tripod2008]

@AlvisWisla

And no, they’re not lower than 11.0 supersonic platforms.

Please check all three modes before you make incorrect statements, RB isn’t the only mode.

@AlvisWisla

Su-25 is very much mach 0.81 only.

Its still significantly faster than the ~0.6M available to the A-10.

[AlvisWisla]

The A-10 has 9Ls.
And RB is the only mode that really matters since arcade radar missiles are the meta.

[tripod2008]

@AlvisWisla

The A-10 has 9Ls.

And?

With the lack of speed more Aircraft that it can be downtiered to fight can evade by simply pointing the nose away and the A-10 will be forever unable to close the distance, also the lower launch speed will impact the kinematics significantly.

The Su-25 on the other hand is much more able to run them down and there is little difference between the R-60(M) or R-23T / -24T and USN derived AIM-9 variants to airframes that lack countermeasures.

@AlvisWisla

And RB is the only mode that really matters since arcade radar missiles are the meta.

And RB is trash because its far too cramped with its reductive TDM focus and leaves little space for Strike airframes, let alone the incredibly bad and repetitive map design in comparison to AB / SB.

The only SARHs you will see below 10.7 are the AIM-7C and R-3R / AIM-9C, none of which are particularly oppressive, and have significant deficiencies at short range, or they have otherwise exploitable characteristics. Just because you can’t rely on Multipath as a crutch doesn’t make SARHs particularly good in the 12.0 ~ 10.0 BR bracket, they aren’t that hard to deal with for the most part if you have space to crank.

[AlvisWisla]

9Ls have a no-escape range of ~2.3km against AB targets. It doesn’t need to close the distance.
In comparison R-60M’s no-escape range is 900 meters.

[tripod2008]

@AlvisWisla

9Ls have a no-escape range of ~2.3km against AB targets.

Under what conditions? Don’t forget FM’s are buffed in arcade as well, so its much easier to sustain higher G’s which devalues missiles since their performance isn’t similarly improved.

@AlvisWisla

It doesn’t need to close the distance.

So please explain how an A-10 would reach this magical 2.3km cutoff if an F-86 turns away at 4km, and has a negative closure rate. The A-10 will never reach this 2.3km, and an early launch also can be defeated quite easily by cranking assuming that its even in range with the subsequent negative closure rate.

On the other hand with the Su-25 all it needs to do is utilize the positive closure rate and wait until the range closes to launch the missile, and there is very little the Saber could have done.

(Note the very different launch conditions between the two figures, with the former being far more relevant)

[someweirdname]

they even added Shafrir to the graph, wonder where they got the info from

[tripod2008]

Probably a combination of out their ass, and educated guesses and assumptions based on known or assumed characteristics.

[Mytho-GR1]

Well due to the current BR of the F14B and the other aircraft at the same BR i think it should now get AIM-9M

[UrMumSaysHi]

The AIM-9M came in 1983-84 i think, and it was used on the F-14s.
But the F-14A would probably go up in BR with it

[stangbro01]

F14 is already the best arb plane at its br… you want 9M enjoy a higher br rating and getting wrecked by 13.7 lol

[Mytho-GR1]

its not

F15A F15J Su27 SU33 Mig-29G are all better at the same br

All have IRCCM missiles

AIM-54s are no where near as god as AMRAAMs or what ever you think they are

F14b doesn’t have all aspect radar or IRCCM

[FluffyBunnyFeet1]

I’d honestly like to know why you think the F-14B is the best 13.0 in the game.

[C0caC0laEspuma]

Honestly, the F-14B needs AIM-9M and AIM-7MH, and the historical AIM-54 buffs.

Probaly that would be 13.3 for ARB, 13.7 BR for ASB, but still pretty decent aircraft.