My thought is if it has Derbys, it must have 9M
There is no point in keeping it at 13.0 because it will end up being like Sea harrier FA2 or F-5 with fox-3s in Japanese tech tree. In my opinion it should have only aim-9L and sit around 11.3. Same with Yak-130 give it R60M, flares and similar BR. By this action we will have situation where BR appropriate ground attack and air to air armament meets good for this BR subsonic performance
4 Likes
Well I wouldn’t be suprised if Israel has already sold the darby missile to Italy, I mean business is business and Italy is a NATO member so it makes sense for it to have happened. If this plane comes in the Italian tech tree with Darby missiles there is nothing wrong with it.
I would be surprised if Italy buy it in numbers beyond needed to implement and test them for “Lavi”. Especially when M346 is “capable” of carrying MICAs. Here is main point MICA and Derby was only equipped under “Italian wings” as technology demonstrators and export advertisements
1 Like
There is M-346FT for that.
4 Likes
Lavi is unarmed, if we dont count a pair of aim9m
2 Likes
Indeed but here comes question - is Gaijin planing to add it in the future? Because now we have the worst 13.0 by performance and air to air armament no matter if they add aim-9M to it. Changing Derbys to MICA is even worse option
I wouldn’t complain if Gaijin adds “Lavi” to Israeli tech tree but performance issues stays the same and basically inaccurate armament
They got their hands on the regular Derby for sure, but as I said long ago there’s no evidence of the I-Derby ER specifically being acquired. It doesn’t really matter since it’s said to have been integrated, likely with the I-Derby as it then it would be compatible by default given it shares the same seeker and electronics. Colombia and India are the only two known nations to have procured and used the missile on air to air platforms, while some others have acquired them for SPYDER systems. Italy is not one of them.
I said all that before I gained a greater understanding of what the missiles are, which is why my argument then is pretty much redundant when the gaijin rule of technical compatibility comes into play.
Is the lack of AIM-9M historical or a balancing move y’think?
Also regarding the BR, I think it’d be interesting to see a version of this with only 4x AIM-9M and at a BR like 11.7 or 12.0. (12.0 would be problematic though due to uptiers to face ARH).
I personally think 11.7 would be justified for such an arrangement, and it would go nicely with the 11.7 ground lineup depending on the ground ordinance.
The real question is, what BR would it get with MICA?
Because that’s the real funni possibility
1 Like
This, aim9m were never listed anywhere
1 Like
Ah, fair enough.
I still hope it gets 9Ms though if it stays at such a high BR. I believe Smin has said in the past that weaponry is up to balance department to decide, as long as weapon could technically fit and be fired.
I think they might set it up with next gen missiles once those are added to the game.
it can be 12.3 like GR.7 Harrier is right now, otherwise with 9L can be even lower to like around 11.0+?
I think the GR7 is overtiered for what it is, and this M346 and the GR7 could work at 12.0 instead.
The reasoning is that Su-25BM is 11.3 and has 2x R-73. Mig-21 Bison is 12.3 and has 2x R-73 and some R-27s.
I think the M346 and GR7 are more capable in A2A than Su-25BM but not a whole BR better.
I don’t think the M346 and GR7 are as good as Mig-21 Bison (a dedicated supersonic fighter) and they don’t deserve the same BR.
3 Likes
9L/i-1 could work
i was wondering just that, why not give it the 9l/i-1
2 Likes
It looks pretty doa to me, given it has ARH missiles meaning its tank rb br will bloat where it’s brimstones and LGB will be useless, they are barely usable on a top airframe like the Typhoon let alone a subsonic. They should give it fnf brimstones or remove the Derbys imo.