He’s saying that having six or two AGM-65 on F-4F ICE doesnt change how balanced the jet is which is exactly the reason why it doesnt need ahistorical loadouts.
On the other hand if SAF JAS39C didnt receive AIM-9M and instead got historical IRIS-T it would be overperforming compared to every other jet in game. Thats why it received something ahistorical for balance.
I predict 5th gen IR AAM seeker for 4th gen fighter aircraft and early 4.5 gen fighter aircraft at 13.3 BR next year. but gajin not ready this year
Same with the Barack II which again doesnt have an illuminator for its AIM 7’s and should only be capable of AMRAAM. The radar it has is a family relative of the A-6 radar series, an/apg-76 is part of the family of the A-6 radars which were designed specifically with use of AMRAAM. Its loadouts were too advanced so they gave it ahistorical stuff for balance.
It changes how good it is in GRB. Do you have evidence of SAF’s Gripens using Mav Gs?
Because I don’t see them listen anywhere…
I doubt it would perform as good as it does now in GRB without Mavs.
where do you even get 400-500 vehicles?
here there are less than 200 vehicles between both suggestions, not to mention that there are not 70% of unique vehicles
I believe its an ahistorical buff to keep them relevant in the gameplay loop until we get new things. Gaijin may have also used the excuse that the gripen for sweden can and has mounted them and part of the gripens selling point is it can mount almost any weapon available. Again weird that they wanna pick and choose with these changes.
It is yea, and that’s also my argument here for F-4F ICE to receive tripple mounted Mav Ds. To keep it relevant in the gameplay loop until something better can be added. Cause at the moment the only alternative to it is the Tornado… lol.
Me when i quote the unofficial South African Airforce website
Feel free to provide evidence it does use Mav Gs irl in that case.
Refer to what I said literally there:
I never once mentioned that it hadn’t changed at all. All I said is that nothing has changed in terms of A2G capabilities.
Regarding my Eurocopter comment I might have outdated information about the subject.
Though sometimes gaijin doesnt do that, sometimes a nations just doesnt get an equal item for a few patches or just a singukar patch. Its weird when they choose to do stuff. Like why add both sweden and SAAF gripen at the same time then bo with mig 29. why the mig 29 on russia was basically on par with the german one and so fourth. Weird decisions all around.
like it’d be nice to have 6 mavs but that won’t really help this phantom a lot
still getting clapped in air and SAM’d in ground
The thing is AIM-7F and later models dont need CW in order to be guided. Instead they rely on MPRF radar returns.
Id have to look at the document for AN/APG-76 but to my knowledge it doesnt have the ability to use SARH. Additionally the Barack II also never used python 3’s only python 4’s alongside the fact it didnt use Aim 7’s.
Are they going to work on some of the older reports this update ? (For example: R13M/M1 wrong burntime or AIM9P-3/4 reduced smoke motor)
You’re aware this just introduces a lovely contradiction in that case, no? One where a vehicle gets a free pass at X thing because balance but another vehicle doesn’t get a pass for thing Y because reasons.
Of course, that still leaves the question of whether LA’s new weapon/ballistic computer allowed it the use of more modern Mavs or not unanswered - but even it it doesn’t, again, we already have aircraft in this game that are given weapons they could not use simply to make them better.
Case in point, there is really no reason to not give ICE tripple mounts for Mav Ds, the next best alternative to it is pretty much just as useless, so just do it and make the ICE better.
SAF JAS39C is no different from other export Gripen C’s. That’s more than enough reason to give them these missiles because this capability comes as standard. I dont think F-4F or F-4F KWS LV specifically had ability to use triple rack Mavericks “from factory”. Do you have proof that weapon computer could even allow for more than 2 Mavericks?
Mirage 2000-5F for example cant carry for more than 6 missiles irl because weapon computer doesnt allow for it. Same with F-16C Blk 50 and carrying more than 6 A2A missiles. There are available triple or twin racks for AIM-120 but is the weapon computer is not capable of operating with more than 6 of them.
It’s not as simple as you think to just slap a triple pylon into the plane.
Yeah but Warspite, Vanguard and Indomitable all balance it out.
HMS Invincible is painfully ironic though.
Now you’re just changing the goalpost. We’ve moved from “never used” to “couldn’t use”, and I’ve given you examples of vehicles that could not use their in-game equipment (Ariete due to its cannon not being equipped with K900 breechblock that was needed to fire DM53 or French Tigers with HOT-3s without an ability to fire them). Do tell me why you keep disregarding those, but are willing to make the F-4F ICE an exception - that’s some pretty disgusting double standards. Btw, do you have evidence Gripen C’s ballistic computer can use Mav Gs? This goes both ways.
It’s not as simple as you think to just slap a triple pylon into the plane.
Ah, must be why so many vehicles in this game just do that?
