agree with that both british tech tree phantoms are impossible to play without losing thw will to live, definitely needs some help, wouldnโt be so bad if you could 2 aim7s as default in stead of just a gun pod and 2 terrible aim 9ds
I agree, F-16 should made great again!!
Skyflash, AIM-7E2s, R24s, etc are good overall missiles.
None of them are as good as AIM-7Fs in the long range, not even close.
AIM-7Fs were the biggest radar missile powercreep of all War Thunder, but was sadly necessary because planes like F-16 canโt fire AIM-7E2s.
Itโs a PD radar, so Iโve never seen this.
The gunpods on all Phantoms harm performance.
The 12.0 Phantom stock grinds are awful, though the Tornado F3 & Mig-23 stock grinds are worse.
I never see F-4EJ Kais.
& I rarely see F-4Js, but when I do I can know itโs primarily due to nation popularity, which means nothing.
Tigertank here has a point Iโve said in the past as well.
Vehicles so reliant on air to air weapons not having at least their weakest options for whatever reasonโฆ
Tornado F3 has radar missilesโฆ why canโt other rank 7s?
I believe that phantom are already good.
Theirs performance is not great but its it a advantage in fights.
But also their missiles counts is good for the br they are in.
They are on par or even better than the f18A at 12.3.
I dont mind the countermeasures buff but giving them aim9m will make 12.7 worthy.
lol.
If youโre frustrated with the current state of some of the aircraft in the game, you know where to go. Make your voice heard.
So, you partially agree rather than outright disagree.
Right now, youโre completely dismissing the FGR.2 and the F-4J(UK), and youโre also overlooking how notoriously awful the stock grind is for the F-4J in the US tech tree. Thatโs such a well-known issue that I didnโt even feel the need to bring it up in this part of the post. Youโre also ignoring the F-4Fs, and you disagree with adding the external fuel tank as well.
It honestly feels like you skimmed through a lot of what I wrote. This isnโt the kind of suggestion you can glance over and immediately vote on, you need to take the time to consider each point. Simply disagreeing without addressing the arguments isnโt enough. @30x170_APDS-T
exactly, like even if we lost the gun pod and only started with 2 aim9d and 2 aim7e thats still a improvement in my book, but would be nice if it kept the gun pod and then you can have 2 aim9d, 2 aim7e and gun pod, would be more of a equal starting point. although personally if it was me my loadout would be gun pod and the 2 aim7e and forget the aim9d since theyโre useless at that br
1 Like
Why did you tagged me?
Will you stop strawmanning, please?
You called Spey Phantoms F-4FG
When spey phantoms(F-4K/M) are neither F-4F/G.
So I explained why it is ridiculous.
Then you are saying, โBut you called it FG too!โ
If you want an F-4-whatever designation when calling Spey phantoms, call them F-4K/M.
Call it with the proper name.
Me, because you voted no without considering anything else.
And I should explain why ?
For something you completely donโt agree with, yes.
Thereโs levels to this. Itโs not that simple for something I tried to make simple.
Especially since an AIM-7E just racked me up a top down frag against a bombing Mig-23ML.
We canโt carry with Phantoms anymore, mostly because of BR compression, but even because F-18As exist.
Any amount of decompression we do, the F-18A will still be within range, but itโs only really potent in dogfights.
13.0 decompression needs to get F-15s, Flankers, etc into 13.3.
1 Like
@HazelPam7769, he has the right to vote no and also has the right not to say why.
@30x170_APDS-T, but it would be a pleasure if you could explain why. Because it is always great to see other playerโs pov. I guess?
1 Like
Fair enough
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
Explanation?
People like this is why we canโt have anything nice in the game.
decompression โ
extra compression โ๏ธ
Youโre just asking for quite substantial buffs with no corresponding BR increase or BR decreases with no corresponding performance nerfs, for aircraft that have rather average or above-average performance at the BR.
The only reasonable suggestion here, as-is, is the Kurnass 2000.
Some of the armament buffs would be good changes, yes, but the BR would need to be around .3 higher than stated here. For example, 11.7 for the F-4F or 12.3 for the FGR.2 and F-4S if they were to receive AIM-9L (and SuperTEMP).
1 Like
Well at first I didnโt โflew over and say no without thinkingโ. Iโve been plying at this game.
And in my opinion, F-4 had terrbile radar, somewhat โgoodโ missiles.
But it is a brick, have no enrgy retention, for some reason not even a gun in the first versions, โฆ
I see the F-4 as being told itโs good just because the major conflicr he saw werenโt against advanced jets.
Vietnam :
Was facing Mig-15, 17 or 19. Sometimes Mig-21. Most of the time at lower altโs because they knew the radar weaknesses.
And even facing jets a decade older, it would sometimes loose because of itโs bad maneuvrability. There are variants of ground pounding, but same things : Vietnam war wasnโt with modern equipment. SA-2, ZPU-2 and ZPU-4 where eyeballed to try to shoot down a supersonic jet at low alititude. The aircraftโs impressive kill statistics also need context. The United States generally enjoyed advantages in AWACS support, tankers, logistics, pilot training and industrial capacity.
SA-2 killed a lot of F-4 : Wild Wiesel trying to destroy it was litteraly suicides. Even tho SA-2 were not really good against beter fighter. India used it against F-86 and hunters, and did a single kill. And when the F-4G Wild Wiesel III was finished, the War was already over (1978).
Kurnass: the war of Attrition (Egypt-Israel):
F-4 were used as CAS in deep strike not only for tactics but as wel for psychoogical warfare, and for interception. But any dogfight or risky air-to-air missions were done by Mirage F-1 against Mig-17 and 19, sometimes 21 like the Vietnam. And the F-4 wasnโt very good in ground pounding since the USSR helped Egypt with SA-2 (again !) SA-3, SA-6 and cluster of AAA.
Again, the war also foreshadowed a challenge that became much more severe in the 1973 Yom Kippur War: modern, layered Soviet air-defence systems could inflict serious losses even on highly capable aircraft. That lesson influenced Israeli tactics and later Western approaches to suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD).
Then Iran-Irak, were it was used as well, but for the air-to-air combat, F-14 were used and were effective. Especially against Mirage F1, Mig 21 and Mig 25.
Later on, F-4 were upgraded. But it wasnโt a fighter anymore. A brick with weapons. I kinda see in the upgraded F-4 a Hs-129, with better engines. At the time it was out, it had an impressive loadout, but already aging. First Wild Wiesel missions were using dumb bomb. I think it is seen as good because of the weapons it could carry. But Bullpups were trash, then came the AGM-65. THose were way better, but sadly almost didnโt saw Vietnam (18 fired in total, 13 to target). Then the next big fight of the Maverick was the Gulf war, but there, F-16, F-15 already took part in the army.
F-4 were then used kind alike A-10 with not a lot of fighting infront since most was already cleared; reason why itโs k/d is so good.
So in my conclusion I donโt think you want to make the F-4 a good jet in air-to-air : it never have been, at least against itโs equivalent. ( Of course fighting a mig-15 with a radar and missiles would be easier). So as shown by the Vietnam, when the F-4 saw first the 21, which is most of the time, it was a sure kill. But if the 21 saw them, it was way harder and often lost.
F-4 are known because they still flying as of today with upgrades; and how widely used it was. Not for an insane k/d like the F-15.
Even tho it is real that some variants have sometimes a high BR; but like Japan still using F-4, even heavily upgraded in 2021โฆ And not for CAS, for interception. Imagine intercepting a Su-57, Chengdu J-20 or an F-35 with 9L, Aim-7M and a F-16A radar.
Let it die.
So if a BR change has to be done, itโs for the very first variant. But IRL there as a big gap in term of conflict between 3 and 4 gen, and with the cold war, progress was made quickly.
Big text just to say that itโs not useful to make a plane that wasnโt good in air to air, good at air-to-air. Itโs overhyped. Use early F-16 or A-7โs. Or for CAS A-1H or A-4 Skyhawk, thy were there for this very reason.