Theoretically the EJ Kai could also get AAM-4s since they were tested on a F-4EJ Kai…
Buttttt I would prefer this to be a separate aircraft, perhaps at 12.7 or 13.0 with the F-4F ICE (ICE has Agile Eagle and a Better radar so hence the 12.7 suggestion.)
I don’t see why the EJ Kai couldn’t get AAM-3 though. It would basically just be a worse F-15J.
Not quite. More 11.0 and 11.3 aircraft are being added to the game with all-aspect missiles. At the end of the day, these aren’t F-15s or Su-30s, they’re just Phantoms. If you have any concerns you can express them in this discussion I made.
That’s not a very strong argument when you consider how many other vehicles in the game are in the same situation. By that logic, we should remove the F-14D’s loadout because it’s too similar to the F-14B’s, and then get rid of countless other loadouts simply because they overlap as well.
The replies aren’t working, weird. @Ion_492
I’m not too sure about the AAM-4 being added to that phantom, that would make it pretty scary. The only reason the AAM-3 still hasn’t been added is because Gaijin takes ages to add things to already existing aircraft in game, especially the forgotten ones. They did add the AIM-7M to the aircraft recently so it might happen soon.
I won’t go any further.
Kurnass 2000 entered service in 1989. Same year as the F-15E. 6 years after the F-117. It was obsolete the year of it’s first flight as a military jet. It was used for CAS, interception, and SEAD. 11.7 with AGM-88 will be excellent and pared with ECM as IRL, even overpowered. So think about CAS for a CAS jet, not air-to-air. Any BR over 11.7 will give the same gameplay with only Fox-2 and no maneuvrability.
Conclusion : Don’t try to fit a square peg into a round hole. It wasn’t meant for air-to-air, and ARB is just about that. History had wars, and any jet had good points that have been enlightened with those conflicts. Just need to find them and use them, and surprise, it will work.
Maybe some F-4 have a BR slighty too high, but I don’t think I’ll put my voice here since some subjects needs more attention.
None of that justifies it sharing the same BR as the F-16s. You’re basically defending Gaijin’s inconsistent battle ratings.
Your entire argument is, “It’s good at ground attack, so it shouldn’t move down in Air Battles.” That logic doesn’t make much sense.
I honestly don’t think you took the time to properly read this post, or the others I’ve made on the subject, so there’s not much point continuing this discussion.
Have a nice day.
Way better in term of CAS, mounted armament, ammount of missile, sometimes radar.
3 out of the 15 F-4 have a BR in common with an F-16.
Those are : F-4EJ Kai, Kurnass 2000 at 12.3. Same BR as F-16 with 2/3 of their counter-measures. They also have way more advanced suspended armament.
And the F-4F late, that has access to Aim-120’s at the lowest BR with the Tornado F.3 and a couple AV-8’s.
F-16:
I think you are the one making it an issue.
I thought you were leaving? I guess not
Just because it’s great in ground doesn’t justify it being that br in air battles.
Nah one of the things I hate the most in my life is people saying false thing in debates. So I just had to correct you on that fact. (The base of your arguments, even.).
Call a spade a spade.
It’s really not, and I think we’re probably getting off on the wrong foot, or you’re just misinterpreting my points.
In Air Battles, the F-16s, especially the Netz (Mod), are simply better in every way apart from countermeasures and radar, the Kurnass is literally a pig with makeup. Even then, the Netz (Mod) still carries a large number of countermeasures, so it’s not exactly lacking.
There’s no reason for the Kurnass to share the same battle rating, especially if the other Phantoms receive the buffs I’ve been talking about. The missiles on the Kurnass are good, but they’re still fairly easy to flare. You’re greatly overestimating this aircraft’s capabilities, relax.
You’re not going to agree with me on the Kurnass, and you made that decision yesterday so why continue? I’m trying to convince people why these changes should be implemented. This isn’t about arguing or trying to beat other people’s arguments. That’s not how I do things.
Kurnass should have access to AGM-88, and F-16 was made to face dogfighters.
Because CAS is as well represented in ARB maybe ?
F-4 were used as a fighter in Vietnam. Never after. it is not a fighter.
And you are comparing it to the most versatile and advanced aircraft for it’s generation.
It is shown by how much exported it have been.
I mean, look at this.
User of the F-4 :
Following this logic the Tornado IDS SLE should also stay at 12.3 which doesn’t make any sense
what.
The F-4 isn’t a fighter?
Used to be, but after the Vietnam war, it was used as an interceptor, SEAD, and CAS aircraft/deep strikes. It is designated as a American tandem two-seat, twin-engine, all-weather, long-range supersonic jet interceptor and fighter-bomber. (Wikipedia)
As for the fighter, there isn’t a lot, and the ones there never or almost saw fighting.
" The USN had the F-4J as their latest aircraft, and it began to show its age in the post Vietnam War period. A modernization program began to keep the F-4J up to date with latest upgrades. Improvements were done in avionics, weapon systems, airframe, and undercarriage, but the two most notable improvements were wing leading-edge slats, for improved manoeuvrability, and new smokeless engines. The F-4S flew for USN up until the Phantom’s retirement in the late 1980s, replaced by more modern aircraft like the F-14 Tomcat and the F-18 Hornet."
-war Thunder Wiki, F-4S Phantom II.
In War Thunder, it is written “Fighter” on stat card, but it was created as a multirole fighter/bomber/interceptor, and later on upgraded only in the optics of bomber, SEAD, recon, and interceptor (and a drone target as well, Aim-9X Block II famous video of 180° shot was on a QF-4). The lack of dogfighting capabilities was bigger and bigger, so after giving it slats and better engines, even the US let it go as soon as the F-14 came.
Your initial statement made it sound like it was never intended to be a fighter (which, it was, and it was used in that role).
You are correct that it wasn’t used as a fighter post Vietnam by the U.S., But saying it isn’t a fighter since it was pushed into other roles (primarily multirole, with fighter capabilities) is ludicrous.
It’s like saying the Su-30MKI isn’t a Fighter since the IAF primarily uses it for air to ground missions.
Also.
USAF Museum calls it a fighter, or Fighter / Bomber.
They don’t have any real justification and even liked this comment so yeh, it’s pointless trying to convince them otherwise
I understand their point that the F-4 wasn’t used as a fighter post-Vietnam, I think it was just miscommunication.
English isn’t their first language so hats off to them for putting all the effort in
I think I made a pretty good point here. The more you think about the F-4Fs, the less their current state makes sense.
Dogfight Phantom…The British one? The one without Agile Eagle and leading edge wing slats.
The FGR-2 cant out dogfight an F-104 It is truly terrible
