You keep cycling around issues that may only be affected by Gaijin.
Compression, sub trees and such.
We can argue all we want about those matters but it is a waste of time ultimately since Gaijin has to move it’s position on these matters for any change to happen.
We can only tell you what the situation is.
Personally I would have added Belgium to France, the Netherlands to Germany and no Swiss sub tree at all in favour of puttinh those vehicles into the nation of the developing industry.
Alas that doesn’t matter one bit.
I only want a well balanced IIIS in game no matter which tech tree.
F-16A is a rather mixed bag.
Yeah I agree, I do not see why the games as mixed as it is now. its pointless af
this statement makes absolutely zero sense, gaijin controls everything in the game regardless of what we say, so what we should all sit and say nothing? question none of it¿
P5 even: The P4 was only purchased as interim solution bfore the P5 came, and were only used as training missiles with no motor. The advantages of the P5 (IRCCM, smokeless motor) were irrelevant for training, so the P4 sufficed in that role…
I’m in favour of AIM-9P4. AIM-9B/E/J/P are a bad joke at 10.3 most of the time.
Mirage IIIC suffers because it has Magic 1, Mirage 5 suffers because it has Magic 1, Mirage 5BA has the pelasure of facing 11.3 jets because it has countermeasures and Mirage IIIE faces MiG-23MLD and others becuase it has Magic 1 as well as countermeasures.
Kfir C.2/C.7 suffer because Gaijin overestimates Paython 3 which is about as flare resistant as any R-60.
I bet Mirage IIIS would be 11.7 or 11.3 with AIM-9P5.
ATM it looks a bit Frankenstein style: The airframe with canards and CMS launcher for sure is post KAWEST 85, and would make sense to include AIM-9P-5 and a BR of more than 10.3, I find.
FALCO’s are not working at all, not locking and firing.
Frankly, all Swiss aircraft they added now are pretty Frankensteined atm:
Hunter F.58 (1971) has RWR where it shouldn’t (RWR was added in the upgrade that is represented in the Sqadron Hunter Mk.58) and a terribly ugly camo with sandgrey instead of white, missing or wrong marking, wrong font of ID numbers (again, suitable for the late Sqadron vehicle, not the early vehicle depicted here).
F-5E has a PD radar the real thing never had in the Swiss AF, as far as I could discern by now, but is (similarly to the Mirage), carrying only the AIM-9E’s even though it too is a modernized airframe (leading edge extensions, sharknose), the modernisation took place 1999, so it definitely should have the Flz Lwf LL 63/91 (AIM-9P-5) too, like the Mirage.
F/A-18 early is - again - missing the Flz Lwf LL 63/91 (AIM-9P-5) it carried when the Hornet was introduced in 1996, but has (as is standard in WT), all other weapons the aircraft could theoretically carry, although not a single one of them was ever used by the Swiss AF.
I assume they are confusing to F-5N which was ex-Swiss Air Force model.
Afaik, US Navy bought those F-5s and upgraded radar, cockpit, removed M39 20mm cannons.
“The most recent radar upgrade was the Emerson AN/APG-69, which replaced the AN/APQ-159 and added mapping capability. However, for economic reasons, most nations elected not to modernize, and the radar saw relatively little use in USAF aggressor squadrons and the Swiss air force.”
As to new HUD, I doubt it, seeing even recent images I found of Swiss Tiger’s cockpits stillshow the old, simple sight without any of the more elaborate controls one would associate with a HUD.
Just ordered a book about the Swiss Tigers yesterday, hiopefully it arrives son and will shed some light on the history/development/technology. I’m well equipped with litrature on the Swiss Hunters and Mirages, even know some of the authors of those very detailed and accurate works personally, but not yet on the Tiger, for which strangely there’s little info online…