More capable and historically accurate weapons for Rank VIII aircraft, and corresponding BR changes

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
1

Over the past couple years, Gaijin has added many top tier aircraft with limited armament for balancing. This is reasonable, but it is high time these aircraft receive their historically accurate armaments, as those weapons are now widespread in-game.
Additionally, despite recent decompression 4th gen aircraft regularly fight 3rd gens. Moving these aircraft up will alleviate this issue, while pairing such a change with an armament buff will ensure that the 4th gens don’t struggle too much when they themselves are uptiered.
Note: for ARB

The big one- the MiG-29s
The MiG-29s have two problems- they have a missile they didn’t use and don’t have the main missile they used. As I’m sure most are aware, neither Germany nor Hungary operated R-27Es. Additionally, the MiG-29s were denied R-73s, their main missile, when they were first introduced for balancing.
MiG-29 9.13, 9.12A (GR), 9.12B (HN), 9.12G (GR): Remove R-27ER/ER1, add R-73/E, move to 13.0

Additional considerations: the G and 9.13
The MiG-29G already has R-73s. This would be a direct downgrade. However, with the poor radar performance of the MiG-29 and its excellent performance as a dogfighter, I believe it will still be capable and handle its own. Now with two identical vehicles at the same BR, this opens the possibility that one can potentially become a premium, as Germany doesn’t really have any other good options for a Rank VIII premium fighter.
The 9.13 actually did use R-27ERs. However, giving it these missiles has two equally bad options: either it’s directly better than the rest of the 13.0 MiGs, or it’s a directly worse SMT at the same BR. So I believe the 9.13 would benefit from the same armament as its brothers.

Do you think this change is a good idea?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
MiG-29 9.13
  • No R-27ERs and 13.0 as suggested
  • R-27ERs and 13.0
  • R-27ERs and 13.3
  • I disagree with the changes in general
0 voters

Counterbalance- the F-16s
Of course with the MiG-29s being changed, the F-16s would benefit from a change of their own. Additionally, a few F-16s are missing their historical armaments of AMRAAMs, originally denied for balancing but now that need not be an issue. The Italian ADF in particular never used Sparrows, only AMRAAMs, and almost exclusively AIM-9L(I)s and not the basic Ls.
F-16A (US/FR), Netz: Add AIM-9M, to 13.0
F-16A ADF (US): Add AIM-9M, to 13.3
F-16A ADF (IT): Add AIM-9L(I), AIM-120B, to 13.7
F-16A MLU (CN): Add AIM-9M, AIM-120B, to 13.7
F-16AJ: see additional considerations below

Additional considerations: the F-16A (FR), Netz, and AJ
The A (FR) already has AIM-9Ms and is 13.3. This would mean it just goes down in BR. However, there are already superior aircraft such as the F-15 and JAS-39 at 13.0 (and we’ll talk about these later). Additionally, the ADF with AIM-7s is undoubtedly superior to the As without, while also inferior to the F-16s with AMRAAMs. You can also consider a comparison to 13.3s like the Su-27. The Netz is already 13.0 and would simply be buffed, something needed as Python 3s are really not worth the BR.
The F-16AJ is in an interesting spot as a hypothetical aircraft never built. It could receive AIM-9Ms (never used by Japan) or AAM-3s (not yet designed at the time of the vehicle’s proposal) and move to 13.3 alongside the American ADF. Or, it could remain where it is, as a unique F-16 without IRCCM but with SARH at a lower BR.

Do you think this change is a good idea?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
F-16AJ
  • Remain as-is (AIM-9L, 13.0)
  • AIM-9M and 13.3
  • AAM-3 and 13.3
0 voters

Settling the debate- the F-14s
Many believe the F-14s are undertiered on account of their AIM-54s. If this is true, then moving them up in BR even with the addition of more capable Sidewinders is a nerf and better for balancing. Others claim that the AIM-54 isn’t that good and the F-14’s strengths are its Sparrows and Sidewinders. If that’s true, then it doesn’t matter that the AIM-54s are not upgraded with a BR increase. Either way, both sides should be somewhat happy.
F-14A: add AIM-9L, to 12.7
F-14B: add AIM-9M, to 13.0
F-14A IRIAF: see additional considerations below

Additional considerations: the IRIAF
The F-14A IRIAF is already considerably better armed than the ordinary A. AIM-9Ps outperform the H, the R-27R1 is superior to the AIM-7F, and the Fakour and Sedjil have far better energy and acceleration than the AIM-54A, improving performance. I believe it already deserves a higher BR. However, there likely still potential for an armament upgrade. I am not very knowledgable on what the IRIAF operates. Maybe something like an AIM-9P-4? Perhaps an R-60MK? Or even R-73 which would uptier the IRIAF F-14 even higher. However, unless someone has more information I’m going off the assumption that there isn’t better missiles available.

Do you think this change is a good idea?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Assuming no new ordinance is added to the F-14A IRIAF, what BR should it be?
  • 12.3
  • 12.7 as suggested
  • 13.0
  • I disagree with the changes in general
0 voters

3rd gen- the JA-37
One of the defining characteristics of the JA-37D over the JA-37C is the carriage of Rb-99s. Of course when it was introduced back in 2022, these missiles were out of the question. But now is the time to add them, and also bring the JA-37C to its historical loadout, something currently denied as it would make the two aircraft essentially identical.
JA-37D: add Rb-99, to 13.0
JA-37C add Rb-74, to 12.0

Additional considerations: Rb-74(M)
Rb-74(M) is intended to represent AIM-9L(I)s which Sweden may or may not have used. The JA-37D could receive these missiles and bump up to 13.3. I personally think leaving it at 13.0 with standard 74s would make for a more interesting and unique aircraft.

Do you think this change is a good idea?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
JA-37D
  • Rb-74 and 13.0 as suggested
  • Rb-74(M) and 13.3
  • I disagree with the changes in general
0 voters

Other aircraft- Yak-141, Bison, J-8F, JAS-39A
The Yak-141 was intended to carry R-77s and R-73s, not R-27s and R-60s. Similar to many other aircraft discussed, this wasn’t reasonable when it was first added, but now would be just fine.
Yak-141: add R-73, R-77, to 13.3

Do you think this change is a good idea?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

The MiG-21UPG Bison was also capable of carrying R-77s. Now I personally think that having a premium with ARH missiles is something the game isn’t ready for yet, but it is worth discussing.
MiG-21UPG: add R-77, to 13.0

Do you think this change is a good idea?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

The J-8F is missing a few IR missiles, the most significant being the PL-5C, PL-5E (an all-aspect PL-5 similar to the PL-5C), and PL-8A (PL-8 with FoV gating IRCCM). In terms of BR placement, I don’t think this warrants 13.3 with the lower performance of these missiles compared to AIM-9Ms and the lower count of ARH missiles compared to current 13.3 3rd gen aircraft.
J-8F: add PL-5C, PL-5E, PL-8A, to 13.0

Do you think this change is a good idea?
  • Yes, for 13.0
  • Yes, for 13.3
  • No
0 voters

The JAS-39 entered service with Rb-99s. While it can carry Rb-71s, this was never done operationally. Of course, simply adding Rb-99s would make it identical to the 39C, so that is probably not a good idea. The other option is to remove Rb-74(M)s and add the Rb-99, for a lower BR than the 39C.
JAS-39A: remove Rb-74(M), add Rb-99, to 13.3

Do you think this change is a good idea?
  • Yes, Rb-74s and 13.3 as suggested
  • Yes, Rb-74(M)s and 13.7
  • No
0 voters

Other BR considerations- the F-15s
I believe the F-15A/J/Baz are undertiered, period. Excellent speed, acceleration, maneuverability, radars, and armament, yet they are lower BR than the the French F-16A and the same as F-16s with AIM-9Ls! They should be 13.3 alongside the Su-27/J-11, not 13.0 where they fight Phantoms. But because this topic is primarily about weapons changes to vehicles and not just BR changes, I didn’t include them.

Please let me know what you think!

2 Likes
2

Frfr. Good changes BUT top tier should at least be decompressed further to like 14.3 for at least the ADF to not be the same br as an F-16C or F-15C that are superior.

3 Likes
3

Personally, I think historical accuracy here should take a backseat to balance. Especially considering the wildly different capabilities of weapons systems at this level (think Sparrow vs AMRAAM, its not even a competition), the best decision would probably be to give aircraft as close to “equal” weapons systems as possible, so that gameplay is more skillful.
I think the best approach to balancing these aircraft is a sense of gradual progression, where each BR step brings a new aircraft that has something new to bring to the table.

That being said, some of these changes are decent, but some of them I don’t agree with very much.
During this comment I will be using /E to refer to Early, and /L to refer to Late; I don’t like the look of Early or Late as part of names, I think /E or /L looks better lol

While removing the R-27ER/ET is certainly an idea, I fear that it may run the risk of the aircraft being downtiered, especially with no “backup” to support the gap that would create. In my view, there should (ideally) be three MiG-29s - one with R-27R/Ts, one with ER/ETs, and one with R-77s (if possible). Using the Russian one as an example, the order should be MiG-29 9.12 (R-27R/T, R-60/60M/73), MiG-29 9.13 (R-27R/T/ER/ET, R-60/60M/73), and then in the future MiG-29 9.13S (R-27R/T/ER/ET, R-77, R-60M/R-73).
Ideally I would put a 9.12 where the 9.13 is but they didn’t really give that option lol. It may have also been smart to skip over the 9.13 and go straight to the 9.13S, as the R-77 and R-27ER/ET came into service at around the same time, and having two 9.12s of /E and /L variety would be easier to balance with other nations, who did not use the 9.13.
In game, the difference between the MiG-29A (9.12) and MiG-29 (9.13) is extremely minimal. For now, jamming and such equipment does not matter, but I still think it should be considered. Honestly, in my opinion, they should have added a Soviet 9.12 that would make it so much easier lol.

Another nitpick of mine is that they should have added the MiG-29G as a MiG-29A/L especially because that’s basically what it is in practice. So then Germany could have MiG-29A (R-27R/T, R-60/60M/73E) and MiG-29A/L (R-27R/T/ER/ET, R-60/60M/73E) in a folder together. Like you suggested that would allow the MiG-29G to be a premium, which tbh is where I think it should have been in the first place.

Moving on,

I think that these are okay ideas. Personally I would like there to be a degree of separation between any 9M carrier and any non-all aspect missile carrier. Thinking of sim, my main gamemode, fighting F-16s with 6 AIM-9Ms in a Phantom with 0 9Ls would not be fun, and that’s only one example.

Additionally, while not really “real” per say, at least to my knowledge, I would establish a performance difference between the AIM-120A and AIM-120B. When I was writing this down a while ago, I noted AIM-120A as ~55km range and AIM-120B as ~75km range, assuming that:

a) the missiles were fired from high altitude at high speed (think DCS BVR fights)
b) the engagement is head-on
c) the change in electronics from A to B actually meant something
d) the AIM-120A modeled is one of the early ones that performed a bit below specification

Using this I also noted the to-be-added-eventually AIM-120C as ~90km range, and AIM-120C-5 as ~110km range. The reason for this proposed range difference is kind of weird; the AIM-120A is the counterpart to the R-27ER. While the AIM-120A is long ranged and active homing, the R-27ER was designed quite literally to go so fast (like Mach ~4.8 fast) that it would hit the plane guiding the AMRAAM before the AMRAAM went pitbull (self guide mode). Launched from the right range at the right altitude, an R-27ER just goes so fast that it takes any other missile a long time (15 seconds or so) to catch up. And for that reason, especially considering the limited range of the AIM-120A that I am talking about, these two are relative equals.
All this to say that, in my opinion, the planes with Sparrows now should keep Sparrows, not be given AMRAAMs, and then a “new” plane would be added with AMRAAMs. Otherwise the possibility of a large TT gap is just too big.
It should be worth nothing that I’m basically going off of memory, and this information may be outdated as the document I wrote it in is a few years old.

As for the F-16s themselves, I personally think that it should be done the same way I described the MiG-29s. Initial F-16A with only IRs, and not really good ones at that, then an F-16A with Sparrows but still mid IRs, and then an upgraded one. So, for the American one at least, something like this:
F-16A-10 (AIM-9J/P-4/L), then F-16A-15 ADF (AIM-9J/P-4/L, AIM-7F/M), and lastly an F-16C-25 (AIM-9P-4/L/M, AIM-7F/M).

The F-16A (FR) should be changed to Block 10, get it’s 9Ms removed and 9P/P-4 added to be on a standard closer to the American F-16A. Additionally, Belgium could also be given an F-16A OCU to fill the gap created by the move-down of the F-16A, as they operated those beginning in 1987. The F-16AM MLU can stay where it is though, if and until more advanced AMRAAMs are added and another round of balancing is needed. So, for the French F-16s:
F-16A-10 (AIM-9P/P-4/L), and then F-16A OCU (AIM-9P-4/L/M), and lastly the F-16AM MLU (AIM-9L/M, AIM-120A).

The F-16A (IT) is in a unique spot. Italy operated mostly F-16A-15 ADFs, but did operate F-16A-10s (only like 4 though). They are also in somewhat of a bind as between the F-104 and EF-2000, there isn’t really anything. So, for Italy:
F-16A-10 (AIM-9P/P-4/L), F-16A-15 ADF (AIM-9P/P-4/L, AIM-7F/M), and then F-16A-15 ADF/L (AIM-9P-4/L/L(I), AIM-7F/M, AIM-120A).

The F-16A MLU (CN) is in a similar spot as the Italian ones. I would probably do something similar, except this time there is less aircraft to pick from. I had thought that the ROC had F-16C-50s, but I guess I was mistaken. But, the F-16V-72 or whatever new aircraft will likely be able to take over from there. The choice to make an MLU/E and not an MLU/L is so that the MLU/L can be reserved for the upgraded F-16s from around 2010.
F-16A-20 MLU/E (AIM-9P/P-4/L, AIM-7F/M) and F-16A-20 MLU (AIM-9P-4/L/M, AIM-7F/M, AIM-120A).

Next is the Netz, or the Israeli F-16A-10. Similarly to the other ones, I propose splitting the aircraft to allow easier balancing. Fortunately for us, after the Gulf War ('91), Israel was given additional F-16A-10s, which became known as Netz II.
Netz (AIM-9P/P-4/L, Python 3), then Netz II (AIM-9P-4/L/M, Python 3).

Lastly, the F-16AJ. This one is weird, because it was never built, only half tested on a YF-16. Like the other ones, I think splitting it into two versions is the best idea here, but I am also not really sure of how to do that given the whole “never really existed” thing. Ideally I would leave the F-16AJ as is and then after it put the XF-2A, but the issue with that IMO is that the XF-2A would get an AESA radar, which I am unsure about the developer’s stance on adding to the game at the moment. Maybe splitting the F-16AJ into two planes, ex. F-16AJ and F-16AJ II, would be the best decision in this case, pending the addition of the XF-2A. Regarding the AIM-9M, though, any inclusion here could receive the AIM-9P-5, which is an AIM-9P-4 with IRCCM and a low smoke motor, in essence a slightly worse AIM-9M. So, it could look like this:
F-16AJ (AIM-9P/P-4/L, AIM-7F/M), then F-16AJ II (AIM-9P-4/L/P-5 or M, AIM-7F/M) or XF-2A (AIM-9P-4/L/P-5 or M, AAM-3, AIM-7F/M).

Having played against the various F-14s during the event, I can say that the AIM-54s are not really as big of a threat as people make it seem. You do have to defend against them, but they are easier to defend against (read: notch) than an AMRAAM and so are easier to dodge, but they can still catch you off guard.

Regarding the F-14A IRIAF, while the R-27R1 is better than the AIM-7F, it’s big weakness is the radar it’s attached to, which is also vulnerable to notching. The Fakour-90 and AIM-54A are roughly equal, but the AIM-54A is slightly better at least by the stats. I never had the experience of fighting the Sedjil (AIM-23?) so I can’t really say for certain how good it is, but it is to my knowledge just a long range semi-active Phoenix, which would fall to the same weakness as the R-27R1.
As for the Sidewinders, I found this article from a few years back of Iran testing a “Sidewinder,” which they called the Azarakhsh (Thunderbolt). That being said, I have no evidence of it actually being used on fighters, let alone the F-14AM, but its very similar looking to the AIM-9P so it could be possible that I just missed it. Additionally there is this other article that is an interesting read, documenting some of what the outside world knows about Iranian F-14 upgrades. I read somewhere that they “tried” the R-73 on the Tomcats but were unable to properly link it with the F-14s FCS, and the same story with the R-27, so there’s that I guess? Anyway, every picture I’ve seen of the Iranian F-14s has AIM-9P-looking missiles but with a white seekerhead, which is notable because the P-4 and P-5 have darker grey seekerheads. So at best, they made their own missile (Azarakhsh) from the AIM-9P, and it is all aspect (although if it has IRCCM idk), and at worst they are stuck with AIM-9Ps. Take all of this with a grain of salt though, I can’t really definitely say anything here.

Regarding the American F-14A/E, I personally think it should be given 9Ls, yes, but also that an intermediary between the F-14A/E and F-14B should be added; F-14A/L. This would be an F-14A-125 or so, which were the F-14As that did not have the front extending canard… things… and also had the TISEO installed under the nose like the F-14Bs. So an order for American F-14s could be like this:
F-14A/E (AIM-9G/H/L, AIM-7E/E-2/F, AIM-54A), then F-14A/L (AIM-9H/L/M, AIM-7E-2/F/M, AIM-54A), and then F-14B (AIM-9H/L/M, AIM-7E-2/F/M, AIM-54A/C).

Personally, I would want to see a JA37 (not C) added before the C to take the place of the C now. If they don’t want to do that, because “no countermeasures,” and aren’t willing to semi-historical countermeasure it, a JA37C/E would work fine. Additionally, it may be worth considering upgrading the Skyflash to more or less historical performance, as I know its supposed to be an AIM-7M-ish seeker but with a 7E-2 motor. The planes, on the other hand, could be something like this more or less:
(using American missile names because I’m used to those)
JA37 (AIM-9B/P, Skyflash), JA37C (AIM-9B/P/L, Skyflash), JA37D (AIM-9P/L/L(I), Skyflash, AIM-120A).

The Yak-41M is weird. Because it could carry R-27s and R-60s, but also R-77s and R-73s. So that makes it somewhat of a VTOL MiG-29 in terms of weapon loadout, so…
They can either split it (again) into two aircraft, Yak-41 and Yak-41M (or Yak-41M and Yak-141), and if one is at the same BR as the MiG-29 9.12 then it should not get R-27ER/ETs.
Yak-41 (R-60/60M, R-27R/T, R-73 (maybe)), and Yak-41M (R-60M, R-27R/T/ER/ET, R-73, R-77)

I would say probably not, unless it should become a worse F-4F KWS. One thing I think it should have though are the dual R-60M launch rails (and R-60s in general), so you could choose between R-60s or R-73s.

The J-8 is in a similar spot to the Yak-41M. Firstly, the tree has a giant hole there on account of there being no “good” SARH J-8, but that could be rectified with the J-8C. Secondly, moving the J-8F up with the addition of PL-12s without the addition of better IR missiles was just a really not good idea. Depending on which ones are added, it could go to a few places. Because it is so high (thanks PL-12) the PL-5B should be removed entirely and replaced with the PL-5E. If it is to get a not all aspect missile, PL-5C or PL-7 (Magic I) would be good. There is also a PL-5E with IRCCM, the PL-5E-II, so that could be added too. It depends. But if PL-5E-II is added, then probably no PL-8A, to provide a “choice” between good missile (PL-8) or IRCCM (PL-5E-II). So, maybe like
J-8F (PL-7, PL-5E/E-II, PL-8, PL-12)

The JAS39A to JAS39C issue is just what happens when you change the name and electronics but nothing else. In War Thunder terms, nothing of significance actually changed. All that I can think of for the JAS39A would be adding the AIM-9P-4 (idk what that would be called in Sweden, RB24J-4?) and removing the AIM-9L(I). At the same time, it is at the “AIM-9M” level of capability so idk. Maybe JAS39A with AIM-120A and JAS39C with AIM-120B (with the ranges I specified earlier), but both with 9L(I)? I’m not sure.

Personally I think the AIM-9M should be removed from the F-15As and they should get the AIM-9J or something so they have the grind like the F-16A does lol.
F-15A (AIM-9J/P-4/L, AIM-7E-4/F), and F-15C/E (AIM-9P-4/L/M, AIM-7F/M) for both the USA and Israel, with Israel’s being the Baz and Akef, and both getting Python 3s. Japan could get something similar, with F-15J/E (AIM-9P/P-4/L, AIM-7E-4/F) and F-15J (AIM-9P-4/L/M, AIM-7F/M, AAM-3).

I don’t think I missed anything, but let me know if I did.

4

Mig-29G has R-73s thus 9.12 and 9.13 do not need R-73s.
R-60Ms are historically accurate.

They should never get R-73s. You want R-73? Get the Migs with them.

We’re missing F-16As with 9Js only. You want 9M F-16s, use them.
You want AAM-3s? Use F-15.

F-14B already has 9Ls.
F-14D will have 9Ms.
Changes aren’t necessary for F-14A nor F-14B.

JA-37D already has 9Ls.
Gripen already has AIM-120s.
Changes to 37C and 37D aren’t needed.

Yak-141 already has its correct weapons, as does J-8F and Bison.
Gripen was already addressed.

All are currently historically accurate.

5

I think that some of those are fine, however some doesnt really makes any sense if you advocate for “historically acurate weaponry”.

Like f14 reciving aim 9p4, f16 aj reciving aim 9m or aam, which would be historically inaccurate