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.
- Yes
- No
- 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
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.
- Yes
- No
- Remain as-is (AIM-9L, 13.0)
- AIM-9M and 13.3
- AAM-3 and 13.3
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.
- Yes
- No
- 12.3
- 12.7 as suggested
- 13.0
- I disagree with the changes in general
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.
- Yes
- No
- Rb-74 and 13.0 as suggested
- Rb-74(M) and 13.3
- I disagree with the changes in general
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
- Yes
- No
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
- Yes
- No
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-8B (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-8B, to 13.0
- Yes, for 13.0
- Yes, for 13.3
- No
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
- Yes, Rb-74s and 13.3 as suggested
- Yes, Rb-74(M)s and 13.7
- No
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!