Btw in everything like what exactly. Aim9L in this br is trash, aim7m are trash, the bol pods are trash and it’s a mid-good dog fighter it loses a lot speed in turns, and it accelerate is slow compared to other jets in it br, and climbing is mid as other planes can get their faster not to mention my radar either gets stuck by the horde of bombers bots 58 miles back or the radar is completely blind or only picks up one random object that’s probably not even their
1 Like
Are there images showing it installed in the tail?
1 Like
It also has the side radars as well
Ooh you can notch/BVR as the R27er has good DL/iog compared to the aim54 and the f14B radar also struggles in blindness to also not to mention the su27 has better CM it may be a low count of CM but their effectiveness is still better the f14B CM
well if you say so, everything you said ( except aim9l part who work 70/30 for me in eft) dont happend to me when i play the f14
I wish so hard for a “ghilli” version of the Chi-He (similiar to the BF V Chi-Ha Rocket Tank)
would you also throw money for a Na-To with a canvas roof?
2 Likes
Much appreciated
1 Like
Well I don’t what to say, I’ve had experience it in multiple occasions and I play the f14B every time I play the game
Plus we should get back into topic of this post
np
the topic is game discussion lol, what else your gonna talk about
you have a different experience and i cant say nothing more as i learned with the current bmpt situation that everyone get a differencte situation rather than the same situation
Russia has no 5th gen fighter jets, and none of them are stealth fighters.
*bait
Benefits of Rafale F4.1 over the current Rafale =
- GMTI mode for radar
- 1,000kg AASM for centerline pylon
- Most importantly, people can stop calling it fake
1 Like
1 Like
Would you like to grind 840K RP?
dunno if anybody needs this :
Hello, I’d like to point out that this is not true.
Even the first version of the CV90120 (1998+), with a combat weight of ± 25t was specified to feature 4 crew-members (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver).
Sources:
[S1] RUAG Land Systems & HÄGGLUNDS Vehicle - “CV90120, COMPACT 120MM TURRET FOR INTEGRATION ON LIGHTWEIGHT VEHICLES” (2000)
[S2] HÄGGLUNDS Vehicle brochure - CV90120 (1998)
see: bottom left (“4+3” and “25 000 kg”)
Images from the RUAG presentation and the 1998 brochure:
[S1]
[S2]
A primary source from 2002, which shows essentially the same configuration as in-game of the CV 90120-T also lists 4 crew at the mentioned 26t-28t combat weight figure:
Spoiler: ALVIS HÄGGLUNDS - CV 90120-T (2002)
And then I’d obviously like to point out that “up to 35 000 kg” does not mean the vehicle weighs 35 000 kg in the depicted configuration (it’s also contradictory as the images used are partially identical to those used in the 2002 brochure which lists 26t-28t).
Note: The data in the 2006 brochure is listed as “Principal Characteristics” and NOT “Technical Specifications” like in the Alvis Hägglunds brochure!
In 2006 (same year as the brochure was published in), another version of the CV 90120-T was presented, featuring the AMAP-ADS APS. (which is what the Jane’s sources were relevant for, as the article was published in 2006 and shows the vehicle in an image).
Spoiler: Jane's IDR (August 2006), Showing the CV 90120-T w/ the APS at EUROSATORY 2006
In 2007 this version (now with a RC weapon station instead of the 160kg PLSS sight in the dome-housing) was shown at the MSPO expo again, where we have hiqh quality pictures of the stand, which ALSO lists “do 35 000 kg” → “up to 35 000 kg”
The AMAP-ADS APS weighs 500kg and as such, our ingame-configuration can physically not weigh 35t if the version featuring it is also listed at <35t.
FMV Source for 500kg weight figure (shows CV 90120-T w/ AMAP-ADS APS btw)
Even the secondary source that was referred to in the changelog quite literally shows the heavier version (+500kg minimum, the PLSS sight weighs 160kg according to SAAB, the RC weapon-station is most likely heavier or atleast equally as heavy)
Related page from the secondary source listed & SAAB PLSS Brochure:
Now why does BAE Systems list “up to 35 000kg” you may ask?
Because it’s the max weight class for the CV 90 MK 3 hull, which the vehicle is advertised to be based on (due to the engine being rated at 600kW) in the 2006 brochure.
CV 90 variants, their weight class and engines (Source: BAE Systems - "CV90 The Story")
The following brochure contains ALL pictures used in the CV 90120 brochure from 2006 (exception being the cover one, but that isnt identical to the ingame-version to begin with) and shows that the 35t figure comes from the weight-class.
ALVIS HÄGGLUNDS Brochure - COMBAT VEHICLE 90 (CV90) (2004)
BAE Systems still does that today btw, as you can see through the brochure listing the maximum weight to be >40t, which is in line with the maximum the CV 90 MK IV is rated for.
The website itself however lists the maximum weight of the CV 90120 (MK IV) itself to be 38t.
Brochure + Website listing + ">40t GVW-R" Origin
Website: (Screenshot taken on the 6th November 2025)
Source: BAE Systems - “CV90 The Story”
And that aside, the brochure’s cover doesnt even show our ingame-configuration, which comes with the additional rubber skirts and the version carrying them, which is identical to the ingame-configuration was shown as early as 2002 (MSPO expo):
Not to sound nitpicky here but if QA/Tech Mods can tell me that “up to” doesnt automatically mean “is” then I think I can make my point here.
I can provide a bunch of additional secondary sources and references for the 35t weight figure not being applicable to the ingame-configuration aswell, but this post is already long enough as is…
(if you are wondering why I didnt just bug-report it with this information - it’s because that site has a much stricter character and upload-limit lmao)
9 Likes