No all-aspect IR missiles for USA before 12.0?

How come the US is the only tech tree that doesn’t get any all-aspect IR missiles before 12.0?
(Not counting the slow CAS aircrafts like A-10, Su25, AMX, and A-6)

The AIM 9L is such a famous and powerful IR missile, but US fighters don’t get to use it on any fighter below 12.

Every single tech tree has all-aspect IR missiles before 12, some even at 10.7. Most tech trees have more than one options before 12.

Wouldn’t it be fair to add even a single all-aspect missile at 11.0 or 11.3 on an F-5 or an F-4 or something, the US being a major tech tree, and keeping historical accuracy.

Germany: 1st all-aspect IR missile on a fighter at 11.0:
MiG-21bis-SAU (11.0) - R-60MK

USSR: 1st all-aspect IR missile on a fighter at 10.7:
MiG-21bis(10.7) - R-60M

Britian: 1st all-aspect IR missile on a fighter* at 10.3:
Sea Harrier FRS.1 (e) (10.3) - AIM 9L
Tornado F.3 (11.3) - AIM 9L

Japan: 1st all-aspect IR missile on a fighter at 11.7:
F-4EJ Kai Phantom II (11.7) - AIM 9L

China: 1st all-aspect IR missile on a fighter at 11.7:
J-8F (11.7) - PL-8

Italy: 1st all-aspect IR missile on a fighter at 11.3:
F-104S.ASA (11.3) - AIM 9L

France: 1st all-aspect IR missile on a fighter at 11.3:
Mirage F1C (11.3) - Matra R550 Magic 2

Sweden: 1st all-aspect IR missile on a fighter at 11.0:
AJS37 (11.0) - RB 74
MiG-21bis (11.0) - R-60MK

Isr: 1st all-aspect IR missile on a fighter at 10.7:
Kfir C.2 (10.7) - Python 3 (event vehicle)
Kfir C.7 (11.3) - Python 3

USA: 1st all-aspect IR missile on a fighter at 12.0:
F-16A early (12.0) - AIM 9L

Maybe the US tech tree is supposed to be more focused on radar missiles. Some would argue that R-60M is not very potent against the AIM 9L etc. I still think something like the AIM 9P-4 could be added.

Some would say that all-aspect IR missiles are not all that useful. But in my experience, having all-aspect missiles gets you a lot of easy kills, especially when shooting at players that are engaged in a dogfight with someone else.


The reason is simple. The US get all aspects last because they combine one of the best first gen all aspects with the second best RADAR missile and arguably the best airframe at top tier all in one package. Unlike other nations, who have much weaker all aspects (R60Ms), or who sacrifice RADAR missiles and/or missile capacity for them (Python 3s, F1C, AJS-37), or who have them on obsolete/terrible airframes for War Thunder’s meta (EJ Kai, Harrier, Tornado, ASA), the US sacrifices basically nothing in terms of performance in getting all aspects, and thus it’s at a higher BR accordingly.

Putting them on an F-5 or F-4 would cause a balancing issue since those planes would then have to go up in BR, which means their flight performance suffers to the point they may end up worse off than they are without them.

Edit: Corrected on usage of all aspect missiles on F-4 and late F-5 family.


I see this as being true. US gets the best early sahr missiles. Aim7d and aim9c are much better than the r3r. And the r60m is much shorter range and more flare prone aam compared to the aim9l.


The Kurnass 2000 is an F-4 variety that has 6 Aim9Ls and no SARH missiles at 11.3 br. The F-4EJ Kai is an F-4 variant that has Aim7Fs and Aim9Ls at 11.7 br. The US F-4E is one of the best airframes (with agile eagle), has 4 Aim9Js, 4 Aim7E-2(DF) missiles and an internally mounted gun at 11.0 and the F-4J/S have Aim9G/H (H being radar slavable), 4 Aim9Fs, and a headon pulse doppler radar to use with them. Adding the Aim9L would push both of the US airframes up to probably 11.7. The F-4 is not quite up for the job of being at the same BR as the F-14A because of the radar differences and flight performance. Things at 11.0 and up get really advanced really fast, and the F-4 airframe can’t really afford to go up any more. They are quite powerful for the F-4s even without all aspect ir missiles.

1 Like

Yes. But at the same BR (12.0) other nations either get the same airframe and IR missiles (Taiwan, Italy, and Japan’s F-16), or even better IR missiles and radar missiles (R27T and ET). So that’s not really a reason for denying the US all-aspect IR missiles.

F-5E could carry AIM 9P-4 or AIM 9P-5.

There is already an F-4 at 11.7.

If the AIM 9L is too disruptive, maybe a new F-5 at 11.0 with AIM 9P-4? It will also fill the gap between the current F-5E (10.7) and the F-16A (12.0).

I feel like there should be an option in the US tech tree for those who enjoy close range fox2 fights.

I just realized France has IRCCM missiles at 11.3!

The A-10s are very effective at wiping 70% of the enemy team 60% of the time by spamming those missiles so im guessing that reason is part of it.


If you’ve ever flown an A-10, you’ll know that by the time you get to the fight, half the players are dead.

A-10 players only rely on luck and opponent’s lack of attention (engaged in dogfight with someone else) to get air kills. Overall, the A-10 is the worst platform for such missiles.

Not only does other nations have similar aircraft at same BR (Su25), but they also have the same missiles on much faster platforms.

True that the R-60M is inferior to AIM 9L, but just having the ability for your missile to lock on from all aspects can make a huge difference, even if the missile is not as good.

At least you can find all-aspects above 12.0. But I bet you cannot find a single aircraft in the German TT that has TV guided Bombs.

1 Like

i was going to say sweden says hi but i forgot the Gripen

1 Like

Uhh, The F-4E retired from ANG service in '91 (They even flew support and interdiction missions in Desert Storm) and in the later years mounted the AIM-9L / -9M & AIM-7F, as well as the AN/ASX-1 TISEO.

The F-4J/-4S remained in USN service until 1987, and the USMC’s trucked on until 1992, they were fitted with the AIM-9L / -9M and AIM-7F.

And the F-4G (Specialist Wild Weasel [SAM hunter] airframes, based off the F-4G) remained in reserve until '96.

There are more than enough variants yet to be implemented for that not to be an issue; for example the F-4B / (F-110A), F-4D, F-4E(late) and F-4G are right there waiting to be implemented allowing ordnance to be added, adjusted, expanded & refined to bring them into proper alignment as needed since what currently exists are pretty poor implementations all round with a mishmash of features from various blocks.

Further there are little things like the CL tank interlock that prevents firing a sparrow from the rear recessed bay if a Fuel tank or gunpod is mounted on that station, so it would need to be jettisoned first before they could be used, which of course wasn’t possible with gunpods as they were never mechanized for it, let alone which specific fuel tank (The 600 Gal tank we have in game can’t be jettisoned, the 370 can; if wired & armed to do so).

Also Early USAF F-4’s (C/D/E) would be restricted to the IR Falcon in place of Sidewinders so there is also that, though would have access to an IR Jammer(AN/AAQ-8).

They really aren’t, anywhere near their maximum potential, we’re still missing the Standoff ordnance (Walleye ERDL w/ AN/AWG-16 or GBU-15 / AGM-130 & AN/AXQ-14), IIR Mavericks, Shrike / StARM / HARMs, Targeting pods & SALH ordnance, and CBU’s. Things could get so, so much worse for tanks it’s surprising that they are complaining even though Aircraft are held back so very much, in comparison to IRL.


Cool story, you must have forgot the context. They are powerful for the F-4s in Warthunder. The thing I was discussing wasn’t the real versions at all.

So having 4 Aim9s of various models (P/J/H) on the F-4s and two on the F-5E isn’t good enough? Let alone the aircraft with Aim9Ds and Aim9Es. There are plenty of options.

As already stated, the issue with giving lower BR jets AIM-9L (or near equivalent) missile would be to radically alter their balance. They’d need to go up. The F-5E might survive such a BR increase, since it’s already very strong at it’s BR, but the F-4E likely would not. The flight performance is only OK at 11.0, push it higher and you’re ending up in F-4EJ Kai territory, where the second something gets on your six you might as well just J out, because you aren’t winning that dogfight. The F-4J might do a bit better since it at least has a PD radar and AIM-7Fs, but still, you’d be putting it up against an objectively superior EJ Kai at 11.7, and even that isn’t doing great due to the aforementioned flight performance issues.

All aspect missiles aren’t everything anyways, just being able to get a front aspect shot means nothing when any enemy with the slightest bit of spatial awareness can just one flare it. The biggest advantages the AIM-9L brings are it’s superior rear and side aspect performances, combining better range, better pull and moderate flare resistance. It being all aspect is honestly the least of it’s advantages.

The point was that all implemented US F-4s can be armed as needed to fit their BR without producing issues as a move upward allows for more variants to be implemented with similar characteristics, at the old BR. Further this can be supplemented with changes to available ordnance to fit, and lacking performance can be supplemented with advanced ordnance or as CAS / SEAD role where appropriate.

The F-4B & F-4D are missing entirely so there’s no early F-4 with CMs.


So now you cherrypick a quote and then try to make it reference something else? Also, I don’t really care about your point just like you didn’t care about my point when you quoted me to make that point. I have not been, nor do I wish to discuss things not in the game, otherwise I would have started there.

Well, UK doesn’t get a non-CAS jet with all aspect missiles except for the Gripen at 12.7.

They have three of the worst phantoms in the game, having the worst IR missile at 11.3 and one of the worst SARH.

Tornado F.3 is also 11.3 with 9Ls, but has a flight model worse than most CAS.

US isn’t alone in suffering.

Why was I replied to this?

Sorry, the app must have pulled you over from another reply. The forum app gets weird. Again, sorry about that.

Np, all good.

Simply untrue, both platforms did armed and used Aim-9L’s in real life.

1 Like