Well… tbf I would kinda like to see a TT version of the 1st or 2nd prototype as it would make a nice 11.3 (or 11.0 after fm nerfs) addition after the F-5E (since it jumps straight to the F-16). Just 4-6 Aim-9Js would be a pretty decent kit imo and a great little addition for the TT.
1 Like
I agree with a lot you say, but I think they should have gone F-20/F-5G before the F-16 as they could have copy/paste into nations Northrop wanted sell to (F-16 wins again lol), because boy would it be great to have an F-20 that wasn’t locked behind a paywall.
It would be weird if it didn’t, AIM-9L entered service in the 70s way before the F-20 first flew in the early 80s.
Neither the F-20, nor the Bison should have access to that kind of missile as they are premium planes
1 Like
The AIM-9L wasn’t available for mass export until the latter 1980s (It could be exported to a few closer allies, such as Israel, Australia, Britain, etc in the late 80s/early 80s).
The F-20’s primary focus was as a lightweight export fighter, basically an improvement over the F-5E meant for customers of the F-5. Majority of then didn’t have the AIM-9L back then, and only had access to the AIM-9J/N/P.
They most certainly did, unless the Falklands and Lebanon war didn’t happen in 82.
Correct, it is an improvement over the F-5E aimed at existing customers, you did list the correct export missiles, they are second tier weapons that was suitable to-be exported to less than absolutely trusted allies.
Note how I stated “not available for mass export”. Just because a few nations (Australia, a few NATO members, Israel, etc) got AIM-9L doesn’t mean a majority of the F-20’s target audience did as well.
From 1978 until 1982, the AIM-9L was the best AAM the US and allies had. After 1982, it was considered second-best.
As someone with a 1.8 K/D with the F20, I agree… This thing is going to get absolutely clapped after the update. It needs at least 9m’s to be able to compete, or else a lower BR to stay away from the Fox 3’s. Dog fighting capabilities don’t mean anything when you have a low chaff count and measly 9’ls going against full up tiers at 13.0. If it was a TT plane, then sure whatever. I don’t pay for premium planes just to get shafted later by updates.
1 Like
Yeah, I seen it, but you might want to define mass export next time, because the term “mass export” is NOT a standard term in international trade, so I interpreted as the large-scale export of goods from one country to another.
Never said they did. I told you why they were the export missile, please note how I stated, “suitable to-be exported to less than absolutely trusted allies”.
76 is when delivery and production first started. Hell yeah it was, what was it, like 80% success rate in the Falklands. And before the AIM-9L it was the AIM-9H. Yes, that’s generally how development works. Too bad the mike wasn’t used till the 90s, well I guess is a good thing.
I’ve got some bad news mate.
2 Likes
This whole argument would be moot if we simply had ordnance-based BRs.
Unfortunately that would be a bit hard to balance, and unconventional at the very least. What if you take the wrong loadout into a battle? Not to mention how long it would take to go through and review each possible stammer option per aircraft to determine their newer BRs
1 Like
How I’d do it is to have a enable/disable option for a specific loadout item in the Custom loadout or modification page. That way its loadout and BR are determined in the hanger.
Yes that could mean you could make a mistake and a take a 12.7 line-up with a 12.0 CAP (if we use the AMRAAM on the F-20 as example) but then that is just user error in essence.
I’d suggest it be used sparingly. Only on aircraft that could use ARH (like Viggen D and similar) or on a handful of edge case aircraft where previous loadout changes have resulted in BR changes (Harrier Gr7 going from 11.0 to 11.7 in SB with Aim-9Ms)
If used sparingly, then its only adding a handful of new BRs to consider and no more work than adding a second airframe to do the job (like the Tornado F3 and Tornado F3 late)
2 Likes
The former is user-error and a no different than accidentally leavingna higher BR vehicle in your lineup.
As for being harder to balance, not really. The system is primarily automated, and as far as the BR balance system is concerned this would be no different than having a separate vehicle in the game with each (relevant) loadout option.
Like, say, as things are now they could give the Sherman Firefly APDS and it would be stuck going up in BR. Or, they could add a whole other copy-paste-but-with-APDS Firefly to avoid this. Neither is ideal.
With variable BR, we could have the one Firefly, but at its current BR with current top shell and at a higher BR with APDS; as far as BR balance is concerned, this is the same as having two different ones. This would also allow lower BRs with stock ordnance, etc so the Firefly could potentially be at three or more BRs.
This discussion is the definition of overthinking it. You are completely delusional if you think something like that would ever actually get implemented.
Just give the F20 more chaff, make it 11.3 and be done with it.
The F-20 definitely is not a 11.3. 12.0 is a very fair BR for it.
So long as the F-16ADF stays at 12.0, this thing belongs at 11.7 at the very minimum.
Yeah, it’s fine at that BR right NOW. But that’s now what this discussion is about, now is it?
It doesn’t deserve a lower BR when Fox-3s get introduced either. It stays at its current BR just like other premiums did before when they started to face newer tech.
The whole discussion is null and void.
The amraams on the f 20 were only mock ups amd apparently the amraams didnt even actively exist yet at the point of the f20 and were only in the developmenr phase.
So the f20 shouldnt even get amraams
1 Like