Is it AIM-7P or AIM-7MH? Isnt the P a naval version?
Full send
Better AIM-7 are in need for upcoming F-15A and plz Gaijin don’t make an excuse that they never use it when entire Yak 141 have a right to exist in the game or German F-4F that never use AIM-9J you choose to abandoned that logic long ago
1 Like
AIM-7P should be given to US only, as they were the only user.
Besides that, Japan is already getting the AAM-3, which is much better than the AIM-9M, while ALSO getting AIM-9M it never had IRL.
The F-15 is a US built plane and they should NOT have an inferior version immediately upon its introduction. F-15A would have better radar missiles with the AIM-7P, while Japan would have better IR missiles, which would be much more fair.
I don’t think the Aim-7s speed matters much in relation to the R-27Er. The problem is the Data link and INS. R-27R/Er can lose lock but still be on course and require but the Aim-7 will self destruct after a couple of seconds.
1 Like
I do agree i find it odd they got AIM-9Ms when it never had them (tho technically possible to use) and also AAM-3s in their current forms are just better accelerating slightly higher range AIM-9Ms. So really 9Ms should be removed from the F-15J imo.
1 Like
The aim 7P should’ve been added along with the F-14 B. Russia has had their best fox 1 missile in the game for a year now, understandably due to mig-29s only carrying 2 radar missiles, but with the su-27 coming its for sure time to add Americas best sparrow, hopefully before fox 3s get here and the aim 7P just gets completely skipped/ overshadowed. Their timeline for adding missiles isn’t adding up in my opinion. F-14 B should get its aim 7Ps and 9ms and F-15 should get its aim 7MH or 7Ps and 9ms.
The aim 7p sparrow wouldn’t even come close to dethroning the r27er, all it would do is give USA a missile that doesn’t immediately lose lock and blow up. Aim 7 P block 2 with datalink and better targeting against planes hugging the deck would be nice to have before we go full fox 3. Code wise just copy the r27er, lower its speed to Mach 4 and call it aim 7P, and we’re good to go lol.
3 Likes
Hey @Smin1080p sorry to bother but is there any chance we can get a word from the developers about this?
Judging from the poll it seems like the community approves of it and would be nice to see what the developers have to say about it.
1 Like
Gaijin doesn’t not care about this sort of thing, for example, German MiGs with R-27ER/ET and R-13M1s, Germany never used or had them. If it’s a technical possibility, it can be considered for balance.
1 Like
Unless they were mounted IRL they shouldn’t have them imo
If the Su-27 will be a bit better that doesn’t really bother me. I will just try to fly to the strengths of the F-15.
There’s literally photographic evidence of German F-4’s and 104’s using Aim-9J’s while training in
America. Never mind the fact the manual for German F-4 states that Aim-9 can be used.
Over 300 votes, nice
Welp, thanks everyone for voting on this.
2 Likes
I agree that the historicity of the weapon shouldn’t be considered over urgent balance needs. However, I still agree that only the A should have 9Ps. The J should have its AAM-3s buffed in g load (it’s underperforming iirc) and accurately modelled with a dual band seeker. The Baz should get Israel’s excellent Python 4, which is similar to the AAM-3 though with an even higher G pull.
While these vehicles wouldn’t get better BVR capabilities, they would both receive massive buff in close range, so would still be balanced. Indigenous weapons systems would have their time to shine rather than just getting American kit and gimped versions of their missiles. And they would be more historically accurate which is quite nice.
As far as I’m aware, base Baz never used the Python 4, only the Baz M