@Smin1080p_WT Now with this poll showing that people want the F/A-18C early to get AIM-9Ms would there be a consideration for this to become a reality
1 Like
Why not Aim9R ???
70% of people think that it should receive the AIM-9M that is a pretty decent majority, obviously the balancing of it would be up to Gaijin, but the opinion is pretty clear
1 Like
The AIM-9R never saw adoption, and it’s barely of the right time period with the first firing being 1990, it got canceled in 1992.
It just isn’t needed really when the AIM-9M works just fine and is historically accurate
“”“”“”“”“”“Harrier GR1 with sraam”“”“”“”“”“”“” lol
yeah, I was going to bring that up, the SRAAM at least does something interesting and different to every other missile anywhere near that BR, and even then, it was a stretch to add it, it also went through 12 years of development as a unique piece of technology, not just a variant of something else, which is a decent bit longer than the 5 years that the 9R got
aim9r production was cancelled due to budget cuts
Because it features an Imaging infrared seeker, similar to that of the AIM-9X and would be insanely OP
1 Like
Well tbf 9R is naturally gonna take less time to make since it’s building off existing missile
The uniqueness of the SRAAM is more important in my mind, but even then I’m not a huge fan of it’s addition
Also the 9R seeker would likely either be too good, or barely a difference to the 9M, it’s not really a reasonable or necessary addition, as the 9M is both historically accurate and a perfectly good missile for 13.0
Out of all the top tier missiles to get an IIR seeker, an AIM-9L/M would have the least effect by far. It’s not going to have crazy range like an R27ET or be able to pull stupid maneuvers like a python 4 (that also has very good IRCCM from what I’ve heard) or R-73M
And the AIM-9R is just a neat missile, it should be in game somehow
1 Like
maybe on the F/A-18C at 14.0 if it ends up underperforming at that BR, but not on the Early with AIM-7s at 12.7 right now, it’ll force it up to 13.3 with no Fox 3s
2 Likes
No missile is done as in real life Bru
1 Like
yeah, thats more what i meant. 9m would be great for C early
2 Likes
It would be the exact same as the AIM-9M if you didn’t use the Imaging Infrared seeker, it is based off the body of the AIM-9M.
Its capabilities are also very well documented, they would not make it a fake missile. You will not get the AIM-9R because it has no place in game.
@RayLeight @SidewaysCube946 Lets just shelve this argument for now, it’s not going to go on the premium F/A-18C regardless, which is the aircraft this thread is about.
If you want to discuss it further, you can make a separate thread about it, but this isn’t really the place.
1 Like
You get excited about a game arcade
Okay I may be biased as a red side sim player but. The 9m is infinitely stronger than the 9l a plane with any real number of 9ms or anything resembling good flight performance with 9ms should be 13.0 minimum
Personally I play a decent amount of kfir c10 and f-16am and mirage-2kc with a little mig-29 mixed in around those BRs having to fight the f18 with its current FM + missile count would genuinely be a unfun experience for red side since all of their planes lack one or more of the following good radar, good ir missiles, good radar missiles , a good flight model, or a high missile count. An f-18 bringing 4 aim-7ps and 6 9ms with its radar would be too much even at 13.0
I agree that it would be 13.0 minimum, I left the poll open with options but that is personally what I would want
And I believe if done correctly this should be effectively equivalent to the SU-27, the R-27ER is still the best SARH, and the R-73 is a much better dogfight missile than the 9M, so while it wouldn’t be the same, I think they would be basically equivalent.
You do get the option for 2 more total missiles with the F/A-18C Early, however that would be 10 x AIM-9M and only 2 x AIM-7P which I think overall is an underpowered loadout.