Trust me, when I say. It wouldnt be highly effective.
Even at 12.0 you would start to feel the impact. F-15As would have you for breakfast and you would have to start dealing with AMRAAM.
At 12.7… Good luck vs the F-15Cs and Su-27s. You would never get close to a ground target.
I want historical loadout where-ever possible. But if I had the choice between lowering the Tornado Gr1 to 11.3 or giving it Aim-9Li/AIm-9M (even if that meant it could stay at 11.7) I would probably choose the 11.3 BR.
For these types of aircraft, AAMs are the least important aspect to consider. For a fighter, sure, definetly worth considering, but for a bomber/strike aircraft. It only curses it. Look at the Harrier Gr7, would have been fantastic at 11.3 with Aim-9Ls and whilst it can be good still at 12.3. Its no where near as good.
Again, it would still be the fastest aircraft, with good acceleration and decent manueverability in a pinch. Plus 9Ms at only 12.7 are fantastic, you’d regularly face F-4S and the like.
And again remember that vehicles like the Harrier or Su-25SM3 with less IRCCM missiles and subsonic speeds (compared to Mach 1.35 at sea level for the 111s) are 12.3, it makes no sense for the 111s to be a lower BR.
And even if it “kills” the vehicle as an ARB bomber, it’d still be just as effective in GRB and at least effective as a fighter. For a bomber in roughly their current configuration, look to the Tornado or F-111E.
As for the Tornado receiving IRCCM that’d put it to 12.0 IMO. No reason for 10.7s to have to fight 9Ms even on a Tornado. That’s just 2 free kills, not something that should just be given to a strike aircraft and hope players are too distracted bombing to use them.
The thing is, there are aircraft that can sit at that lower BR with 9Ls to replace it if it gets 9Ms. It’s the same argument that keeps the FG.1 and FGR.2 from getting AIM-9Ls only this time you’re looking at it from the other side. This would also allow the F-111s to get the better A2G ordnance they are missing. Also for the sake of the F-111C/F, they will only face ARH carriers in GSB anyway so they might as well have the best defensive missile possible, just like the A-10C currently does.
They could certainly add the alternative variants, but by the fact we got these later variants with the current loadouts I think that is unlikely anytime soon.
Like we never got the Harrier Gr9A with Aim-9Ms instead the Harrier Gr7 got them. We have also yet to get the Harrier Gr5 with Aim-9Ls.
Its more likely that the next load of US aircraft will be F-18s, F-15s, etc and probably not another F-111 anytime soon (though it is possible)
F-4J (UK) Phantom F.3 and F-4M Phantom FGR.2 only received AIM-9L because British Phantom 2 variants from Royal Air Force service armed AIM-9L, F-4K Phantom FG.1 never mounted AIM-9L in Royal Navy service
Harrier GR.5/GR.5A armed AIM-9G & AIM-9L only ?
Strike Eagle for USA and Israel tech tree, my guess
The early variant in 80’s for USA tech tree maybe F/A-18A or F/A-18C Early
Gived AIM-9L/I for Tornado GR.4 only. but no problem add AIM-9L/I on Tornado IDS ASSTA 1 (GER) and Tornado ADV (ITA)
If you mean that Tornado Gr1 didnt use Aim-9Li. Its possible. But they did use Aim-9M during Operation Granby (Desert Storm). If Aim-9M is too great of an upgrade compared to Aim-9Li, then Aim-9Li is a reasonable compromise for an IRCCM missile for it.
Tornado Gr4 Im expecting with either ASRAAM or Aim-9M as a placeholder for ASRAAM (as was the case for the Tornado F3 AOP)
Except it isn’t. There is no other F-111F, its engines were used in no other F-111, thus there’s nothing for a lower BR.
FG1 and FGR2 use the same engines, thus comparing them to F-111F is a false equivalence fallacy.
A-10A/C use the same engines as well.
F-111F also can’t go higher in BR from its ground ordnance, on top of ground and air being separate.
So there’s zero reason to make F-111F 12.7+ in air RB with 9Ms when USA lacks a replacement for its airframe at 11.7.
The closest airframe to F-111F USA has is 12.3 with F-14A.
And on top of all that, 9Ls are still a historical loadout.
Why is USSR allowed to have a great airframe at 11.7 while USA can’t?
The AN/AXQ-14 or ZSW-1 Datalink pods would confer post release remote guidance to the GBU-15 / AGM -130 providing significant improvement in standoff range.
?
F-4G, A-7E late, B-66, B-1, F-15E, F-111D etc. all exist.
Buddy-datalink isn’t in the game, and likely never will be.
The only plausible situation would be squads, which would make it useless for custom matches.
Codes would be realistic but then you can get trolls on either team that conflict codes. [Edit for buddy-datalink: One plausible solution is whitelist account codes. You can whitelist accounts to where your buddy-datalink functions. Maybe it pulls form the friendlist, maybe a different list. That way it’s future-proof if in the future War Thunder changes and this is no longer necessary, and it prevents people from using the same code conflicting with your code.]
All those aircraft you listed that would be at or below F-111F’s BR have inferior flight performance to F-111F, and F-15C is 12.7 in ground RB and 13.7 [14.0 with proper BR] in air RB.
B-1 is just a bomber… and would be ~10.3.
No (SEAD not CAS), IDK much about A-7 but probs not, no (subsonic, like 9.3 tops), massive strategic nuclear bomber so no, way too powerful for 11.7 (even earliest configurations superior to 15A), yeah around that BR but would be strongly opposed to the 111D not getting YAIM-7G.
The real 11.7 (probably 11.3 realistically) for the US is simply the 111E- mostly similar to the 111A but with 9J/Ls, more CMs, and potentially the engines of the F (retrofitted in small numbers very late in service). So essentially the same as the F is currently except without guided weapons.
For CAS there’s of course already the F-4E, even for base bombing if you really want to do that with such a good fighter. Or the new A-10C or AV-8B.
Why would it need a buddy? The F-111 has a dedicated station for the pod, and the F-4E / F-15E / F-16C (Trialed) use the centerline / wing station station for the Datalink pod.
Sure, but they make up for it in various ways, mostly by having more advanced A2G stores or stores options, even if the F-111 doesn’t have the AGM-69 for fairly obvious reasons.
And has access to a large quantity of advanced standoff A2G stores, e.g. ~48 x JDAM or 96x SDB + Sniper ATP and MTI A2G radar modes. So it would be able to effectively flatten maps in a single flyout, with similar performance to the F-111 and that doesn’t even consider the CBU-105 / -115, AGM-86 , -154, -158 or later missiles that it has access to.
Well, 2 + 2x AIM-9L/M (AIM-95), AGM-88, AWW-13 Datalink pod, AGM-84E, Walleye ERDL + (HMD) etc. would give it sufficient A2G performance, and self protection capabilities to hang with similar attackers for the BR.
Where does the GBU get the signal from to guide in?
It can’t from the F-111F as there’s a mountain in the way, so it has to be from a “buddy”, another unit.
Also this has nothing to do with my rejection of 9Ms for F-111F as 9M is irrelevant for it in ground battles; AIM-9M is an air RB argument. And in one person’s case a ground sim argument for some reason that I shut down.
I don’t rightly care what its ground BR is; right now it’s the most powerful 11.7 aircraft for ground battles due to the T-Pod and 8 IR guided weapons: 2 bombs, 6 Mavs.
I mostly care that it stays below F-14A in BR for air RB, cause I have been starved a great airframe in the 11.x BR realm with a good gun, and in this case good missiles.
I wouldn’t have been upset if F-111F was only given 9Js and came in at 11.0; but I will gladly compromise 9Ls for 11.7 cause it’s still not the 12.7 area of War Thunder that I love with the aircraft I have already. I just don’t want another at this time, especially one that’s a new great airframe without many competitors in 11.7 air RB. [Mig-23ML is its primary competitor and I do not prefer its gun]
The same way ground clutter is a thing, surfaces tend to reflect and scatter radar waves and with a powerful enough source, and bouncing the signal a number of times a direct line of sight to the missile is not required, though it significantly reduces range. The GBU-15 / AGM-130 also Loft to help avoid issues like this, and it still retains target tracking even in manual mode.
You do get that you can still be intercepted by your opponents in GRB, so A2A capabilities still do matter to a degree for self-defense / interception.
It’d be far better if they fixed the indicator so it actually reflected direction the gun was pointing.
In ground RB, there is no red triangle nor name plate above the pilot’s aircraft; Only the pilot, and a vehicle that blends in REALLY well with the ground.
Especially for 11.7 where the meta is to fly high if you’re CAS to avoid Crotale [FlaRakRad/ITO-90M], ADATS, TOR-M1, and Pantsir.
When the sky is to the interceptor, and the ground is to the CAS aircraft, so long as the radar is silent the interceptor always has advantage.
Though at 11.7 you also start seeing AMR-AAMs as well.
So that 9L smoke trail isn’t as useful to the enemy as your post portrays.
9Ms are more useful against aware targets, which is what air RB is; a bunch of people far more concerned with aircraft than ground RB ever will be.
Armed all-aspect IR SRAAM, anti-radiation missile, anti-ship missile and AGM-62 Walleye late variants better AGM-62A Walleye I ER. Right ?
F-15E (Early production) from desert storm, AN/APG-70 radar, Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engine, hybrid armament late 70’s ~ mid 80’s and equipped 1st gen laser designator targeting pod but limited SARH AIM-7F & AIM-7M Sparrow only and before AIM-120A AMRAAM service 3 years
F-15E (late production) fitted AN/APG-70 radar like F-15E (Early) but armament hybrid mid 90’s ~ 2003, Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engine and equipped 2+ gen or 3rd gen laser designator targeting pod
Sadly, I don’t know F-4G Wild Weasel V place to heavyweight fighter aircraft or attack aircraft line
@warthogboy09
Keep claiming that General Dynamics, War Thunder, and of course many other sources I used for the statements in my posts are wrong all without evidence.
Funny that I supplied evidence and all your posts contain is “Nu uh.”
You may also be able to include the AGM-84E SLAM, which was tested (is still able to be remotely guided by the AWW-9 / -13 Datalink pod) and advanced IR missiles like the AIM-95 or AIM-9R and a HMD.
Other items of note are the Stingray (a Wire-guided Walleye), dual rail adapters, the BLU -95 /-96, 500 & 2000lb class FAEs and IIR Walleye.
images
Depends on how they implement SEAD / DEAD specialist airframes since the USAF / NAVY have different methods, also how widely Gaijin propagate Anti-Radiation Missiles, so I could see the Wild Weasel Airframes being foldered under their variants (e.g. F-100F, F-4C (WW), F-105G, F-4G). Though if said ordnance is also rolled out to other airframes it would be less of an issue since practically all designs after the F-100D can take at a pair of Shrikes or SideARMs or two at a minimum for self-protection.
