I dont have issue with the premise of giving the F4s their IRL loadouts (god how I’d love the FGR2 to get AIm-9Ls). But I think its worth mentioning that at 11.0 you may just end up getting pulled into the void that is 12.0 matches. I’ve been spading the Jaguar IS recently and basically most matches are full uptiers (i’d love 9Ls for the Jaguar Gr1A as well… but id fear its BR increase). WIth more F-20 equivalent premiums likely around the corner… it could just get worse.
That would be my only concern about the 9Ls…
AGMs though… Yeah I cant see any harm for that, even if they were single and not triple mount varaints. It would give Germany a big boost in the fixed-wing CAS loadout
Honestly I think that it’d handle uptiers better than currently. In my experience 12.0 matches are still predominantly 11.3 premiums. The F-4F would of course be helpless in a dogfight against and F-16, but it isn’t much of a dogfighter in the first place and at least with 9Ls it’d be pretty effective in the initial convergence.
I also fully support 9Ls for the FGR.2. There are actually a number of F-4s that could use slightly upgraded missiles (J-1 for the E, P-4 for the EJs) as well as new Phantom variants (N, E ANG, S '84) that could be added with 9Ls.
No, that’d be the PL-5B or Magic. The AIM-9P also slightly outperforms the J because of its radar-slaving, as does the RB24J. The R-13M1 also arguably outcompetes the J.
No, it doesn’t. It’s an F-4 with the same performance as the F-4E. In fact, the F-4F is slightly heavier- 18,196kg empty with 20min fuel vs 18,027kg.
Perhaps not. But what definitely isn’t is a heavy twin-engine fighter with only rear-aspect missiles. Radar missiles are the greatest strength of the F-4 family, with the AIM-7E-2/Skyflash DF in particular being extremely capable in mid-range engagements. The F-4F has nothing for this engagement range, and only guns for the front aspect period.
Simply, no. The JA-37D is decidedly superior with its agility and 6 9Ls, as is the Kurnass with 6 9Ls or Pythons. And the F-4E FCU is 11.0 with P-4s and Pythons plus it’s manueverability, and the AJS-37 is even 10.7 with 9Ls.
ICE-LA for 12.0 because 9L(I)s, and its speed advantage over the Harriers, ICE-LV probably 12.7 assuming no IRIS-T.
And the thing is the F-4F is already the “late” configuration. The F-4F simultaneously received Maverick support, countermeasures, and AIM-9Ls. Keeping the current configuration in the tree as well as the correct one would be alright, but it wouldn’t change the fact that the current configuration is simply inaccurate.
There is 0 evidence of F-4Fs with triple racks for mavericks, or the Luftwaffe having ever purchased the triple racks. Period. Unless you have new evidence to share, which i doubt.
But it makes Tornado ASSTA useless in direct comparison. Laser guided bombs, which require you to hold lock until the end, just don’t work in ground top tier matches. Its not possible to use it successfully. You need standoff weapons or you better don’t spawn this jet whatsoever. Jaguars and other jets get similar laser guided bombs at much, much lower BRs. While Ger has to use this cr** at top BR.
I just don’t understand Gajins reasoning. Others get whole jets which never really existed. Weapons which were just existing as wooden mockups to study aerodynamics on a prototype or for weight studies. They add ahistoric missiles for balancing purposes (Aim 9J for F-4F). Many more points.
The other day Gajin acts very, very strict…even if its technically possible. Even if Its causing huge balance issues and makes whole jets useless ingame. Remember, you pay the same amount of spawn points for the German two Mav Phantoms as for the six Mav ones (which can use two GBUs on top). Its a game and games need balance. It just don’t work when one faction spawns an F-4 with two guided missiles for 880 spawn points and the other one spawns one with 6 + two guided bombs on trop. Its just 2 guided strikes vs. 8. Its utterly unbalanced.
Its a game. A game needs compromises. One Tornado useless and just impossible to use. The other one gets PGMs and might do crazy stuff. The brit Tornado got 4x PGM500 (TV) vs. the other Tornados with just 4x GBU16 (laser). All have the same BR?? That won’t add up. Why not at least drop the BR? It just can’t be that a Nado with 4 PGMs shares the same GRB BR as the ones with laser guided obsolete cr**.
Imagine how it wil be when Brits get Tornados with 16x Brimsotnes, while the next IDS ASSAT3 or something is still flying around with like 4 GBUs … its just insane.
Instead they could just add these triple rails to F-4F and call it a day. As they did with Aim-9J’s and tons of other ordnance.
No they can’t, the F-4F doesn’t have the capability to use the triple mount mavericks. Furthermore aim-9J on them isn’t ahistorical as it did use them.
Well, Tranche 2 will come for 12.7/13.0 ground battles BR.
F-4F getting buffed with 9Js when it’s in the manual is still a complaint?
AGM-65Bs are already drastically lower range than GBUs.
~6km vs at least 16km of the GBUs.
PGMs also have the TV guidance issue; and I still haven’t figured out if targeting pods help.
AGM-65G uses the same mounting system.
F-5A/C has flares for all nations that have it, and it was specified in a manual [AIM-9Js for F-4F is the same exact situation as flares on F-5A].