is it me or the bae hawks are worse now? feels sluggish?
i think the greeks never gave the f-86e(m) missiles to begin with.
its an ex raf mk iv sabre with weaker engines afterall.
Yeah i see that one, but one question. Where’s the engine wall on the Hunter IFV? The Hunter IFV on the Israeli TT is missing it’s engine wall, it’s not a secret to anyone it has a engine wall, as it can be easily seen in any image displaying the inside of the IFV.
I even made a report on it and everything 3 months ago, it feels like everything implemented in the Israeli tech tree is always half-baked! A 10.7 tank added in 2026 without an engine wall?? when even the BMP-1 all the way down at 8.0 has one?? It makes absolute no sense
1 Like
Can gaijin fix the Heli PVE please? FnF heli getting matched with helis that use TOW, 9M114 is basically crime.
1 Like
https://www.haf.gr/history/historical-aircraft/f-86e/
this is the official greek air force page , clearly states aim9b and J47-GE-13 engine
1 Like
Already clarified my stance on this:
If the airforce it self claims that it did there’s no debating it. They have no reason to lie.
As would gaijin it appears would agree,
As you said before gaijin might have information we don’t.
What’s your source on that.
I’m willing to trust more the office info up loaded by the airforce itself than you with nothing to back up your statement other than that you haven’t found pictures online.
Except then you have the sun-sized or bigger exo-planet in the room - the F-14D.
It is confirmed that at least one F-14 fired AMRAAM’s, probably more but we in fact have photographic evidence of 1 and what specific plane it was. More over - the AIM-120 was specifically designed to replace AIM-7’s 1-1 in the exact same slots - hence the German F-4 that actually uses AIM-120’s because they were the only ones still using the F-4’s and got access to them. On top of multiple official documents, that are unclassified and even posted on a government website (the GAO) that state the F-14D was supposed to have AMRAAM’s, and other declassified sources literally stating them as one of the weapons to be used and included on the aircraft. Sure - we know it needed a software patch, that was funded for basically years, and still puts it closer than several other aircraft in game (Yak-141, F-15C GE) and ‘missile that does not physically fit in the internal bay’ like the current missiles with the F-102 - which is why the AIM-120 needed it’s fins changed to work in the F-22.
Some of these changes are nice - but y’all need to do something to actually make the F-102 playable in Arcade, like, ‘it needs to be a top priority’ level. Cause I don’t know about RB/SB - but this thing is just getting clobbered stock, and the lack of gun with missiles that are this bad makes it near unplayable. Which is probably why I’m about the only one playing the damn thing it seems, I’ve seen maybe 6 others since the patch dropped, and none of them faired any better. Seriously how can a missile with 2 extra seconds of guidance time, has 27G’s of overload, travels Mach 3, and actually has a wider ring to make off bore shots kinda like a 9E, be absolutely garbage at hitting targets compared to the AIM-9B?
And I’m not even talking ‘well the fighter I shot at pulled some high G maneuver that put it outside where the IR missile could see’ - I’m talking bombers, B-57’s, Tu-95’s, B-52’s even, flying straight or in a lazy out of control drift to one side from damage they’ve taken that would get smacked by an AIM-9B not getting touched and literally in cases watching a missile fired from 1.5km away fly over the bomber to the opposite side of where it’s going. There is something very wrong if a missile, fired at a target going in a straight line, from close range, can’t hit the damn target.
No that not what I’m saying, this isn’t some big ass primary source manual, it’s some website which doesn’t have the most amount of effort ever put into it. On other vehicles which were never armed in HAF service they also have an armament section listed. This does seem to be exclusive to out of service vehicles.
Simply put, some vehicles information pages had less effort put into them than others by whomever was in charge of creating them. They are simply misinformed, not trying to lie, no one’s perfect after all.
Again, all I want is proof, I haven’t seen any yet other than this website stating this, which isn’t nearly enough for me.
Well, it doesn’t prove they can’t use it, or vice versa. The RCAF didn’t have AIM-9s until the 80s, so they didn’t have any need to build any model using it; because of this, I’ve been looking into the Canadair Sabre’s history.
Meaning Canada had no need to make it so they could use them in later models, so either all missile uses were modifications done by others or were kept from earlier models.
As only two of the Canadair Sabre models have a US Sabre they are based on listed. the Mk 1 with F-86A-5 and Mk 2 with F-86E. So everything points to the models after that being based on the last Canadair model.
I am still looking into it, but the claims of the Sabre Mk 6 having built-in ability to use missiles (from what other claim) when the nation for which they where built had no need, had me need to look into it. My options are either someone ordered them at the same time and requested them (likely Germany), or they came from an older model.
1 Like
No, not really, and the conversation isn’t really relevant.
Intriguing, so far it does look like (to me at least) that the Mk.5s and earlier didn’t make use of them. let me know if you find anything concrete!
The site also says the planes were built from CL-13 Mk.4, which appears to be wrong.
Many other sources say Greek ones were build from ex-Canadian Mk.2s and that seems to be be supported by the fact that Greek Sabres had the F-86A style angular armoured windscreen that was on early Sabre Mk.2s, instead of the flat one that Sabre Mk.4, 5 and 6 had
SInce bombers are immune to air to air missiles can we get 13.0+ now?