Given that the later variants of the rb27/28 had a proxyfuze id see it helping the J35XS a great deal.
Im still sour the J35D was added instead of the J35F or J35J…
I don’t think the RB28 would be helpful at all, but the RB27 could be nice to have.
The Falcon really isn’t a good missile at all. There is a reason why they were replaced by the Sidewinder and Sparrow ASAP.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for adding older, less effective missiles, but to say they would help a 11.3 plane is a bit of a stretch
1 Like
and that guy claming that they have equivalent FCS systems is not knowing what he is wiriting about as he has absolutly no idea how T72 laser range finder and postion of gun reticel and laser reticle looks. Then having teh audicaicty to claim thata a analoge balsitic computer is even on paar with a digilized system and that the gunners have to manuly lead teh target, dont get me startet. Not mention that soviet tanks have a way to short sussenpsion to effectivly shoot on the move because alower silute is more important. I dont even want to begin. So yes the advantages of western tanks are being negated while soviet tanks are gettint those “advantages” simply “imagined” in.
Thats not really accurate. The initial models were equal to or better than the initial models of Sparrows and Sidewinders. The difference is Falcon missiles were designed for direct hits to increase the odds of a kill on bombers. Much like Sidewinders, they recieved substantial upgrades in capability as time went along, keeping pace up until the all aspect Sidewinders.
1 Like
T-80B used a 1A33 fire control system which included fully automatic lead calculation and digital ballistics computer since 1972.
T-72A/B required manual lead based on the mils given by the 1A40-1 sight complex that became standard in 1982.
T-62M Had the BV-62 analog ballistic computer installed in 1983, it was used because it was a cheap way to modernize an outdated tank.
So you are while you are correct for at least the non-modernized variants of the T-72 series, you are wrong on the T-80B+ series an T-90 series (same fire control system).
As for the suspension Vs stabilization, that is modeled in game already so an irrelevant point.
1 Like
Well, yeah, that is exactly the problem though. They were built to destroy slow targets that were unlikely to perform high G maneuvers to avoid missiles.
I would suspect that the only reason the Falcon actually got developed further along with the Sidewinder and Sparrow was that they didn’t get to a chance to deploy them in real combat until 1967.
I will admit, that the Falcon would be nice to have in the game, especially on the J35XS, as the swedish SARH Falcon has a proxy fuse. However, for the F-4C (or the potential F-4D) they wouldn’t provide anything the Sidewinder and Sparrow couldn’t do better.
The real reason I would like to see the Falcons be added is that they would open the door for a bunch of very interesting planes, like the Avro Arrow, the Voodoo and the Delta Dagger.
R-73s for MiG-29s
2 Likes
Remove the 27ER and sure :P
1 Like
I’d be down but preferably if they added the MiG-29S (9-13S) that could carry R-77’s in addition to R-73/R-60M’s since it would have the maneuverability of the MiG-29 and not the weight of the MiG-29SMT brick. This would be at like BR 12.7.
If the MiG-29 in-game received the R-73, it would have to come up in BR to 12.3-12.7 (which I wouldn’t be too opposed to but it would be tough having to deal with all of the ARH missiles more frequenrly) since it would be more on par with the base Su-27S’s capabilities but to a lesser extent.
This would be my changes to the armaments of 4th gen fighters-
MiG-29s all but SMT: remove R-27ER (not used by any of the MiG-29s except the SMT and 9.13, but the 9.13 would benefit from being the same as the rest of the 29s), add R-73/E, to 13.0.
F-16A (US/FR), Netz: add AIM-9M, also to 13.0
F-16A ADF (US): add AIM-9M, to 13.3
F-16A ADF (IT), F-16A MLU: add AIM-9L(I)/AIM-9M, AIM-120B, to 13.7
The AJ can be given AIM-9M (never used by Japan) and moved to 13.3 or stay where it is, it’s a theoretical aircraft after all
Yak-141: add R-73, R-77, to 13.3
Potentially:
F-14A (remove “early”?)- add AIM-9L, to 12.7/13.0
F-14B- add AIM-9M, to 13.0/13.3
Above would “nerf” the busted AIM-54s while keeping the F-14s effective, whether they go up by .3 or .7 is up for debate
3 Likes
the most evil british player (me) about to make the most evil, despicable suggestion this thread has ever seen.
ASRAAMS for the tornado f.3
All fun and games until…
IRIS-T for the F-4F
XAIM-4H would be a fairly decent heat seeking missile, if permitted to be in game. Old forum discussed the performance of the falcon, and it did compare favorably to R-60, the closest weapon in size and capability.
But it is true, you’re better off using sparrows or sidewinders on the American Phantoms. The kludged implementation of the falcon doomed the missile on that platform. Japanese Phantom EJ could get AAM-2, which definitely would be a decent option relative to AIM-9P. It boasts all aspect capability and a proximity fuse.
The century fighters armed exclusively with AIM-4 won’t be quite as toothless as many will claim, though. Even without XAIM-4H, AIM-4G and the contemporary radar guided variants had quite solid agility, making up for the total lack of proximity fuse.
1 Like
Might be a niche ideals yet NF related, but UP AA rockets for the Admiral class Battlecruiser, basically self defence barrage balloon which held a cable mid air & at the end was a mine, One of the German Marinefãhrprahm had similar weapons but the model was removed.
Squid mortars for all ships with the mount (Type 41, Dealey class) or mounts plated over (Battle/Daring classes).
Not per say armament but the Curtis O3U-1 Cosair for the USS Wyoming No.3 turret seen in the port but not in battle.
Similar add the Sopwith Camel & Sopwith 1½ Strutter to the flying off platform of the HMS Glorious.
Readd torpedo reloads to TB Chidori.
Add the ASROC system to JDS Chikugo DE-215 for the lolz even if as useless as some current weapons heh.
3pdr cannons for the Iron Duke class Super Dreadnought Battleship, (A mod did tell me they’re saluting guns but curse me for deleting a video of me talking with another player saying they’re the modern cannons as mentioned by a book) plus we already have similar useless cannons on several ships…
Gabbiano class corvettes having their stern depth charge rails usable, Also goes for all ships along with the mine rails too.
French Chacal class destroyer Léopard, both dual 13.2 mm HMG’s between the bridge superstructure & fore funnel LITERALLY UNPLAYABLE.
Dealey class DE, GFCS (Not sure why it’s still missing).
Not gonna go into missile armament but some ships currently are missing such.
AF,
All Nanchang Q-5’s are missing AAM’s from information I’ve read & from the bug reports I see.
Lockheed F-104A/C missing missiles which would easily make them 9.7 (RB), Also read somewhere the C model could carry four missiles & a M118 heh.
There are more things yet I cannot think atm.
1 Like
Because it was only retired a couple of years ago and was equipped with everything the F-15Js could carry missile wise, it makes sense to continually bring it up to the standard until it reaches the point of missile tech to when it was retired.
1 Like
It would work for the factor that most other major nations will have better BVRAAMs, just wait for the cries of despair when fighting Meteors (accessible to half nations in game) alongside the PL-15 and PL-21s from china.
It certainly will not be a fun time to be on the forums
IRIS-T for the Tornado ASSTA1, at a whole lower BR bracket
I just want ground vehicles who have IRL auto-tracker to have it, and those that don’t have it to not have it.
All Tornado IDSs could do with their IRCCM missiles. Especially the 3 at a higher BR for “reasons”
Tornado Gr1 used Aim-9M and A200 and ASSTA1 used Aim-9Li. Considering their BR and low performance. 2x IRCCM missiles for them wouldn’t be that unreasonable.
3 Likes
There’s the AAM-3 capable F-4EJ Kai we can get.
1 Like