Why? And because one of the game designers (I think his name is Dmitry) loves the Swedes and their tech. He even confessed about it in one of the devblogs of Swedish tech for the Russian community
3 Likes
thats a silly ass take… 6x 9M is an infinitely more competitive loadout than 4x 9L and 2x 7M…
3 Likes
don’t worry we saw that same quote in the English version of that devblog
if i’m not mistaken you can only take 4 aim9’s on the belgian f-16a if you want extra flares (or 5 aim9’s if you decide to take only 1 flare pod), and yeah maybe it is a more competitive loadout but i think you underestimate how useful radar missiles are now wth the multipath changes. And the belgian f-16a definitely should not be the same br as the JAS39A and most certainly not be at a higher br, which only leaves 13.0 if the JAS39A is moved up to 13.3.
1 Like
Not gunna argue with most points, it was pretty clear these chnages were massively rushed, dozens of changes make 0 sense and I can see a LOT of changes in coming weeks/months. But Skyflash DFs at 13.0 arent worth even mentioning. I’d struggle to call them average at 12.0.
Its probably also a honorable mention that BOL are so badly nerfed that you need about a dozen to match the performance a standard calibre CM. Even more for a Large Calibre flare that many aircraft have at that BR. So whilst the Gripen has “700” CMs. In reality thats more like 100 or so with the amount you have to spam to actually defeat anything currently. Nor can you pre-flare with BOL, only internals.
Sure its not as good a the aim7m but definitely still usable and better then having no radar missiles at 13.0 or 13.3.
I have never had an issue with the BOL flares and you definitely can pre flare with them. i would always put automatic (periodic) release of flares on when in a dogfight or furball witch makes it very hard for people to shoot an IR missile at you because the seeker will lock the flares instead of the plane. and with like 60 flares putting the automatic release of countermeasures on is not a viable option.
2 Likes
Ehhh, they’re similar in performance I would say, radar missiles are very good now, and 9L works best at rear aspect than 9M, I wouldn’t put a 6x aim9M loadout above 4x9L + 2 7M, but a sidegrade
1 Like
lmao
2 Likes
Eh… Less range, less nimble. No one uses it. Easily the worse SARH at that BR and one of the worst at 12+. They’d only run 9Ms.
As for BOL, the point is they are nerfed to hell. Flares are smaller than small calibre flares with less burn time. They should be equal to large calibre flares with less burn time. Same for chaff. They are currently less effective than small calibre chaff, they should be equal to standard calibre chaff. (All has been bug report for about 7 months)
1 Like
You haven’t played this patch yet?
Are you joking?
are you dreaming
You guys must be living in the past too.
I would rather have 4x9L + 2x7M than 6x9M in the current meta, I would consider those loadouts side grades, with different playstyles, but with only 9M you gotta act like support fighter and having no TWS for situation awareness to be able to survive up high and sneak above enemies makes the 9M only kinda meh in my opinion. This is about the F-16A with 6x9M, not a gripen which has better instruments for situation awareness
1 Like
I was more amused by the F-16AJ at 13.0 c AIM-9L and AIM-7F. At least the Belgian F-16 has 9M…
The same pain with me when i am flying F16A ADF … it is still a pain
1 Like
bring up the f15 and gripen and give the mlu its true loadout. dont complain about the belgian one which is literally older than the mlu and yet gets everything the mlu should
F-15A 13.0 :
-4x AIM-9M + 4x AIM-7M
-17.020kgf of thrust
-T/W 20min fuel : 1.10
Su-27 13.3 :
-4x R-73 + 6x R-27ER
-HMS
-23.312kgf of thrust
-T/W 20min fuel : 1.13
Mig-29SMT 13.3 :
-6x R-77 (ARH/50g)
-HMS
-13.632kgf
-T/W 20min : 0.97
F-16A (belgian) 13.3 :
-6x AIM-9M
-8.985kgf of thrust
-T/W 20min fuel : 0.90
And so on…
Before the update, the belgian F-16A was 1 BR below the F-16AM, now, it is 0.3 lower.
Playing it became an infiltration operation right now.
How many people here played the F-16A and are arguing AIM-9M only are better than mixed SARH/9L?
In fact, mounting 6 AIM9M is not as good as imagined, even in the face of the battle situation mainly composed of F4S and MIG23ML is very weak, you need to hover and wait in medium and high altitudes, dodge all the AIM54 and AIM7 that are coming at you, and you can only enter the combat zone to launch AIM9M when you are sure that the enemy’s high-altitude target leaves the high altitude or is not paying attention to you. When the Belgium F16A appears in a battle full of FOX3, there is no need to play, and the endless FOX3 will devour you
2 Likes
Well, 9Ls are from 1978 and 9Ms from 1983, only 5 years apart. So there are few aircraft that used the 9L but not the 9M. The only fighters really are the F-4S, F-4N, F-4E, F-20, and F-14A. Other nations (Germany, UK, Italy, Japan, etc) did use 9Ls more though, typically because 9Ms were not as available. The 9L was for example the only IR missile regularly carried by the F-4F post-Peace Rhine.
But “skipping a generation” isn’t new- the R-13M isn’t even in the game, despite being the main Warsaw Pact IR missile from the early 70s to mid 80s. Instead, aircraft are given either only R-3S or R-60s. Similarly, the AIM-4 family is excluded from the game in favour of AIM-9s and AIM-7s.
Alternatively, it’s similar to the R-60 of 1974 vs the R-60M of 1982. The only Soviet fighter with the R-60 but not the M is the SMT. But that doesn’t detract from the tree.
So, now that other F-16A users have destroyed the belgian F-16A (before complaining about it, it was planned at 13.0) despict the fact 9M can’t replace SARH, will it sit at this BR?
The whole game need more décompression, they just compress more top tier at this point.
As I said before, some 13.0 aircraft are way more capable than this poor belgian F-16A. I don’t see a reason to play it instead of F-16AM who is only 0.3 BR higher. Ridiculous.