Tier VII - VIII Aviation Discussion

[Fireraid233 4,274]

I think it really need to emphasized that current air rb top tier needs to change.

Do you really like the thought of flying a mig29 in these small maps in a 5 min team deathmatch? 

Changes need to happen big maps, br decompression or introduce ec air rb for top tier. I know I've already said this before but it seems the air community still wants to fight the way current air rb is, even when we get even more advance planes.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Fireraid233

[Stavroforos 15,367]

4 minutes ago, Fireraid233 said:

I think it really need to emphasized that current air rb top tier needs to change.

Do you really like the thought of flying a mig29 in these small maps in a 5 min team deathmatch? 

Changes need to happen big maps, br decompression or introduce ec air rb for top tier. I know I've already said this before but it seems the air community still want to fight the way current air rb even when we get even more advance planes.

Agreed, and especially in the future when engagement ranges get longer, I really hope Gaijin stops being lazy and actually creates large maps. 

[Fireraid233 4,274]

2 minutes ago, Stavroforos said:

Agreed, and especially in the future when engagement ranges get longer, I really hope Gaijin stops being lazy and actually creates large maps. 

Yes but i also hope the community puts more focus into it as well which sadly i have yet to see...

[sageman901@psn 699]

we have mach 2 jets yet we still play on small maps and we are going to play on them when they introduce radar guided missiles, gaijin simply doesn't care about the maps all they care about is how they going to introduce the next op tank/plane 

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

16 hours ago, Fireraid233 said:

Yes but i also hope the community puts more focus into it as well which sadly i have yet to see...

 

I have been preaching for larger maps ever since we got the Leopard 1 and T62, and I have concluded that this will never ever happen. Gaijin will stitch together three small arenas (Fulda, El Alamein, Tunisia, etc., etc.), slam the "Large map" stamp on it and call it a day. 

[Snake509 764]

I'm really hoping we get SARH missiles in tier 6 (with more effective ones at the top of tier 6 (BR 12?)  We should have a more advanced radar system in game at tier 7 and that can include datalink sharing and active radar missiles.

[MonkeyBussiness 1,228]

i'm really excited for "tier 7" planes, but 1 thing that i don't really want to see are guided air to ground munitions , i'm both a tanker and a pilot and getting  "mavericked" at 20km+ won't be a fun experience , it will be like the Ka-50 experience but worse . With the addition of ccip  i feel like CAS is equal to SAM right now , i can take my fgr2 and bomb anything at 2 to 3km of distance , and it's really easy to snipe someone with the tiny ivan on the SMT , we just need more attacker for others nations

i also feel like we can have anti-ship missile since the difference in br between top tier ships and plane is too high to make them meet each other at the moment, so you can only use them is air rb to kill AI ship as  free RP . I'm not worry about early SARH missile since they will be easy to evade and you will have more time to react to them , and like said previeously we can limited the missile carried on certain plane (i'm looking at you little AIM-54 phoenix !)

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

On 29/03/2020 at 23:18, Fireraid233 said:

I think it really need to emphasized that current air rb top tier needs to change.

Do you really like the thought of flying a mig29 in these small maps in a 5 min team deathmatch? 

Changes need to happen big maps, br decompression or introduce ec air rb for top tier. I know I've already said this before but it seems the air community still wants to fight the way current air rb is, even when we get even more advance planes.

 

Fully agree. We need maps to utilize BVR and the jets' respective top speeds. We have Vietnam in Heli EC I think and Boulogne-Sur-Mer. We need those in air RB's rotation. 

On 30/03/2020 at 16:34, Snake509 said:

I'm really hoping we get SARH missiles in tier 6 (with more effective ones at the top of tier 6 (BR 12?)  We should have a more advanced radar system in game at tier 7 and that can include datalink sharing and active radar missiles.

 

They're totally possible for tier 6. The AIM-7D's track rate wasn't insane, and notching it was easy. 

[DJBscout 61]

Why on Earth is the F-104S lumped in with the likes of the F-16, Rafale, MiG-29, and flankers???

 

I've had discussions with people who say it's already outpaced/not advanced enough. Clearly, those people are insane, but too advanced? In what world?

 

I'm just gonna pull up a comment I wrote in response to someone saying the F-104 wouldn't be advanced enough, where I was hyping up its capabilties. It still doesn't look too good for the current top tier competition.

 

It got an uprated engine (J79-GE-19) that produced 17,900lbs of thrust (on A/B), over 2000 more than the 104G's 15600, for a loaded T/W of ~.78 and an empty T/W of **1.2**. It'll do 1464kph (M ~1.18) on the deck, which beats the F-4C's 1330 (1.09), should beat's the F-4E's 750kts/1389kph (M 1.12), and even will beat the FGR.2's 1416 (1.16). Oh, did I mention it'll do mach 1 at mil power? That's supercruise on the deck. (From what I've heard, AMI pilots found on-the-deck supercruise to be remarkably easy, and when the AMI tested to replace the F-104S, its speed and acceleration were competitive and even sometimes superior to the likes of the F-16 and M2000)

 

It's also got a very low-drag profile, optimized for M 1.2+ flight, meaning it'll likely have some of the best high-speed performance in the game. Massive turn radius, but a turn rate roughly comparable to the F-4, with a lot better aero, especially at high speeds. The AoA is limited to just a bit over 15 degrees (pitch-up), but this also means it (likely) won't be able to pull enough AoA to actually bleed energy, meaning MER could be surprisingly good at high speeds. Sure, it may not turn particularly well (especially if it comes to low speeds and/or a dogfight), but when it comes to energy generation and maintenance, this thing is gonna be nuts.

 

As for weapons, it has 9 hardpoints, 2 of which can carry Sparrows, on top of which it can also pack up to 6 sidewinders (usually only 2-4). It was introduced in '66, and given the F-4E has AIM-9Js, that's completely plausible for the 104S as well. Now, it also has a 20mm Vulcan, though IRL running the internal vulcan precluded the Sparrows and vice versa, so you get either a 20mm + 2-6 AIM-9s (theoretically perhaps as many as 8-9??) or 2 AIM-7E/Fs+2-6 AIM-9G/H/Js. Gaijin can easily adjust/limit this as needed for balance.

 

It'll also be interesting to fly overall, especially in regards to airframe limitations. A lot of the limits are actually thermal (Mainly CIT and EGT), and the Engine Temp would actually be better modeled with the old system, where you had a timer at a given temperature. It's also not engine compressor temp, but compressor *inlet* temperature that is key, maxing at 175C on the late models.

It'll be a weird, tricky aircraft to model, which I suspect is why we have yet to see it in game, rather than balance issues. Early models can't even break M1 in level flight at ~11km with full A/B, but dropping it to ~7.5km and punching through Mach with A/B then allowed the maintaining of M2+ with A/B all the way up to ~15km, and once you punched through M1 at 7km or below with A/B, it could drop off the A/B and supercruise, with even the A model holding M 1.1 at 25000 ft. A lot of this has to do with transonic drag/wave drag, and I'm unsure how well Gaijin has modeled this. Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath.

After digging for sources, and finding an excellent NACA report (page 49) it seems that the XF-104's wave drag *increases* until M 1.03, after which it decreases, and the zero-lift coefficient matches the peak again at about 1.1. Still unsure how it supercruises at 1.1, given that the drag at M1 is still lower than the deepest part of the trough in drag at 1.05. My best guess is differences between the XF-104 and production 104's inlets effecting where the drag is optimized.

 

So, let's review.

• Fast as xxxx on the deck, M 1.18, 1464kph.
  • The F-4EJ will do M 1.14, the FGR does 1.16, and the Draken will do almost M1.15 (breaking wings at ~1417IAS)
    • Admittedly, on-the-deck supercruise puts it in a bit of a special category, and it would be the fastest, but not by some massive margin.
• Very clean airframe optimized for very low drag at supersonic speeds
  • a bit special, but still comparable to something like the Draken, and subject to Gaijin's modeling.
• Climbs like a demon
  • but worse than every other jet you mentioned for your proposed Tier VII. Absolutely has an insane climb, but so does the EEL.
• SARH missiles and AIM-9Js
  • The former can be replaced with a Vulcan historically, and the latter are already in game

And those are the pros, we haven't even discussed the cons.

 

I think you're making the same mistake some people did with the lightning, where they looked at some of the crazier figures it could put up, and assumed that it would be insane, without thinking about what factors might hold it back.

 

You say the 104 would be too advanced, but it would be comparable to the MiG-21s, F-4s, and Draken. I don't see why it *shouldn't* be added, as it would fit in right now as a solid competitor at top tier. Waiting to add it makes no sense, as it would be hopelessly outclassed, and personally I'd prefer it be viable if/when it comes to the game.

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

8 hours ago, DJBscout said:

Why on Earth is the F-104S lumped in with the likes of the F-16, Rafale, MiG-29, and flankers???

 

I've had discussions with people who say it's already outpaced/not advanced enough. Clearly, those people are insane, but too advanced? In what world?

 

I'm just gonna pull up a comment I wrote in response to someone saying the F-104 wouldn't be advanced enough, where I was hyping up its capabilties. It still doesn't look too good for the current top tier competition.

 

It got an uprated engine (J79-GE-19) that produced 17,900lbs of thrust (on A/B), over 2000 more than the 104G's 15600, for a loaded T/W of ~.78 and an empty T/W of **1.2**. It'll do 1464kph (M ~1.18) on the deck, which beats the F-4C's 1330 (1.09), should beat's the F-4E's 750kts/1389kph (M 1.12), and even will beat the FGR.2's 1416 (1.16). Oh, did I mention it'll do mach 1 at mil power? That's supercruise on the deck. (From what I've heard, AMI pilots found on-the-deck supercruise to be remarkably easy, and when the AMI tested to replace the F-104S, its speed and acceleration were competitive and even sometimes superior to the likes of the F-16 and M2000)

 

It's also got a very low-drag profile, optimized for M 1.2+ flight, meaning it'll likely have some of the best high-speed performance in the game. Massive turn radius, but a turn rate roughly comparable to the F-4, with a lot better aero, especially at high speeds. The AoA is limited to just a bit over 15 degrees (pitch-up), but this also means it (likely) won't be able to pull enough AoA to actually bleed energy, meaning MER could be surprisingly good at high speeds. Sure, it may not turn particularly well (especially if it comes to low speeds and/or a dogfight), but when it comes to energy generation and maintenance, this thing is gonna be nuts.

 

As for weapons, it has 9 hardpoints, 2 of which can carry Sparrows, on top of which it can also pack up to 6 sidewinders (usually only 2-4). It was introduced in '66, and given the F-4E has AIM-9Js, that's completely plausible for the 104S as well. Now, it also has a 20mm Vulcan, though IRL running the internal vulcan precluded the Sparrows and vice versa, so you get either a 20mm + 2-6 AIM-9s (theoretically perhaps as many as 8-9??) or 2 AIM-7E/Fs+2-6 AIM-9G/H/Js. Gaijin can easily adjust/limit this as needed for balance.

 

It'll also be interesting to fly overall, especially in regards to airframe limitations. A lot of the limits are actually thermal (Mainly CIT and EGT), and the Engine Temp would actually be better modeled with the old system, where you had a timer at a given temperature. It's also not engine compressor temp, but compressor *inlet* temperature that is key, maxing at 175C on the late models.

It'll be a weird, tricky aircraft to model, which I suspect is why we have yet to see it in game, rather than balance issues. Early models can't even break M1 in level flight at ~11km with full A/B, but dropping it to ~7.5km and punching through Mach with A/B then allowed the maintaining of M2+ with A/B all the way up to ~15km, and once you punched through M1 at 7km or below with A/B, it could drop off the A/B and supercruise, with even the A model holding M 1.1 at 25000 ft. A lot of this has to do with transonic drag/wave drag, and I'm unsure how well Gaijin has modeled this. Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath.

After digging for sources, and finding an excellent NACA report (page 49) it seems that the XF-104's wave drag *increases* until M 1.03, after which it decreases, and the zero-lift coefficient matches the peak again at about 1.1. Still unsure how it supercruises at 1.1, given that the drag at M1 is still lower than the deepest part of the trough in drag at 1.05. My best guess is differences between the XF-104 and production 104's inlets effecting where the drag is optimized.

 

So, let's review.

• Fast as xxxx on the deck, M 1.18, 1464kph.
  • The F-4EJ will do M 1.14, the FGR does 1.16, and the Draken will do almost M1.15 (breaking wings at ~1417IAS)
    • Admittedly, on-the-deck supercruise puts it in a bit of a special category, and it would be the fastest, but not by some massive margin.
• Very clean airframe optimized for very low drag at supersonic speeds
  • a bit special, but still comparable to something like the Draken, and subject to Gaijin's modeling.
• Climbs like a demon
  • but worse than every other jet you mentioned for your proposed Tier VII. Absolutely has an insane climb, but so does the EEL.
• SARH missiles and AIM-9Js
  • The former can be replaced with a Vulcan historically, and the latter are already in game

And those are the pros, we haven't even discussed the cons.

 

I think you're making the same mistake some people did with the lightning, where they looked at some of the crazier figures it could put up, and assumed that it would be insane, without thinking about what factors might hold it back.

 

You say the 104 would be too advanced, but it would be comparable to the MiG-21s, F-4s, and Draken. I don't see why it *shouldn't* be added, as it would fit in right now as a solid competitor at top tier. Waiting to add it makes no sense, as it would be hopelessly outclassed, and personally I'd prefer it be viable if/when it comes to the game.

The FGR2 does mach 1.18 on the deck and F4EJ 1.16

 

Also looking at the F104S manual right now seems to be hard limited to mach 1.14 that's as far as the engine will push it.

 

It also cannot supercruise at sea level according to the manual and caps out at 0.97 mach at sea level.

Edited April 2, 2020 by *oppsijustkilledu

[Stavroforos 15,367]

The only people (person) who keep on denying the F-104S have simply made a habit out of denying it and every other plane which they themselves (himself) wouldn't want to bring in the game yet. The F-104S seems like it would fit fine into the game right now, it doesn't have any advanced avionics which I know of which would have to be modeled and which would be game breaking anyway. 

 

Also the case for the Jaguar. 

[Fireraid233 4,274]

Already made suggestion for some planes to move to 10.7 and 11.0 to allow some decompression please support or make your own suggestion if you have the time so that hopefully the change can go live.

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

On 02/04/2020 at 11:07, Stavroforos said:

The F-104S seems like it would fit fine into the game right now, it doesn't have any advanced avionics which I know of which would have to be modeled and which would be game breaking anyway. 

 

Also the case for the Jaguar. 

 

The F-104S was equipped with AIM-9L and AIM-7E missiles. Hell no that's not for tier 6 (currently speaking), they called it the Super Starfighter for good reasons. The same goes for the Jaguar, I've already explained its position to you. 

 

The Italians could get the F-104G for the time being. 

Edited April 5, 2020 by EpicBlitzkrieg87

[Stavroforos 15,367]

4 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

The F-104S was equipped with AIM-9L and AIM-7E missiles. Hell no that's not for tier 6 (currently speaking), they called it the Super Starfighter for good reasons. The same goes for the Jaguar, I've already explained its position to you. 

 

The Italians could get the F-104G for the time being. 

You didn't source it last discussion. Perhaps you'll do so here. 

 

(In regards to the Jaguar).

 

Don't bother with the AIM-7s, since they're not implemented in any plane, so whether a plane has them or not doesn't change anything about their balance. 

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

The FGR2 also had AIM9L irl but it doesnt have them in game 

[Fireraid233 4,274]

3 hours ago, *oppsijustkilledu said:

The FGR2 also had AIM9L irl but it doesnt have them in game 

Yup same as T2 it too could carry AIM9Ls but it doesn't have them. Could also carry AIM9Ps but we have yet to see them. Speaking of AIM9Ps F4EJ should not even have AIM9Js instead AIM9Ps which should be similar. Doesn't seem like gaijin cares much what missiles it had. They will adjust it for balance.

[DJBscout 61]

On 02/04/2020 at 02:54, *oppsijustkilledu said:

The FGR2 does mach 1.18 on the deck and F4EJ 1.16

 

Also looking at the F104S manual right now seems to be hard limited to mach 1.14 that's as far as the engine will push it.

 

It also cannot supercruise at sea level according to the manual and caps out at 0.97 mach at sea level.

You inspired me to go back and double-check, and here are the results.

 

I'm looking at the manual myself right now. On page 515, there's a fuel consumption line for M 1.0 at SL. That alone would seem to indicate a SL supercruise. However, this is further justified when one delves into the flight envelope retrictions.

 

From what I can tell, the "Mach Limit" on the engine at sea level is actually a 750KEAS engine limit, given that is labeled as such. I'm unsure exactly what that limit is in terms of how it works/limits the aircraft, and how much room there is past that

 

If one reads the leftmost side of the lines on the limitations chart found on page 289, the limit seems does line up at M1.14. However, google puts 750 knots as equivalent to M 1.12, not 1.14. (This site, which is a lot more detailed, puts 750 KEAS as M 1.1338)

 

Spoiler

(.05M increment is 1.5 units long, center of the line falls at 1.3 units,  1.3/1.5=.86666667 units * .1M increment = M 1.1433333)

Furthermore, at page 295, the Mach line linked to the 750 EAS limit ends at ~1.16. Doing some quick pixel measurements yields a M 1.168.

Spoiler

(a .1 increment is 2.5 measurements long, the line's center is at 1.7, 1.7/2.5=.68, .68*.1M = .068, M1.1+.068= M 1.168.)

Furthermore, on page 317, the Flight Envelope indicates that the steady state for Mil Power max speed at Sea Level is M 1.0. So supercruise is a go. Looking closely, max Mach, on that same 750KEAS line, where the Steady State on A/B ends, is M 1.133

Spoiler

(Aside from the wonderful view of the supercruise line, let's do some calculations again.)

Increment of .2, measurement of 5.12 units for .2M, 3.4 units for the middle of the limit line, 3.4/5.12=.664*.2M=.1328M+1.0= M 1.133 limit

So, at the very least there's some doubt about exactly what max Mach is allowable, though it definitely trends closer to M 1.13 when looking at charts that specifically discuss speed limits. However, that limit comes from the 750KEAS limit, and I'm not sure how far that goes. It carries the exact same engines as the F-4, J79-GE-19s. The F-4's nominal 750 KIAS limit is completely ignored in game (see: F-4EJ with the same J79-GE-19 having a top speed of 765 on the deck). Thus, we ought to see the same level of performance coming from the 104S on the deck, or even better (considering that the airframe will do better than the F-4s on 100% throttle). I can't find good sourcing for it, but Wikipedia (citing Jane's All the World's Aircraft, 1976-1977) says 790 kn (1,464 km/h) / M1.29 at sea level. (Interestingly enough, if we assume CIT becomes the limiting factor, and trace back the line for the CIT limit to Sea Level, the line hits just shy of M 1.3) 

Spoiler

 Regardless, the aircraft ought to be able to match the EJ's max speed on the deck, at the very least.

Edited April 6, 2020 by DJBscout
Removing unnecessary pictures

[DJBscout 61]

14 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

The F-104S was equipped with AIM-9L and AIM-7E missiles. Hell no that's not for tier 6 (currently speaking), they called it the Super Starfighter for good reasons. The same goes for the Jaguar, I've already explained its position to you. 

 

The Italians could get the F-104G for the time being. 

 

That's a load of crap.

 

The F-4C carried AIM-7Es. Didn't stop Gaijin from adding it. The F-4E carried AIM-7Es and AIM-9Ls. Gaijin didn't hold back from adding that either.

FGR, AIM-9L. T-2, AIM-9L.

 

The F-104S even has a plausible loadout in which it doesn't carry AIM-7s but instead gets a Vulcan. The F-4 has no such optional configuration, and yet it's still in game, sans Sparrows, with no historical configuration or reason as to why, besides game balance. That variant of the F-104S is, by your standards, therefore a more plausible addition than any variant the F-4 Phantom. 

The less plausible of these aircraft is already in game.

 

Saying Italy can't get a supersonic that's actually competitive with other current top tier aircraft because it would have missiles that are too advanced is laughable. If adding an aircraft required adding the best missiles it carried in its service life, then half of top tier would be carrying the same missiles you claim prevent the 104S' addition. Let's also not forget that the 104S was introduced in 1969, around the same time as the FGR.2 (late '68) and F-4EJ (also '68).  Not to mention the Agile Eagle F-4E we have in-game (though the visual model is incorrect) dates to 1972. The AIM-9L didn't enter service in numbers until '77 or so. There is absolutely no reason the 104S can't be added with earlier missiles.

 

As to the 104G, it is not only inferior not in loadouts, but also in its engine, and is nowhere near as capable as the 104S. One can supercruise on the deck, the other cannot. One can break 1:1 TWR with any fuel in the tanks, the other cannot. Why the hell shouldn't Italy get a top-tier when it would still be competitive? At this point, it's the only tree without a supersonic jet.

[Stavroforos 15,367]

Honestly this shouldn't be any surprise to anyone, Gaijin already balances ground forces by giving vehicles rounds that they didn't use, there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't do so for aircraft either. 

[oppsijustkilledu@psn 2,314]

5 hours ago, DJBscout said:

 

That's a load of crap.

 

The F-4C carried AIM-7Es. Didn't stop Gaijin from adding it. The F-4E carried AIM-7Es and AIM-9Ls. Gaijin didn't hold back from adding that either.

FGR, AIM-9L. T-2, AIM-9L.

 

The F-104S even has a plausible loadout in which it doesn't carry AIM-7s but instead gets a Vulcan. The F-4 has no such optional configuration, and yet it's still in game, sans Sparrows, with no historical configuration or reason as to why, besides game balance. That variant of the F-104S is, by your standards, therefore a more plausible addition than any variant the F-4 Phantom. 

The less plausible of these aircraft is already in game.

 

Saying Italy can't get a supersonic that's actually competitive with other current top tier aircraft because it would have missiles that are too advanced is laughable. If adding an aircraft required adding the best missiles it carried in its service life, then half of top tier would be carrying the same missiles you claim prevent the 104S' addition. Let's also not forget that the 104S was introduced in 1969, around the same time as the FGR.2 (late '68) and F-4EJ (also '68).  Not to mention the Agile Eagle F-4E we have in-game (though the visual model is incorrect) dates to 1972. The AIM-9L didn't enter service in numbers until '77 or so. There is absolutely no reason the 104S can't be added with earlier missiles.

 

As to the 104G, it is not only inferior not in loadouts, but also in its engine, and is nowhere near as capable as the 104S. One can supercruise on the deck, the other cannot. One can break 1:1 TWR with any fuel in the tanks, the other cannot. Why the hell shouldn't Italy get a top-tier when it would still be competitive? At this point, it's the only tree without a supersonic jet.

The F104S cannot supercruise on the deck the manual states mach 0.97. Its thrust to weight majority of the time is below 1 to 1 aswell. So I dont get where you are getting this 1 to 1 thrust to weight at any fuel in the tanks.

Edited April 6, 2020 by *oppsijustkilledu

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

18 hours ago, Stavroforos said:

You didn't source it last discussion. Perhaps you'll do so here. 

 

 

Here you can see AIM-9Gs

 

Spoiler

 

These are AIM-9Ls

 

Spoiler

 

Lastly AIM-9Ms from what I can tell

 

Spoiler

 

8 hours ago, DJBscout said:

The F-104S even has a plausible loadout in which it doesn't carry AIM-7s but instead gets a Vulcan.

 

This is exactly the problem with the Aeritalia F-104S deriative. The interceptor variant sacrificed the gun for the avionics to use the AIM-9Ls and AIM-7Es, which would be overpowered in current state of the game without anybody having counters to that and only 3 planes with flares, while the fighter-bomber variant had a gun but no missiles. Where would you place such a plane in the game's current state?

 

8 hours ago, DJBscout said:

Saying Italy can't get a supersonic that's actually competitive with other current top tier aircraft because it would have missiles that are too advanced is laughable. If adding an aircraft required adding the best missiles it carried in its service life, then half of top tier would be carrying the same missiles you claim prevent the 104S' addition. Let's also not forget that the 104S was introduced in 1969, around the same time as the FGR.2 (late '68) and F-4EJ (also '68).  Not to mention the Agile Eagle F-4E we have in-game (though the visual model is incorrect) dates to 1972. The AIM-9L didn't enter service in numbers until '77 or so. There is absolutely no reason the 104S can't be added with earlier missiles.

 

I've mentioned the Italian F-104G twice but I guess you didn't pay attention. 

 

To say that having missiles which are too advanced as laughable IS where it's laughable. If you still insist on that, I don't suppose you played around the time when the MiG-21s dominated air RB by just having R-60 missiles. Insisting on asking for the F-104S would repeat the same situation but this time with a much better tracking weapon with 3 km frontal lock range (all-aspect). 

 

From my understanding there are three different F-104S deriatives: the first one, which is strictly speaking the F-104G built by Fiat / same plane I keep on supporting, armed with 4 AIM-9B and one vulcan, and the other two where the problems come in, modified and produced by Aeritalia, were the first true Italian F-104s. 

 

8 hours ago, DJBscout said:

The F-4C carried AIM-7Es. Didn't stop Gaijin from adding it. The F-4E carried AIM-7Es and AIM-9Ls. Gaijin didn't hold back from adding that either.

FGR, AIM-9L. T-2, AIM-9L.

 

My bad, I have to correct myself. The AIM-7 the F-104S had was the AIM-7E-2. The AIM-7E would be more or less good in the game if added soon. But there's a hole in your argument, and it's that those jets you mentioned don't need those missiles to fight. They have other options. The F-104S CI and CB on the other hand could be problematic as I explained before. They would be ether too inefficient or possibly game-breaking.

 

So from now I only kindly advise you to reconsider supporting the F-104S and support the F-104G for both Italy and Germany. 

 

8 hours ago, DJBscout said:

As to the 104G, it is not only inferior not in loadouts, but also in its engine, and is nowhere near as capable as the 104S. One can supercruise on the deck, the other cannot. One can break 1:1 TWR with any fuel in the tanks, the other cannot. Why the hell shouldn't Italy get a top-tier when it would still be competitive? At this point, it's the only tree without a supersonic jet.

 

No jet is capable of supercruising on the deck, and if that's actually possible coming from the F-104S, you're not asking for a competitive jet, at this point you're asking for the game to become broken in top tier. 

 

It doesn't have to have a 1:1 TWR to be competitive. The F-4E, MiG-21SMT and other jets are competitive and they don't gain speed in a 90 degree climb. All it needs is potent performance and weaponry. The F-104G has enough requirements to be competitive. 

 

The F-104S gets lumped into the likes of those planes because it had similar-performing missiles and insane speeds. Don't get me started on the ASA variants. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by EpicBlitzkrieg87

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

On 02/04/2020 at 02:25, DJBscout said:

which beats the F-4C's 1330 (1.09), should beat's the F-4E's 750kts/1389kph (M 1.12), and even will beat the FGR.2's 1416 (1.16).

 

Where are you even getting those numbers from? The heavier F-4 outrunning the lighter one (F-4C)? I certainly don't believe it. And the FGR.2 in-game is faster than that. 

 

On 02/04/2020 at 02:25, DJBscout said:

• Climbs like a demon
  • but worse than every other jet you mentioned for your proposed Tier VII. Absolutely has an insane climb, but so does the EEL.

 

On the other hand, it's much better than everything we have in the game. But I guess that's alright since that would compensate for the really small turn radius.

 

On 02/04/2020 at 02:25, DJBscout said:

SARH missiles and AIM-9Js

• The former can be replaced with a Vulcan historically, and the latter are already in game

 

Out of all the F-104 variants ever made, only the F-104J had AIM-9Js. I'm going to need your sources. 

 

And I'll be happy if you could disprove me. I want more supersonic jets for Italy before tier 7.

[CreditCardCmndo 1,261]

So you put an Su-27 on the same level as an F-16A? 

You realize that the Su-27 was created to counter the American F-15C right?

 

Not to mention that other then the Su-27 which would be at best on equal terms with the F-15C every other Nation would struggle against that plane.

I am not biased towards the F-15C but you have to recognise that is is one of the best fighter frames ever built.

 

To be honest i would make a light fighter only list of this without the inclusion of Su-27 and the likes.

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

25 minutes ago, CreditCardCmndo said:

So you put an Su-27 on the same level as an F-16A? 

You realize that the Su-27 was created to counter the American F-15C right?

 

Not to mention that other then the Su-27 which would be at best on equal terms with the F-15C every other Nation would struggle against that plane.

I am not biased towards the F-15C but you have to recognise that is is one of the best fighter frames ever built.

 

To be honest i would make a light fighter only list of this without the inclusion of Su-27 and the likes.

 

I'm not putting it on the level of the F-15C. The fictional stat cards in the OP are random possible picks, and I also said don't pay attention to the BRs since they're also randomized. They're both still tier 7 material however. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by EpicBlitzkrieg87

[DJBscout 61]

4 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

Where are you even getting those numbers from? The heavier F-4 outrunning the lighter one (F-4C)? I certainly don't believe it. And the FGR.2 in-game is faster than that. 

First off, the F-4E had much better engines, J79-GE-17s, as opposed to the F-4C's -15s. The total thrust increase on A/B is somewhere is 1100lbf per engine on Afterburner. The reason it's slower in-game is that it has gunpod drag modeled, despite no longer carrying a gunpod. Look to the F-4EJ for the specs more like the F-4E should be running. And the FGR has completely different engine, Rolls Royce Spey Turbofans. As to the F-4E's max speed, I used the IRL limiting figure of 750KIAS, but the FGR and EJ can both exceed that limit by a bit in-game. (Interestingly enough, the 104S should have the same limit of 750 KEAS, as it has the same engine and thus the same limit.)

 

4 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

This is exactly the problem with the Aeritalia F-104S deriative. The interceptor variant sacrificed the gun for the avionics to use the AIM-9Ls and AIM-7Es, which would be overpowered in current state of the game without anybody having counters to that and only 3 planes with flares, while the fighter-bomber variant had a gun but no missiles. Where would you place such a plane in the game's current state?

Let's clarify something real quick, the interceptor and fighter-bomber versions were interchangeable. They could be modified to one standard or the other, it's not like once you put in the avionics package for the missiles, it could never be removed. If we were to add the 104S, we could add either version, or it could be a mod/upgrade. (e.g., just like you can choose to install a 30 or 20mm on the G-6/K-4, or different gun layouts on the Bf-110F/G, you could choose the Vulcan or Radar Missile armament for the 104S). I do think two separate variants in the tree would be better, as the radar missile version would definitely deserve a higher BR, but that won't be a problem until Sparrows and/or Aspides are added. That being said, such a variant would definitely need missiles stock, and we all know how much Gaijin is opposed to giving anything stock missiles in a missile meta.

(My ideal would be the 104S, which would mount the Vulcan and Sidewinders to start, which then would unlock the (CI) modification, containing radar avionics for the AIM-7, as it would likely be BR'd to face contemporaries with the same missiles. There would then be a higher-BR'd F-104S-ASA(CI), which would have AIM-9s and AIM-7E-2 Sparrows to start, then could unlock Aspides. This assumes such radar missiles are added. For the time being, an F-104S(CB) at 10.3 would be ideal)

 

Furthermore, the avionics for the dedicated interceptor version which precluded the use of a gun were only for radar. The lack of the radar missile avionics did not preclude a given Sidewinder variant. The avionics purely effected the Radar Missile capability. Sidewinders are remarkably simple. You need the avionics to turn them on, listen for a tone, and send a launch command. That's about it. You mentioned that the ground attack version could carry AIM-9Bs. It then stands to reason that it could carry just about any other compatible variant. Speaking of which,

4 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

Out of all the F-104 variants ever made, only the F-104J had AIM-9Js. I'm going to need your sources. 

I don't know why you think aircraft are only capable of carrying very specific variants of the AIM-9. The AIM-9J/N/P are all very similar missiles, with the J in particular being particularly widely exported (hence my logic on the 104S likely carrying that variant). Can I find a specific source stating the F-104S fielded the J? No, I can't, as I haven't really looked. But the 104S was introduced in 1969, and the Lima didn't enter service till '77. The 9J first entered service in '72. (The D/G/H are also theoretically options, albeit far less likely) Would I ideally like to find exactly what missiles should be added? Yes, but that requires a lot of digging through sources, only for Gaijin to cherry pick the missiles they want anyway. I know from this 1996 manual that in '96, the standard Sidewinder loadout was 2 AIM-9Ls. But for the most part, the AIM-9 family were pretty much all inter-compatible, aside from some cooling differences. Given that the F-104 was a USAF design, limiting the 104S to USAF/Joint missiles would make sense, and would leave it open to mounting the B,E,J/N/P, and L models.

 

We could also have the AIM-9F (also known as AIM-9B FGW.2), an improved export version of the AIM-9B, introduced in 1969, and common in European use. This would seem to be the most plausible variant. Some sources state that the Italians used the B/F until their transition to the L, and it definitely falls short of game-breaking. According to this post, FOV of 4 degrees, gimbal of 30, tracking rate of 16deg/s, and a 10G limit. If anything it'd be underpowered in the current meta, but so be it.

 

4 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

My bad, I have to correct myself. The AIM-7 the F-104S had was the AIM-7E-2. The AIM-7E would be more or less good in the game if added soon. But there's a hole in your argument, and it's that those jets you mentioned don't need those missiles to fight. They have other options. The F-104S CI and CB on the other hand could be problematic as I explained before. They would be ether too inefficient or possibly game-breaking.

If you think the AIM-7E would be balanced, I suggest you briefly look at the flight envelope of the AIM-7C. Then the AIM-7F. (Unfortunately, I don't have docs for the E.)

The C might be okay, but that's already a 15G missile with a (if implemented properly) more robust tracking method than the IR missiles we have in-game.

The difference between the AIM-7E and the 7E-2 is that the E-2 is a "dogfight sparrow," with clipped surfaces and slightly different fuzing. But the E-2 was introduced in 1969, so the F-4C and E would also both be able to carry it.

Let's also briefly note that the 104S did not stop at the E-2. It carried the Aspide as well, which received better control surfaces, a better motor, and a monopulse seeker. It would effectively be equal to, if not better than, the AIM-7M. That missile I will agree has no place in game, and ought to be restricted until we see its contemporaries enter as well.

Quote

They would be ether too inefficient or possibly game-breaking.

I'm sorry, that's just wrong. If we have a "ground attack" F-104S carrying 2 AIM-9Fs and a Vulcan, that's nearly the exact same weapons loadout as a T-2. Yes, restricting the F-104S to the CI version without the radar missiles would be too ineffecient, and adding the 104S (CI) with the SARH missiles it could carry, such as the E-2 and Aspide, would be busted. But the CB variant wouldn't be problematic in any way at 10.3!

 

4 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

No jet is capable of supercruising on the deck, and if that's actually possible coming from the F-104S, you're not asking for a competitive jet, at this point you're asking for the game to become broken in top tier. 

The 104S is, if only barely. (That is to say, if you punch through mach with the A/B, the 104 will then maintain M 1.0 on the deck) That's what happens when you optimize an airframe for supersonic speed, it's really good at staying fast. The thing is, that high speed performance comes at the cost of a MASSIVE turn radius (quite literally measured in nautical miles at supersonic speeds), and it isn't that much faster than any of its contemporaries on afterburner.

Look at the flight envelope on page 317. It'll do M 1.0 on the deck, barely. It then pushes up to a maximum of M ~1.02-1.04 at 25000ft (7.6km), decreases to 40k ft (12km), and rapidly falls off afterwards.

The F-4EJ will do M 1.01 at 20k feet, and M 1.0 at 30k on 100%. The FGR will do .96 on the deck, and the EJ will do .97. They'll be roughly equal in afterburner performance. I can't be sure, but I do suspect the F-104 will have slightly better acceleration (48s from a stop to M .925, @35k ft 40s from M .9 to M 1.0, ~1:15 to M 1.2)

 

Besides, at top tier, most people are riding their afterburners anyway.