F-4F, AIM-9L

[N1thecaptain 42]

The F-4F IRL has access to 4 AIM-9L's as opposed to  4 AIM-9J's. Gaijin knows this (they said so in a stream), but the F-4F still has 9J's as opposed to 9L's. The initial argument for not giving it the stronger 9L's was that it would be unbalanced, which at the time, I could get behind, after all, it was a slightly worse version of the best plane in the game at the time, the F-4E. Flares hadn't received their buff, and the MiG-23's and F-14A hadn't been added yet, so the F-4F was, while nothing special, relatively competitive with just 9J's at 11.0. It did, and still does, force the F-4F into a dogfighter/BnZ vulture role. It could do that relatively well before the flare buff and the addition of the Floggers and Tomcat.

 

The problem is that the F-4F needs to be either faster or more agile than the enemy, and survive long enough to get in range. The MiG-23's are faster and more agile than the F-4F, and have MTI radar which not only works like a PD radar in that it filters out ground clutter, but (allegedly, I haven't actually seen this in an actual match) also doesn't nail or spike RWR, leaving the target oblivious to the missile. They also have radar missiles to go with it. The F-14A is (by a small, but noticeable amount) faster and much more agile than the F-4F, with AIM-54 Phoenix missiles that can hit their targets from 150 km, and AIM-7F's that, in combination with the Tomcat's powerful radar, are also extremely strong.

 

Both these aircraft are 11.3, only 0.3 br above the F-4F. This means you will encounter them in every match, in fact, they'll make up the majority of the enemy team 8-9 times out of 10. Dealing with them is extremely difficult, while it's extremely easy for them to deal with you. Giving the F-4F AIM-9L's would help a bit, not much since all the things they can do to counter you (shooting you down before you get in range, outturning you so you never get your nose on target, dumping flares as soon as you launch a missile), will still work, it'll just be a bit easier to kill them quickly if  you get in range.

 

Because of this, I think the F-4F should finally get the AIM-9L's it has IRL. Maybe also the ability to carry 6 AGM-65B's instead of only 2, I know they only carried 2 at a time during training missions, but in a real battle they would obviously carry more. But if it would just get the 9L's, I would be happy too.

[MacedonianSukhoi 617]

Aim-9L in game is also severely underperforming in terms of Front-Aspect lock on range and even in maneuverability so at this point I don't see why not.

As in it should be able to lock front aspect at least from 3-4km and as far away as 8km at high alt against afterburning targets(In game it's only 2km at all ranges)

And it should be able to pull more up to 35 or 40G's(In game it's less maneuverable than even an Aim-9J...)

 

That being said they might be saving up such weaponry to give to an F-4F ICE in the near future. 

I say that since in spite of it's Aim-120 armaments it's probably not going to get any of that advanced stuff just like the F-4EJ Kai didn't.

[spacenavy90 1,402]

6 hours ago, N1thecaptain said:

The F-4F IRL has access to 4 AIM-9L's as opposed to  4 AIM-9J's. Gaijin knows this (they said so in a stream), but the F-4F still has 9J's as opposed to 9L's. The initial argument for not giving it the stronger 9L's was that it would be unbalanced, which at the time, I could get behind, after all, it was a slightly worse version of the best plane in the game at the time, the F-4E. Flares hadn't received their buff, and the MiG-23's and F-14A hadn't been added yet, so the F-4F was, while nothing special, relatively competitive with just 9J's at 11.0. It did, and still does, force the F-4F into a dogfighter/BnZ vulture role. It could do that relatively well before the flare buff and the addition of the Floggers and Tomcat.

 

The problem is that the F-4F needs to be either faster or more agile than the enemy, and survive long enough to get in range. The MiG-23's are faster and more agile than the F-4F, and have MTI radar which not only works like a PD radar in that it filters out ground clutter, but (allegedly, I haven't actually seen this in an actual match) also doesn't nail or spike RWR, leaving the target oblivious to the missile. They also have radar missiles to go with it. The F-14A is (by a small, but noticeable amount) faster and much more agile than the F-4F, with AIM-54 Phoenix missiles that can hit their targets from 150 km, and AIM-7F's that, in combination with the Tomcat's powerful radar, are also extremely strong.

 

Both these aircraft are 11.3, only 0.3 br above the F-4F. This means you will encounter them in every match, in fact, they'll make up the majority of the enemy team 8-9 times out of 10. Dealing with them is extremely difficult, while it's extremely easy for them to deal with you. Giving the F-4F AIM-9L's would help a bit, not much since all the things they can do to counter you (shooting you down before you get in range, outturning you so you never get your nose on target, dumping flares as soon as you launch a missile), will still work, it'll just be a bit easier to kill them quickly if  you get in range.

 

Because of this, I think the F-4F should finally get the AIM-9L's it has IRL. Maybe also the ability to carry 6 AGM-65B's instead of only 2, I know they only carried 2 at a time during training missions, but in a real battle they would obviously carry more. But if it would just get the 9L's, I would be happy too.

 

In time, just be patient.

[NOM1337AD 111]

With more 4th gen fighters coming up (and 11.7 MiG-29 lurking in the shadows) it is most certain that some 10.7 and 11.0 aircraft will receive all aspect missiles to be able to compete in the new top tier matches.

[legogeorgia@psn 1,486]

I support this idea as long as the FG Phantoms get the AIM-9L as well.

[Faster_Boiiiii 753]

2 hours ago, legogeorgia@psn said:

I support this idea as long as the FG Phantoms get the AIM-9L as well.

I'd say the F-4F has precedence over the FG Phantoms as it literally only has those.

Spoiler

also if we're doing it for the FG phantoms, why not do like almost everything else too... F-4E(if it had them), MiG-23s with r-60ms, JA 37C with 74s, etc)

 

[CodyBlues 323]

On 21/07/2022 at 07:58, Faster_Boiiiii said:

I'd say the F-4F has precedence over the FG Phantoms as it literally only has those.

Reveal hidden contents

also if we're doing it for the FG phantoms, why not do like almost everything else too... F-4E(if it had them), MiG-23s with r-60ms, JA 37C with 74s, etc)

 

Yeah, the F-4F Is DOA and could use a buff.

 

the US got the F-14a, I think it’s ok for now.

[MaggyYolokrau1 135]

tried spading the thing and its terrible. besides being clean up crew or just catching people off-guard that aren't paying attention your pretty much useless.

this things needs Aim-9Ls and for the love of god give it triple Maverick mounts and a god damn thermal imager. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by MaggyYolokrau1

[strv122 391]

On 21/07/2022 at 16:58, Faster_Boiiiii said:

I'd say the F-4F has precedence over the FG Phantoms as it literally only has those.

Reveal hidden contents

also if we're doing it for the FG phantoms, why not do like almost everything else too... F-4E(if it had them), MiG-23s with r-60ms, JA 37C with 74s, etc)

 

the F4E had aim9p4(all aspect aim9j basically)

[cervotoc123 129]

On 03/08/2022 at 10:16, strv122 said:

the F4E had aim9p4(all aspect aim9j basically)

which would be even better than aim-9l in game

 

edit: For those who dont get it. It was written at the time of aim-9l being absolutely bad with its inertial navigation  being able to miss the target even if it was flying straight. Now it is much better.

Edited January 16, 2023 by cervotoc123

[strv122 391]

8 hours ago, cervotoc123 said:

which would be even better than aim-9l in game

not really, the much better range of the aim9l would make it better even with how bad it turns right now

[cervotoc123 129]

8 hours ago, strv122 said:

not really, the much better range of the aim9l would make it better even with how bad it turns right now

i mean aim-9l has really strange pathfinding even after they changed it. And even though it has much more Gs than aim-9g it still feels like an all-aspect aim-9G (or H which it kinda should be afterall it was developed from it). I dont know i would rather have aim-9p4 than aim-9l. But i hope gaijin will add more all-aspect missiles in next few patches such as pl-5e, pl-8,(maybe aam-2 just for how absurd that thing seems to be) and bit later r-73, python-3, aam-3, proper magic 2 and of course ASRAAM...

 

Just kidding.

[strv122 391]

55 minutes ago, cervotoc123 said:

i mean aim-9l has really strange pathfinding even after they changed it. And even though it has much more Gs than aim-9g it still feels like an all-aspect aim-9G (or H which it kinda should be afterall it was developed from it). I dont know i would rather have aim-9p4 than aim-9l. But i hope gaijin will add more all-aspect missiles in next few patches such as pl-5e, pl-8,(maybe aam-2 just for how absurd that thing seems to be) and bit later r-73, python-3, aam-3, proper magic 2 and of course ASRAAM...

 

Just kidding.

you know that the pl-8 is just a chinese python 3 right??

[cervotoc123 129]

44 minutes ago, strv122 said:

you know that the pl-8 is just a chinese python 3 right??

And here the fum begins i found a website claiming that pl-8 was only an attempt to make python-3 but at the end it was inferior to python-3 because it was localy built and at the time python was quite advanced so china had difficulties reproducing such missile. So later they built pl-9 which was much more similar to the python-3 and later even exceeds it according that site. So i tried to find more sorces and found that supposedly Israel never officialy sold them the licence. Also other websites i found reffered lower g limits for pl-8 than python 3. And after all this gaijin added to dev server pl-8 but not python 3 so it got me thinking that they really may not be the same but tbh idk. It all might be just a huge coincidence and i am just thinking i found something no one else did what sounds ridiculous.

[strv122 391]

12 hours ago, cervotoc123 said:

And here the fum begins i found a website claiming that pl-8 was only an attempt to make python-3 but at the end it was inferior to python-3 because it was localy built and at the time python was quite advanced so china had difficulties reproducing such missile. So later they built pl-9 which was much more similar to the python-3 and later even exceeds it according that site. So i tried to find more sorces and found that supposedly Israel never officialy sold them the licence. Also other websites i found reffered lower g limits for pl-8 than python 3. And after all this gaijin added to dev server pl-8 but not python 3 so it got me thinking that they really may not be the same but tbh idk. It all might be just a huge coincidence and i am just thinking i found something no one else did what sounds ridiculous.

its gaijin we are talking about here, just look at the pl5b its 30g but should be 20g(the pl5c was 30g)

[cervotoc123 129]

7 hours ago, strv122 said:

its gaijin we are talking about here, just look at the pl5b its 30g but should be 20g(the pl5c was 30g)

yeah that's something i dont really get. Also magic 2 "early" is also quite funny

[strv122 391]

1 hour ago, cervotoc123 said:

yeah that's something i dont really get. Also magic 2 "early" is also quite funny

did they do that?? i though they just said "yeah it would be crazy op if we made it historical"

[Faster_Boiiiii 753]

2 hours ago, strv122 said:

did they do that?? i though they just said "yeah it would be crazy op if we made it historical"

no, Smin explained this multiple times. There are conflicting sources with most of them citing a max G overload of 35G alongside a lack of structural changes required for higher G overloads.

[cervotoc123 129]

On 05/08/2022 at 10:56, Faster_Boiiiii said:

no, Smin explained this multiple times. There are conflicting sources with most of them citing a max G overload of 35G alongside a lack of structural changes required for higher G overloads.

i think the biggest problem isnt the amount of Gs it can pull but rather lack of ECCM

[Faster_Boiiiii 753]

1 hour ago, cervotoc123 said:

i think the biggest problem isnt the amount of Gs it can pull but rather lack of ECCM

think about it from gaijin's pov

they sure as hell aint gonn' introduce some new mechanic for 2 aircraft

[Flame2512 3,384]

3 minutes ago, Faster_Boiiiii said:

think about it from gaijin's pov

they sure as hell aint gonn' introduce some new mechanic for 2 aircraft

 

IRCCM already exists in game on MANPADs. Also they sure do model features for single aircraft, for example beam riding missile mechanics were added specially for the Swift F.7.

[cervotoc123 129]

3 hours ago, Faster_Boiiiii said:

think about it from gaijin's pov

they sure as hell aint gonn' introduce some new mechanic for 2 aircraft

i mean it is already in the game on 3 missiles

[Faster_Boiiiii 753]

4 minutes ago, cervotoc123 said:

i mean it is already in the game on 3 missiles

not on planes though and if its that easy, they're doing it for "balance"

[cervotoc123 129]

4 minutes ago, Faster_Boiiiii said:

not on planes though and if its that easy, they're doing it for "balance"

i mean it doesnt matter if it is for plane or helicopter but yes it would be OP that's why i call it magic 2 "early"

[gojuancamilo@psn 307]

On 03/08/2022 at 02:59, MaggyYolokrau1 said:

and for the love of god give it triple Maverick mounts and a god damn thermal imager

Did it use the triple Maverick mount? And what do you mean by the thermal Imager? Did it use a targeting pod?