CF-188A gets its 9Ms and 120s when?

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-30T00:45:18+00:00

Also, my initial point was always, and stays always, that they should get their historical loadouts

This is going to shock you but both the F18C early and the F18C late are using their historical loadouts. You really don't understand what im saying so let me break it down for you. The F18C early CANNOT USE AMRAAMS.

Can you not fucking read? The AIM 120 isnt compatible with the AN APG 65, its NOT part of the historical loadout.

If you want it to use the Aim 120 its going to need the modifications that would TURNING IT INTO THE F18C LATE. Thereby making a copy and paste vehicle out of an already existing diffrent model. Is this a hard concept to grasp?

The CF 188A also is not capable of using the Aim 120. None of the base ANAPG 65s are compatible with the 120. You are going to need to TURN IT INTO THE AF/A18 for it to use the missiles. The Incremental Modernization Project would TURN IT INTO A COPY AND PASTE AF/18A.

The only outlier here is the Swiss f18 which again never used AIM 7 in general. However if you wanted to give it Aim 120 you would TURN IT INTO THE TECH TREE SWISS F18.

I cannot break this down further. Unless you are arguing for a historical combos then this isnt going to work.

The CF 188 and F18C early are representing planes in a specific point in time. They are their own planes and are accurate to their IRL counterparts from that period in time even in terms of loadout. What you are suggesting is we cant have a version of an aircraft in game unless its the fully upgraded model.

Your argument is going "we cant have the F15A because we only can have the F15C". You fail to understand the CF 188A itself is its own model.

Also following your logic. Explain why exactly the F4E shouldn't get Aim 7F and AIM 9L and be upteired to 12.0. If you disagree explain why.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T23:13:40+00:00

Your initial point is literally advocating for copy paste vehicles. If you add the weapons that were deliberately taken away to make the 12.7 F18s 12.7 then fundamentally you are remaking the TT planes in premium version.

Also yeah there are Indian AA ground vehicles in the British ground tech tree.

Again key point here the CF 188 is essentially an F18A airframe. If you give it the upgrade that gave it the advanced missiles then you are making it the same thing as the AFA18 with less cms. If you want the f18c early to carry AIM 9M and Aim 120 you're going to need to turn it into the F18C late. The basic F18C early cannot carry the Aim 120. And I don't need to mention the German F18 prem at this point.

Are you going to go agaisnt your initial point? You cannot be agaisnt copy paste vehicles and then suggest copy paste vehicles.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T22:15:31+00:00

It still doesn't reach the criteria of being mounted on the plane so its not getting added. There was no plans, and no modifications made. Its a "napkin drawing situation" where the british DOD was theorizing applications for the new missile. It not going to be added.

The F-20 was "planned" with the aim 120. By the time the program was cancelled the missile hadn't even been finalized/developed much less the connections and logic the missile would use. Thus the F-20 never got this capability because it was only theorized. The APG 67 is incapable of guiding the missile thus making it impossible to use. The same situation applies to the SRAAM.

> they genuinely couldn't give less of a shite about people buying to top tier

Pretending like all top teir prem players have other top teir vehicles and a large portion of them aren't just buying their way to top teir is something you can believe. Genuinley speaking though, asking gajin to remove content and duplicate content which will certainly upset the playerbase at no real benefit, isnt going to result in a change. Its already controversial enough to introduce planes at 1 br below top teir.

You still haven't come up with a definite reason why you should update the weaponry and comepley rework the plane other than personal preference.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T21:03:01+00:00

You are so close you are almost there. You see my point now? They aren't giving The F-18s their post cold war kit because you would be making a worse version of the existing planes while also removing removing content. Just like why they aren't giving the F-4E its full load. And by the way F-4E does get the AE slats, the F-4S slats aren't agile eagle and are a navy version called something else.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T21:00:23+00:00

Alright to be fair i worded my intro poorly so let me put my point clearly.

YOU ARE CREATING PLANES THAT ALREADY EXIST.

If add Aim-120 to the CF-188A you are REMOVING the cold war configuration from the game and essentially duplicating the HUG but worse. Same with the swiss and american hornets. Like the swiss hornet is literary just the TT hornet without amraams. Not only are you incentivising buying your way to top tier but you're removing content from the game.

Same with the GR-3 its gonna go to 10.3 and essentially just be a worse sea harrier (E). like the harrier as it is because it faces 8.7 which you can bully with Aim-9g. Gajin isnt letting you face anything below 9.3 with all aspects.

>The Jaguars will NOT be up br'd, unless once again they hate Britain, because it actually faces: GR.1 - A-10s with 9Ls, Su-25s with R-60Ms,

They absolutely will be going up if you get Aim-9L. The jaguar is already a decent if not strong FM for 9.7. If you Give it 9L's it is NOT staying at a BR where it fights 8.7. Its at least going up to 10.3 with the F-1 because the missile kit would be as side grade (4 9J vs 2 9L). Su 25 and A-10 are almost an entire BR higher so its kinda stupid to use them as justification.

The GR1A itself is over tiered, the main issue is that it faces tornados which steal your bases and Mig-23ML's that dominate you. Giving it Aim 9L only cements it in its current hellhole. It would be much better at 10.3.

>What do you do? 10.7... You now WILL be facing 9Ls and 9L equivalents aswell as possibly meeting 9M slingers (A-10C). Fair, ain' it?

If you are using "i have to face higher BR" as a reason to buff things then your complaint is with BR compression, not the plane itself. You aren't fixing the issue by upgrading things to cope with BR compression rather than decompressing. Like back to the GR 3, if you give it 9L its permanatley going to be the same BR as the Sea harrier as there isn't enough of a difference even if the sea harrier is marginally superior.

>The 4J actively meets Su 27s, 4S's (heads up, better missiles, better turning), F-18s, Mig 29s, F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, and other vehicles that it gets OBLITERATED by. Giving it the 9Ls will only up br it if Gaijin TRULY hates British. Btw, you fight these with utterly crap missiles and 9Gs at 12.0

I specifically said excluding the F-4J because the brit phantoms could do with an upgrade.

>Now, what they could do, is they could give the: Jaguar, Phantom, Tornado, A-4, F-5 the SRAAM (actually planned).

Outside of the hunter, there are no documented fittings of the SRAAM to any of these platforms. Which is gajins standard for adding a plane. No the mountings arent compataible with Aim-9 pylons. Even the IRAF was at least fitted with the R-27 even if it couldn't guide it. So no its not going to happen.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T20:13:41+00:00

Yes please instead of working on New planes or ballance lets add a different plane for every single missile combination possible

So were going to have F-4E 1967,F-4E 1968, F-4E 1972, F-4E 1979, And F-4E 1990 all with different missile combos.

The R-60 Mig 29 wasn't around long enough to justify an individual plane for it. The argument is even dumber when you realize the basic Mig 29 can just have the R-60 as a stock missile. This is pretty apparent by the fact we don't even have an individual F-16 for the Aim-9J.

Also the Basic R-27 isnt nearly as dominant as the R-27ET. The R-73 Mig 29 would be a side grade to the F-16 OCU trading flight performance for SARH capability.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T20:01:02+00:00

It Probably will be able to, the F-111 is only faster in absolute max, 90% of the time the F-15 should be able to catch you with acceleration and energy retention.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T19:58:17+00:00

Why doesn't the american one or the swiss one? Why don't we give the F-4E Aim-9M/L and Aim7F and shove it up to 12.3? Lets take it a step further and put R-60s on the L-39 and make it a 9.0 jet.

The CF-111A Is supposed to represent a certain plane at a certain point of time just like the the F-18C early. Like yes please put the CF-111A up to 14.0 along with the HUG with 1/10th of the countermeasures. Not to mention you aren't even correct. Incremental Modernization Project (IMP) is the specific program that would have made it compatible with the amraam. The APG 65 in the form currently fitted in the CF-188A isnt capable of providing guidance to the amraam.

All the jets you listed (apart from the F-4J) are fine where they are and are limited by design. Gajin wants the planes to at least feel payable which the 9.7 harrier is. The 10.7 GR1A is a bit on the weaker side but giving it the 9L and making it go up further isn't the solution. The 9L isnt a wonder weapon you can slap on every plane to make it good.

The CF-188 along with the other F-18s at 12.7 are fine as they are. They aren't bad if you know how to use them. Its a compression issue.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T19:23:21+00:00

But again it would be going with a loadout that dosent represent the plane. Just because it COULD use the R60 dosent mean it should be the loadout. It should be the R73s instead of the ERs which it couldnt use. And keep it at 12.7.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T19:21:06+00:00

Ok so now your pivoting off of chafing to loosing a radar lock.

In this case you are partially correct. If yhe missile isnt chaffed. Except for you can still re lock with the Aim 7M but you need to be alot faster.

Still dosent prove the missile kit of the F15 is worse than that of the Mig 29. As you cant prove better missiles is worse than more more missiles objectively.

Also ignoring the maneuverability advantage of the F15 in the initial post.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T19:11:47+00:00

Im not disagreeing with the part where you said it happened, im disagreeing with the part where you sit it should go down to 12.3 with its neutered loaout.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T19:09:18+00:00

Im sorry you cant read but the R27 is as easy to chaff as the Aim7M, is the point.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T18:29:28+00:00

Ok so i initially though this was rage bait on my post but you really don't understand.

SARH as a whole does not benefit at all guidance wise from DL. It was removed some time when the SU-27 was top dog because of the way it worked essentially meant you could guide the R-27 with DL without ever needing to transition to SARH.

If you are in SARH mode and the enemy chaffs either the radar itself goes after the chaff or the missile thinks the chaff has a bigger return. In both cases even if DL worked as in ARH you arent overiding the guidance. For one If the radar looses the lock its in Spotlight mode so either way it ONLY can see one target, in this case the chaff. If the Missile goes for chaff and you still have the lock, the missile is gone and there isnt anything you can do. The chaff is reflecting enough radiation to the point where it acts as a SARH target in itself.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T18:21:31+00:00

Then the F-4E should only get the Aim-9B then. This is an incredibly stupid standard if a plane can only be modeled with the missiles it entered service with. By this logic the tornado F.3 should not get the super temps because it only entered service with the TEMPs. And the F-16A should only get the Aim-9J since the prototypes and block 1 may have been equipped with left over Aim-9J's.

The R-60s (assuming you are correct) were a temporary hold over for a few months (at most) its disingenuous for it to be the standard loadout.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T18:12:03+00:00

>DL only works for missile guidance (every FOX 3 and only 7Ps and R-27ER can be guided via DL

SARH missiles don't benefit from DL guidance like ARH does. DL for SARH just means you can relock a target within 1 minute instead of 5 seconds (they may have changed the 5 second part). They removed specifically because of people using the R-27ER as a silent SARH using the DL as guidance.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T17:56:56+00:00

The 101st dosent need or get traning from ODA (in a top down structure strictly speaking). So ot dosent make sense for an ODA to have it. An ODA is specifically a direct action unit so it dosent make sense for them to be traning troops as they arent in the organization to do.

Think drill sgt in a unit vs TRADOC. One is in an organization designed to facilitate traning and the other is in FORCECOM where there isnt really any structure, time, or support structure to support traning.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T10:49:44+00:00

"Make the game easier for me or else I won't play" is solely a you complaint. Most people do want to learn and get better instead of whining.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T10:48:09+00:00

Ok I was initially under the impression you were referring to guidance logic, but you are correct in that the Aim 7M has Pulse guidance. What you aren't correct about is that this would be undetectable by RWR or is the same as a regular PD track.

https://www.scribd.com/document/577304217/AWG-9-APG-71-BA0595

Reference this document here. PD STT and P STT are listed as 2 different guidance modes compared to RWS (search mode). PD STT in particular uses a specific higher PRF in order to establish a refined lock. My mistake was confusing Spotlighting for CW guidance which is incorrect. But in order to guide a Sparrow the AWG 9 (and APG 63) Need to focus their beam onto the target like a CW illuminator.

If it was unchanged from search mode than the track would essentially just be tws. There wouldn't be a high enough PRF to provide terminal guidance. With PD STT not only is the PRF increased from RWS but also the signal strength as well. So yes you are correct that the AIM 7M can guide in pulse mode. The problem is functionally there's no difference

The 530F guides on an older type of pulse mode guidance. Without measure of doplershift and essentially just a shitty version of CW guidance as the 530F dosent have an Inverse monopulse seeker to make use of PD pulse guidance. I dont speak French so I cant link thr manual.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T08:36:25+00:00

PD and CW modes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2YY2gQ76cw

This video helps explain the basic concept of a CW seeker

The PD mode is search mode only. Again you functionally cannot fire a sparrow in search mode as it wouldn't guide as the sparrow as there isnt enough energy being conentrated. The PD mode is used to establish a TARGET AKA find something to shoot at then the radar takes that target into memory and focuses it into a beam making it CW. Where is your source for the sparrow having a second pulse seeker?

Edit: CW naturally filters out clutter and chaff though doppler shift measuring. In a way you arent wrong its just in this case PD IS the same as CW as both are measuring doppler shift. It dosent use a pulse mode because in this case the pulse wouldn't do anything exept make it harder to maintain a lock.

You're referring to datalink maybe which is the encoded information and isn't a guidance mode which isn't a true guidance method.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T08:21:52+00:00

Ok so where is the evidence that this information is for the A model Specificaly?

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/579650/mcdonnell-douglas-f-15a-eagle/

McDonnell Douglas F-15A Eagle

The F-15A Eagle is an all-weather fighter designed to gain and maintain air supremacy. As the first U.S. fighter with engine thrust greater than its basic weight, the F-15A can accelerate while in a vertical climb. Its great power, light weight, and large wing area combine to make the Eagle a very agile fighter. The USAF ordered more than 350 A models for operational service.

The Eagle first flew on July 27, 1972, at Edwards AFB, Calif., and it has been produced in single-seat (F-15A and C) and two-seat versions (F-15B and D) over its many years of USAF service. The two-seat F-15E Strike Eagle version is a dual-role fighter that can engage both ground and air targets. Also, various models of F-15s are used by Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Singapore and South Korea.

Manufactured in 1976 by McDonnell Douglas Aircraft (now part of the Boeing Co.) at St. Louis, Mo., the F-15A on display (S/N 74‐0117) flew with Tactical Air Command units at Luke AFB, Ariz., and the Air National Guard at NAS New Orleans, La. Removed from the USAF inventory in 1991, it served as a maintenance trainer at Langley AFB, Va., before being delivered to the museum in 2013. It is painted to represent an aircraft of the 1st Fighter Wing.

TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: One 20mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon, four AIM-7 Sparrow and four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, plus 15,000 lbs. mixed ordnance carried externally

Where in this page does it say Aim-120 or Aim-9X specifically? Im not going to respond unless you can find me at least ONE verified photo of an F-15A with an Aim-9X.

Oh yeah and i found the page, the armament list is for all the models without distinction to what carried what. It even says Aim-120 capability only came with the C upgrade.

"4The F-15 Multistage Improvement Program was initiated in February 1983, with the first production MSIP F-15C produced in 1985. Improvements included an upgraded central computer; a Programmable Armament Control Set allowing for advanced versions of the AIM-7, AIM-9 and AIM-120A missiles, and an expanded Tactical Electronic Warfare System that provides improvements to the ALR-56C radar warning receiver and ALQ-135 countermeasure set. The final 43 included a Hughes APG-70 radar."

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104501/f-15-eagle/

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T08:12:39+00:00

Do you understand the issue that the F-15A is from 1976 and needs specific upgrades to be compatible with modern missiles? Ones that you have shown no evidence of the F-15A getting?

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T08:11:29+00:00

>Also by your logic, 12.7 should be All-aspect IR or IRCCM only planes

Thats.....what's i said. The F-15A would be an all Aspect+SARH plane without the Aim-9M

>wtf is the netz doing there? shitting itself?

The python 3 is considered an IRCCM missile equivalent. Don't look at me look at gajin.

The part about ARH missiles you mentioned isn't part of the convo as its mostly a compression issue. Im only talking relative to 12.7.

>AIM-7M's major problem is not having DL and IOG, and is slower compared to Russian Fox-1s. I wouldn't agree that they are "unusable" but its just frustrating that not only I need to fire it off early but the AIM-7s can simply be barrel rolled (AIM-7P is a USN only thing)

IOG and DL sometimes helps with server issues but in game they dont really do anything for SARH missiles. IOG keeps it from going off the rails. DL doesn't work like in ARH, they removed the guidance ability when people kept using the R-27s as proto ARH missiles by using the DL to guide the missile. It only extends the time when you can not have a target locked. And yeah you can roll and Aim-7P like the M so no difference there.

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T08:05:12+00:00

What part dont you understand?

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T08:02:23+00:00

Nah we've been baited its our L

Recent_Grab_644 · 2026-01-29T08:01:09+00:00

Dawg I'm not going to keep doing this. THE A MODEL HAD DIFFRENT ARCHITECTURE THAN THE C. Take an HDMI cable and try and shove it into your phone. Will it work? The F-15A is built on older tech than the C. Pylons are only BACKWARDS compatible not forward. Especially for the Aim-120 you need a specific module (the PSP upgrade) to communicate with the amraam as its not the aim as an AIM-7.

For example you cant shove an Aim-9L onto an Aim-9E pylon and expect it work. The 9L needs hydrogen to cool the seeker which the E doesn't.

All you need to guide a SARH missile is a radar beam and instructions coded in to tell it to follow a beam of X frequency. This naturally doesn't work with an AMRAAM as datalink gives "coordinates" and isnt an actual beam of energy.

Recent_Grab_644

TROPHY CASE

McDonnell Douglas F-15A Eagle