Narcissistic Black wrote:This was done long ago before I changed the MiG-31M to have R-40s and what ever the hell that LRAAM is. I was trying to stop the nato Air LRAAM domination with tomcats ATM is even. Ill probably just do this.
Wouldn't it be easier to just give the F-14 an AIM-7 and AIM-9 loadout, and then turn the MiG-31s into other kinds of aircraft? Flat-out remove LRAAMs. Solves the problem.
Narcissistic Black wrote:Xeno426 wrote:Given the usefulness of the AIM-9G compared to the AIM-9L, and that UK now has a CatC fighter in the FGR.2, why not move this up to 1982 so it can keep the AIM-9L and the armament it used in the Falkans War?
I didn't think AIM-9G was much worse. Kind of wanted to test it out a bit. If doesn't work out ill do this.
I was thinking about the iconic loadout of the Sea Harrier, which was two AIM-9L and two fuel tanks during the Falkans War. Granted, four AIM-9Ls makes it a bit more useful.
Narcissistic Black wrote:Xeno426 wrote:Would it be possible to replace them with BGL-400 400kg laser-guided bombs? France never used the GBU-12; it purchased the EGBU-12 in the 2000s.
This was intended I just didnt get around to it. Some times I have tp test stuff and place holder things.
Cool. IIRC, the only ones available in timeline were the BGL-400 and BGL-1000. There's a BGL-250, but that's late 90s or so.
Narcissistic Black wrote:Xeno426 wrote:AIM-7s were not used on the Korean F-16s; even up to the AIM-7M, they were only used on the F-4E.
That doesn't mean they couldn't use them if they wanted to thought, Right?
They didn't want to, though, since the F-4Es were already carrying them. I also believe they did not have their aircraft wired for the AIM-7; while the Block 32 was AIM-7 ready, the ROK never really bothered to do the last bit of change necessary to make them AIM-7 capable. Might have something to do with the fact the F-4E can carry more of them anyway.
Narcissistic Black wrote:and I regret adding the J-11..
Why is that?
Narcissistic Black wrote:As for the MiG-27. I personally think is fine as it is. mainly because the only difference between S-5 and S-8 rockets for planes is suppression as they both have 2HE because Eugen made it that way.
Which is silly; there's zero reason the S-5 should have more HE damage on aircraft over helicopters.
Oddball wrote:I know in an earlier post you mentioned that you would add the M60A3 TTS, as it was a key player in the U.S. armored force of the period, and was used by at least one Marine battalion in Desert Storm. I saw that you renamed the M60A1 ERA into the M60A1 RISE Passive. Is this a substitute, or do you still plan to add the TTS?
That's just a rename. The M60A1 ERA was never called "ERA", it was the RISE Patton. Eugen didn't want to change the name because M60A1 RISE Patton was "too long a name", despite being one character longer than the other Patton name and there are other units with the same length name.