[2021] Remove AIM-9E and AIM-9J from the F-4F and Put it in the tech tree

None of these aircraft have any mentions of better missiles in their manuals or any primary sources we currently have on them.

These do not compare to the F-4F, as there are two primary sources supporting the decision for the inclusion of AIM-9E/J on the F-4F:

1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October 1975, revised 15 July 1976,

2) GAF TO 1F-4F-34-1 Weapons Delivery Manual, 15 September 1976.

Again, as I explained to you last week, we welcome suggestions for further aircraft weaponry expansion / improvement, but with the inclusion of source

You answer this yourself with the second point:

Indeed the Flight Manuals are not the only definitive source, but they are a primary source (German F-4F Manual) and when directly linking the aircraft in question (German F-4F Phantom) and the weapon in question (AIM-9J) thats an authoritative grounds for the weapon to be considered for the aircraft. In the absence of any specific source material that directly links the systems, the most authorities sources are used for the decision to be taken by the devs.

The developers consider them on a case by case

To be clear, the devs are saying there are 2 primary F-4F documents linking this aircraft directly to the missile.

Nothing has been said about what can / cant hypothetically fire something as you are assuming. What has been said, is if you are trying to make a suggestion for consideration, like the F-4F, you will need a primary / authoritative source or multiple secondary sources with the aircraft in question directly linked to the weapon in question.

Belt composition is an entirely separate matter and not relevant to how missiles and other similar ordinance are consi

None of this procedure you are trying to use is what we use in game or what was used on the F-4F here.

Quite simply and clearly, two F-4F sources directly mention AIM-9J and tie the missile to the aircraft.

1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October 1975, revised 15 July 1976,

2) GAF TO 1F-4F-34-1 Weapons Delivery Manual, 15 September 1976.

Not the common rails, not the "ability to". Directly and clearly, they state AIM-9J as a weapon choice. Its therefor viable for the developers to consider for implementation.

On the contrary, there is n

The historical standard remains:

1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October 1975, revised 15 July 1976,

2) GAF TO 1F-4F-34-1 Weapons Delivery Manual, 15 September 1976.

However since the start of the game, all weaponry choices have and always will be at the discretion of the developers decisions.

It actually benefits everyone. Much like the G.91YS that was not used by Italy at all, but was actually just a singular prototype for Switzerland to evaluate based on a requirement to have Sidewinder capabilities as well as a Swedish weapons control system.

The G.91Y that was used by Italy did not have that.

So as I said, to everyone's benefit across the game

Not a requirement for being in game and never has been.

The comparison was to point out how its in fact not a double standard and considerations from all aspects are taken in everyone's case.

Historical sources do matter and thats why in the case of the F-4F there are two primary ones that back up the decision to consider such missiles.

As for the Mirage, I have no idea how you came to this conclusion after already making clear to you and others in the Mirage IIIE topic that it was simply something that needed to be reported, not something rejected by the devs.

Because as I have already explained to you, according to all current source material on the F-104S we have in game, only 2 versions are described for the Italian F-104S aircraft:

- AIM-9B (Already in game)

- AIM-9L (All aspect not in game for any fixed wing aircraft and only featured on a magazine article)

On the contrary for the F-4F, we have:

1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October 1975, revised 15 July 1976,

2) GAF TO 1F-4F-34-1 Weapons Delivery Manual, 15 September 1976.

The locking circle is directly tied to the type of Sidewinder. Not aircraft to aircraft.

Photos, later documentation, weaponry documentation. If something was fitted with something at some stage, there is likely to be evidence of it.

According to the Etendard Manual it does not have CCIP but a crude form of bomb toss. So far we have yet to find any overriding information and thus cant give it CCIP it didn't actually have.

Once again, you are ingoring the key point here. This is not about what you perceive as a standard. I have explained several times over now how things work and how the developers consider weponary. You dissagree, thats fine. But then there is nothing further to add here.

Two historical sources are present in this case that links the F-4F and AIM-9E/J. The fact one happens to be a flight manual is irrelevant as the second one is a weapons manual. On top of this, we consider a range of sources, not just the flight manual. But there is also no "rule" that we must equally ignore it.

Feel free to make a suggestion

As I said, its down to the developers to decide ultimately based on source material and balance.

Given there are two primary sources that link them to the aircraft, the developers review the whole aircaft and it's situation with consideration to what it can / can't carry. The aircaft has one of the best flight performances of all the Phantoms. Which Im itself rules out lower BRs. Given it also has no countermeasures, AIM-7 capacity and a worse radar than all phantoms, it's more logical to include these missiles it could use to better balance it.

The PFM situation was not the same. I explained that all here

Needless to say, it couldn't keep its main fea

Except the manual of your car not only confirms it can take those tyres, so does the tyre catalogue and it turns out, your car had already mounted them when it was in the country of manufacture when it was undergoing its tests and driver training

Its different for the PFM because not only could the F-4F mount those missiles, as per the F-4F Pilots manual and F-4F weapons manual, but the aircraft actually did in the USA for training.

The Soviet PFM not only cannot mount R-13M. But there is no manual even suggesting it could in theory. The export model

The suggestion has already been passed to the devs. But the F-104G is in an entirely different position and actually already top of its BR for performance as it is. Being the only F-104 to have countermeasures and some of the best CAS loadouts, its not the same case as the F-4F. There also is not as much source material supporting it (eg manuals and weapons manuals) like then F-4F has.

So as with all things, its been passed for consideration, but as we have also previously explained, each aircraft is taken on a case by case basis. In the case of the F-4F, without them, it becomes

Giving it AIM-9E would not solve anything. Since fundamentally its still lacking AIM-7 and several other payload options.

This is the same standard for ordinance vehicles have had since the start of the game. Its never been about geological politics or real world transpiring situations. Half the vehicles in game never entered service, never fired a round, never shot X shell, never flew more than 5 times. The F-4F does not break any existing rule and has not created a new one.

Should we also start limiting the amount of Me 262s that can enter a battle because Germany also had fuel shortages? Or take away all the Maus ammo that it never fired?

Soviet PFM + R-13M = Not actually ph

Only ones based on data mines which are not accepted by the devs. We have not had any since.

Its not even an argument.

Its not that the Soviet PFM didn't fit the R-13M, it physically could not. The sources we have show it simply did not have the capability to mount the missile as a Soviet PFM.

The F-4F not only could fire AIM-9J as confirmed by its manual and weapons manual, but actually did use it in the USA.

No sources have been presented to us that a Soviet PFM manual supports R-13M, or a weapons manual or anything other than an

The datasheet is fine.

This has never been a requirement or factor in weaponry in game. I have no idea why you keep repeating it.

50% of the content in game was not available to pilots / tankers / captains "on duty". You are making up requirements that have never existed to the game and then trying to claim everyone that points out this to you are the ones taking some strange form of gymnastics.

Its very clear you dont agree with the F-4F getting these missiles, thats entirely fine. You have made you point. But the standards you are cre

I mean reporting using the data sheet as a reference is fine.

If the report is only using game code, then yes. If it has enough substance of other material then its fine.

Providing they can actually physically use it and its also supported by some form or source material, then its always been open for consideration for the devs.

Maus, E-100, IS-7, Object 279, Object 120, Etna, Bi, La-174, Su-11, Su-9, HSTV-L, STB-1, ST-A1 / 2 / 3, ITP M1, Ho-229, G.91YS, Tempest Vickers P, XA-38 are just a few vehicles that themselves never even made it

It's the F-4F (early) German Phantom.

Who owned the missile is irrelevant.

The aircraft could fire it, did fire it and is also supported in the aircrafts pilots manual and weapons manual, so the developers concluded it was reason to add it.

This is a German owned and operated F-4F, piloted by a German pilot. Its wearing USAF markings because its attached to a training squadron:

Never?

Because its not in any way the same.

1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October 1975, revised 15 July 1976,

2) GAF TO 1F-4F-34-1 Weapons Delivery Manual, 15 September 1976.

There is no source showing the Maus ever fired APDS yet we have it in game.

Germany also decided not to buy and produce the Maus so I guess we should remove it entirely too? Since it too was only used in tests. The same with literally other vehicle in the same context or the 50% of other shells and weponary current on tanks and aircaft that "never purchased them" or "never fired them".

This supposed rule you are trying to apply here does not exist.

This was never stated as a rule for aircraft or tanks. If there is primary source material showing an aircraft

Except it wasn't a TF-4F in the photo in the USA with the AIM-9J.

It was a German F-4F 72-1116 (37 + 06), the same aircraft several years later:

Its a regular F-4F early.

We have answered this several times in Q and As. In standard matchmaking, it isn't possible to split nations into specific vehicles on specific sides. Its either one nation on one, both or all entirely mixed nation.

It doesn't actually work this way in terms of nations and the MM. But none the less, this is now off topic

We don't have any material linking the French F-100D to the AIM-9E. Only the US Flight Manual lists AIM-9E. So we would require some sort of source linking the French one to the Missiles for it to be considered by the devs.

For the F-4F, the manual specifically for the German variant lists them both in the pilots manual and weapons manual, as well as the photos of them using them in the USA. So the situation is not the same.

History is one element and there is enough sufficiently backing the ability of the F-4F to use AIM-9J to allow it in game. If we are to limit everything to purely historical armament, in service or ownership, all tanks would have to loose 50% of the shells we have in game and we would have to remove about 50% of the vehicles in game. First and foremost we are a game. Not a 1:1 simulator.

You are correct that the material is very clear on F-4F, in that it can carry the AIM-9E and J. Both its pilot and weaponry manual show it:

1) GAF TO 1F-4F-1 Flight Manual, 15 October

Please link me to where I said this, because as as explained above it's not what I said.

All we have said on the F-104S is:

1) The singular magazine photo that supposedly shows an AIM-9L is all we currently have to go on. That needs further verification.

2) We don't have all aspect missiles in game for any jets.

It has nothing to do with "too few" F-104S using them and that's never been stated as the reason.

There is a range of aircraft and tanks that have weaponry and shells they never had "in service" in reality. The F-4F is no exceptio

We have over 1800 vehicles in game and the F-104S is just one of them. Actual gameplay bugs are far more important.

Feel free to make bug reports with your evidence then if you believe an aircaft is incorrect when tested in simulator under full real conditions, but we are now entirely off topic and this has no meaning or purpose here.

We always aim for the most accurate vehicle performance possible inside of the game with all factors taken account for that this is actually a game. Yes indeed we are not a 1:1 sim

Again however, you can take this

The T-2k as a training aircaft was also equipped with training missiles as was the F-104J in the photos we used to enable it to have 4 Sidewinders. Both were capable of mounting and firing the live missile as was the F-4F.

Training missiles are used as to fire the real thing in training is a waste

This picture is also absolutely relivant because the F-4F in the picture is a German F-4F owned and piloted by Germany In the USA for training.
72-1116 (37 + 06), the same aircraft several years later:

It shows very clearly that the F-4F early wa