Sea Harrier FA2 performs worse than F-14A.
Simple.
Just because it has AMRAAM shouldnt matter.
By the same logic ALL IRCCM aircraft should be at 12.3+.
All aspect aircraft should be 11.7+
etc etc.
There is no way you can argue that the Sea Harrier FA2 belongs at 13.0 in its currently artifically nerfed state.
not even then will this plane see the game… it’s very bad, it’s an unsolvable case, The only solution for FA2 is to delete it from the game, and put a Harrie II GR9 in its place
but CS5 has lesser kill potential with missiles, does it not? As far as I am aware, 530Ds are inferior to 27R bar speed (and CS5 can only carry 2x of those) and CS5 can only get 2x magics; compared to 2x 27Rs and 4x R73s or 6x R73s.
Sea Harrier FA2 is bad because the Harriers are massively nerfed at the moment and you have 2-3 BRs worth of aircraft all at 13.0.
If the strongest thing you were facing in a full uptier was an F-4F ICE or Mig-29SMT, the FA2 would do just fine, especially when at max performance. The Problem is, Gaijin doesnt like the Harriers and so nerf the living hell out of them.
Yet it does becuase this game is extremely compressed and you can’t be shooting amraams at 12.0 more often than they already see them or 11.7. The MiG-23 can’t even see the amraam on the rwr iirc
Do you believe that is where the differences end?
Do you think that is where the differences end?
no, and thats why i specifically mentioned lesser kill potential wit missiles (not even worse kill potential with missiles) instead of flat out calling one plane better ;)
Theres obviously more to it, CS5 has objectively better defensive suite thanks to RWR and more CMs, and arguably better FM.
Then what is the issue with them sharing a 12.7 br
before I proceed to write a lengthy answer, let me ask quickly - will i get some normal answer or will you just respond with a single sentence or question?
I dont feel like typing out a lengthy answer to someone who doesnt really care about whats in it.
Are you implying I did that previously without reason? What do you want me to say to this that won’t offend you?
Not trying to imply anything, but you do have a bit of reputation here.
You havent offended me, not even previously.
Im just checking whenever I should save time for both of us, or whenever im gonna actually get explanation as to why I am wrong.
And what exactly spurs on this inflammatory questioning?
According to? You and a buddy? I give some of the longest replies on this forum.
Cant blame me for checking first.
Do you see a common trend in who I do this to? Do you need help finding it?
Probably. I have Alvis muted but I can imagine kind of opinion he gives.
And yet you give me these questions?
What are they doing with the iraf? I’m not able to hop on dev and I haven’t seen much about it
Someone told me a few days ago It is supposedly getting the ability to run 8x F-90s.
I cant find the datamine or changelog to confirm that though
I do. Again, I want to give lengthy answer, im just checking whenever I will get the same “No.” or not. I wouldnt bother with these questions in the first place if I didnt want to hear your opinion.
Anyway.
While obviously offensive capability isnt everything, as it is apparent from BR difference between CS5 and CS4 which is solely, to my knowledge, due to CS4 lacking the additional CMs, offensive capability seems to have the biggest weight on BR placement of a plane, at least when it comes to missiles and ARB.
Example would be the KWS, which is effectively F-4F, a 11.0 airframe, with better missile capability in form of better radar, IRCCM missiles and ARHs, which catapult it to BR of 13.0, while their flight model and defensive capablity remains practically the same (RWR is effectively the same, being ever so slightly better on KWS).
EDIT:
Another example of missile or offensive capability having bigger impact on BR placement than defensive capability would be comparison to F-4E and F-4F, with F-4F sitting 0.3 BR lower despite having better RWR than F-4E.
Another example would be the 12.7 MiG-29 and 13.0 MiG-29G with only practical difference being again better missile capability when 29G gets access to R-73s while defensive capability and flight model being the same.
EDIT:
Another example could be the MiG-29 Sniper and MiG-29 9.12A/9.13, identical planes when it comes to ARB, sitting at identical BRs but Sniper has much better RWR.
Another example would be Tornado F.3 and F.3 late, which is the same aircraft just 1.0 BR higher again due to better missile capability (and two additional DL channels on its radar).
EDIT:
Another example could be F/A-18A and US F/A-18C early. Identical planes, identical defensive capability, but F/A-18C early sits higher due to having 2x more hardpoints for Sparrows and having better Sparrows.
So, a MiG-29 9.12A/9.13 that would lose R-27ER and ET while gaining access to up to 6x R-73s would be better in missile capability than CS5 given that it can carry more missiles in total when compared to CS5 as well as R-27R, despite being clearly worse than R-27ER, still being better than 530D.
Due to that, Id argue that MiG-29 9.12A/9.13 with 2x R-27R/T and 4x R-73s, alternatively 6x R-73s, would be better than CS5 by a large margin and as such they cannot share BR with current BR spread and MiG-29 would have to be placed higher (and we would again run into issue with compression but thats another story).
And, arguablly, the missile capability or offensive capability as a whole seems to be most important when it comes to actually deciding who gets to win since you could have the aircraft with the best defensive suite in game but it would be useless if it cannot engage the enemy at all. Not saying CS5 cant engage the enemy at all, but its frag potential seems to be much lower than this would-be MiG-29. On the other side of this argument, plane with no defensive capability but with insane frag potential would still be able to win games.
You can’t find it, because no such change has occurred.
then someone told me the wrong information, my bad then.