Why not add / replace it with the F-4D or an Early (e.g. Block 31~36) F-4E. That still provides capably and allows existing Slatted F-4E to go up in BR while still having stores options in reserve should it need them for the higher BR placement.
Due to the fact that the F-4E has the GBU-15’s (Block 48~62), the Franken-plane in game is erroneously missing access to the TISEO, which should provide limited Look Down capability at short range, also the AIM-9P-4, AIM-7F & AIM-9M, TGP / LGB combinations and a GBU-15 / AGM-130 Datalink pod is also options available assuming it was modeled after a '90’s ANG F-4E (saw combat in the First Gulf war).
It’s a bit more that that what isn’t modeled in game is the power reduction due to angular falloff of the illuminator, so instead of being stronger along the boresight and 50% weaker at the HPBW cutoff of +/-14 degrees as it should be, it’s modeled as a uniform cone. If this was taken into account a target on the edge would have to be ~86% the distance, or closer than one at the boresight the have stronger return assuming all else was equal.
The other thing about the conical Scan type Sparrows (pre -7M models) itself that isn’t modeled is that the seeker nutates it’s FoV to create a wider Field of Regard(FoR), so again has similar issues where the FoV in game is effectively modeled as the FoR with no observed power reduction to those on the edge of the FoR that would occur for both sidelobe and duty cycle reasons.
In short the seeker transferring it’s lock should be an almost impossible edge case (it should also not be able to lock onto chaff either due to the fact that reflections off chaff are not coherent)
I actually forgot they downtiered it back down a little bit. I’d still give it 7E1s but leave out the 9Js in that case. I think it’d be fine then with a niche as a SARH deliverer.
I can notch without needing MP as well. I also can utilize terrain in such a way to where I don’t need to do either to get up close to targets. All of this also again isn’t that problematic because its a 0.7br uptier to get to 12.0 so it’s a given these will be better jets but I do not think they are uncounterable or too powerful.
Simple, just notch and be aware of where you enemies can be. As you said. You could do this with the F-100 too by that logic. You can’t really chaff PD locked sparrows anyway, so it doesn’t matter what jet you’re in as long as you can reliably notch the missile, right?
But then it always boils down to “I’m always having to be defensive” And that’s the issue. If they have access to all aspect missiles and LDSD, and I don’t, a pretty major function I don’t have. The only way you can win is by getting them on their rear when they don’t notice or hope they’re flying above you.
Right, but at that point, you’re basically just going ‘it’s all about placement’ but you can make that same argument for literally any jet. If I had the Mig-21 SMT at 11.7 you can make the same argument for it to face Pulse-doppler jets if you knew ‘placement’ and how to ‘avoid packs of enemies’ I’d be fine therefore it’s okay for it to be at that BR, but as we know for the Mig-21, it wouldn’t be okay.
There’s a few issues I have. The flight performance at 11.3 is still decent as you can still rate around for the most part, aside from literal UFO F-5s, but I don’t want the F-4F ICE situation where it basically gets crapped on by F-15s and Su-27s just because it can’t keep up.
If you remove the GBU-15s and the CCIP you can technically get the F-4E we have now where it’s an early ARN-101 standard that doesn’t have CAA but keeps aspect knob and no TISEO. If I remember, these were barely made and lasted for one block model and were practically all shipped out to Israel if I remember (Block 45?)
Basically, I don’t wanna move up the F-4E because i don’t want it to suck, and I still want the Agile eagle slats and not have a worse version take it’s place at 11.3 when the version we have now is made ‘better’ and is forced to become a horrible pick at 12.7
I personally prefer if there was a hard block like there was before for some brackets but between PD aircraft and non PD aircraft. I find it’s utterly ridiculous that PD aircraft are allowed to rofl stomp planes that simply can’t compete.
The F-8E should be moved to 12.7 and it’ll be just fine because it has Chaff and Flares, and any issues of the aircraft being overwhelmed by planes with better missiles and All-aspect slingers is just a ‘skill issue.’
yeah it does. You argued it’s about positioning. So it doesn’t matter if the plane has countermeasures or not.
When you have planes that have similar or better flight performance, are able to fire their missiles in angles you can’t fire yours at, and the only way you can win is via catching them off guard or they made the rookie mistake of flying high whilst everyone is flying low. Then yes. They are better I never said they’re unbeatable. But they have much better functions than you do with your own weapon systems.
F-15E can be beaten by a Mig-21SMT if the F-15 isn’t paying attention. But that doesn’t mean the Mig-21 SMT should be facing F-15s
It’s called Reductio Ad Absurdum. Not a strawman. I’m showing that if you take things to their logical conclusion with the logic you showed, then you can make the case for an argument that the F8U deserves to be at 12.7 because it can notch missiles.
It’s also called being an ass and attempting to degrade his argument through silly “Nuh uh” responses because he wasn’t specific enough for your liking.
Come up with your own counterargument rather than nitpicking his when everyone fully understands the meaning, including you.
Yet his arguments devolve down to “nuh uh” with the F-4E struggling with PD capable aircraft, especially against F-4S’. I simply showed that the argument “Just get better positioning bro” doesn’t work as you can apply it to every aircraft.
The F-4EJ also struggles against PD aircraft such as the F-4S and is in a worse state due to worse missiles and a lack of Agile Eagle. Yet you want to put them at the same BR despite the E having said advantages over the EJ. As far as I can see you have not mentioned the EJ going down to 10.7.
Because I assumed that was the logical response to move it down as well.
It can go through two alleys:
Gaijin adds 14.0 or 15.0 to give breathing room. Which they won’t, even though this would be the best result and preferential result and the least harmful but requires more work. As in, 30 minutes in an excel sheet figuring out which planes will be in what bracket and figure out what planes might run into one another.
or
Move the two planes down .3 which is simpler in Gaijin’s eyes to do.
I prefer numero uno option. As that would be the healthiest change and would actually allow multiple block models to fit in without being completely hammered by F-15s, F-16s, Su-27s and Mig-29s.
But the ‘easy’ choice would be a quicker bandaid fix until they actually readjust the BRs to where the F-4E (the model we have now) can go back up.
Was it really a band-aid fix or was it just them leaving it down because they thought it deserved to be down there or forgot about it? Because there are moments where I think the F8U is 10.7 capable and problems occur when you have something down TOO low, where everyone plays it.
Main reason I state 11.0 for the F-4E is it’ll share a similar BR to the Mig-21 Bis. The F-4E has better radar missiles, but the Mig-21 in general gets harder turning R60Ms and a better FM for realistic battles in terms of instantaneous turn rate… Both planes can easily flare off each other’s missiles, and I don’t believe it would get F8U status where the F-4E will just sheer dominate matches. It’ll become a good contender for awhile until BR changes come in to decompress at which point it can go back up.
Or just give it CAA or the simulated doppler inputs
What I stated before about the F-4C getting flares. I still believe it should. The margins and reasons for why it shouldn’t are razor thin and I don’t think it would be something that would make people go up in arms up over when to my knowledge it can mount and use the flare pods, but never used them as they went into national Guard service.
The thing with it being “just 0.3” is that every 10.0 that never saw it now sees 4 of it, every 10.3 who only saw 4 of it now sees as many as the matchmaker decides it should see.
You also have to consider who at 11.3 now wants their plane to be 11.0, what’s to stop someone from arguing the J-8B to be 11.0 (it shouldn’t) if the F-4E with twice as many missiles and an actual ACM mode is below it.
I think rather than supporting it being moved down your argument would be better received if you focused on getting it CAA and a decompressed matchmaker.
And specific features of the novel SEAM installation on the F-8 being properly implemented for the AIM-9G (a Wider Field of Reguard of 7.5 degrees around the boresight line, nutating the 2.5 degree FoV in a double D pattern), This should also impact later airframes, but at some point ( I have evidence that the F-4J & -4S / AV-8C use the latter) the pattern used is changed to a spiral(rosette) pattern since it has a better duty cycle and covers a slightly larger area, so is inherently more reliable.
I should iterate better in the last point. Move it down or give it CAA and simulated doppler inputs. Preferably the latter. Of which I agree.
Simulated doppler inputs/CAA are ultimately the better option. I don’t want it to move down to where it can club. I just want it out of that range where it is at an extreme disadvantage with PD capable aircraft. If CAA and/or doppler inputs were added, I’d literally have no issue as the F-4E now can at least have a fighting chance against PD aircraft. Especially the F-4S
Giving CAA/ Doppler inputs is a much better idea than moving it down, I fully believe this is within the realm of possibility and would be better for everyone as a topic for you to focus on rather than trying to bring it down. I’m glad we could reach this conclusion.
