Late to this convo but I’m not sure why this definition has become an issue. The sea meteor was capable of having guns but never did and I believe the swift f. 7 was the same. Both obviously in game.
And I didn’t deny this, friend. R-77’s only hold the advantage over PL-12 and Derby while you’re trying to knife the poor guy. Which just makes them overall worse.
Not personal preference. They both hit pretty much every target when not defended against. Neither falls out of the sky like the R-77 does. Any target AIM-120 hits, AAM-4 will too. And AAM-4 is better in pretty much every other way, makes it more useful overall.
Again, no one denied MICA was a better pick when you have to knife the dude. About the range/BVR part, dunno. Would you be able to claim the same thing while comparing it to AIM-120C5? That’s PL-12’s equivalent.
I can’t quote the last part:
Now you’re just assuming, and wrong. I didn’t ‘overhype’ anything or claim anything about the J-10 in here or in that thread. Neither said anything about F-15? While you were in both threads, and trying to downplay the aircraft and the missiles for no apparent reason. Kind of a bad look, no? I do play multiple nations, pretty much all of them except UK, Israel and US. But again, alright.
so many French vehicles & variants … can easily add 1 per update and will still not run out of vehicles to add … and yet Gaijin still fails
1 Like
They don’t fail, actually, as in order to fail, you need to try.
3 Likes
ok now that I’m back I can respond.
The MICA is the single best close range Fox 3 in the game, nobody will deny that. Unfortunately what needs to be accepted is that the meta game caters to a long range playstyle at current. Which by default gives a massive boost to the 3 Long Range Fox 3s we have (AIM-120, AAM-4, PL-12)
The close range Fox-3s meanwhile despite how good they might be in those ranges are out the gate at a massive disadvantage.
Now as for how they rank.
No 1 - AIM-120 purely due to its long range performance advantage over the AAM-4 (which iirc is unrealistic)
No 2 - after some consideration is the AAM-4 because in my time using it just now to refresh myself, its close range performance is a little better than the AIM-120, but at long range it wobbles a lot for some reason.
No 3 - PL-12s not quite the long range perf of the AIM-120 (not much shorter at that btw) and still very good mid range performance allows it to be flexible just like the last 2 missiles.
No 4 - MICA’s are here and the reason why is simple. Between the PL-12 and MICA is a massive cliff called “range” which is really important in the current game state. It doesn’t matter how good your missile is in that 0-10km range, if it’s fighting a missile that comfortable performs at anywhere from 20-30km
No 5 - R-Darter for the simple fact that while its point blank performance is below that of the MICA and R77, it’s got actual range over the R77 which once again matters.
No 6 - To the surprise of not a soul, the R77. Because this missile requires the opponent to literally be motionless with no countermeasures to hit a target beyond 8km. It’s no secret most Su-27 players will take the R-27ER in place of several R77s, simply due to the atrocious performance of this missile. The close range performance is solid that is true, but once again in a long range meta… when your missile actively cannot engage in even mid range combat… it is bad-
Derby’s I wont hold an opinion on since I haven’t used em but I haven’t heard anything good about them so-
2 Likes
Generally has to have provisions for them, which both Swift F.7 and Sea Meteor both did.
This one is especially bad considering that the AAM-4 is roughly an AIM-120C-5 equivalent, which is much better at range than the AIM-120A/B.
2 Likes
It still comes down to the personal choices.
Some people prefers absolute ranges while other ones will prefer similiar range with better abilities. Also any target that gets hits by AAM-4 will pretty much get hit by Aim-120 as well.
All 3 missiles have same or similiar kinetic range while MICA’s bein superior in close to medium range to due its agility.
Aim-120D does have the range advantage over MICA’s but upcoming MICA NG will negates this advantage most likely.
So yea you can say pretty much same thing.
I stated that J-10 will be really good aircraft on J-10 thread, its just not gonna be god tier as some people claims.
As for the PL-12’s “true performance” if you wish to see that you’re gonna have to wait until Aim-120C’s arrives alongside with MICA and AAM-4 fixes.
Considering your behaviour its was clear as a day that you blamed me for hyping Us vehicles which indirectly means that you assumed i was some kinda Us main, but Anyway i will let this slide off.
Except you dont have any high or top tier jets in those nations, you only play top tier ground vehicles which makes your statement half true half lie.
IRL yes I know but in game for some reason the AAM-4 has this atrocious wobble that affects it at long ranges
1 Like
The Derby is a slightly lighter R-Darter, so they perform basically the same.
I think it’ll come with an AESA F-15 or F-16.
And the radar will be significantly better than anything else even without 200km maps
We’re right at where it can be added without being under- or overpowered, so it wouldn’t be outdated if added right now. Once we get things like the Typhoon and Rafale, however, yes, it will be unless given AAM-5s and/or AAM-4Bs.
That is… how that works. We already said 120 does unrealistically have a longer reach.
Good, then. I will take your word for that, I’m not really that educated on how the MICA works in real life, although I got to use it quite a bit in the game.
I’m aware as many others probably are.
I have used every ARH missile and every platform they’re on extensively, except the Tornados and F-4F ICE. Though in any case you would be wrong calling me a single nation main.
Curiosity on my part: which of the following does this forum think would be the more-likely next addition to the Japanese support fighter line: a notional F-2 with planar array radar, a notional F-16AJ Kai (a la MLU), or simply a proper representation of the F-2A?
Im aware of that.
I dont remember the exact values but if im not mistaken MICA retains its TVC abilities until 20km’s while having more than 40G’s overload capabilities at long ranges, which makes them very deadly in almost any range.
Now imagine MICA IR, its basically same missile but with IR seeker.
Which makes me question that why did Gaijin bother to add A model in the first place, rather than crippling certain missiles they should’ve added equal counterparts from the beginning.
As for the one nation main claim i used concrete evidence and made that claim, and it seems it was true about top tier aviation and thats why i said it was half correct half wrong.
Anyway it seems we managed to achieve agreement on certain subjects, i’d say lets try more peaceful approach to each other if our ways cross again in future.
The F-2A with its AESA radar acting as a PD one, like how the British Phantoms originally had pulse radars, which were then later changed to PD ones.
The less energy a missile has, the less it can pull, so it doesn’t have more than 40Gs of pull at all ranges.
honestly gaijin set themselves up for a really bad time with the PL-12 and AAM-4 and MICA
They’re gonna create a new Magic 2 scenario where they need to keep buffing it to realistic standards as other nations get their more “comparable” missiles. Which means the J-8F/F-15J(M) will eventually be packing some rather stupid weapons at even more stupid BRs
As i said i dont remember the exact values right now but as far as i know MICA retains its energy by lofting and adjusting its thrust during flight.
That doesn’t change the fact that it can’t pull that much at long range. It struggles to pull that much at medium range, even. The only thing the MICA excels at is short range.