Yes the fact that both F-14 and F-15 will have higher than 1 thrust to weight ratio at optimal speeds shows how the F-15 being > 1:1 is more or less irrelevant… congrats?
Okay, but some numbers bigger than 1 are bigger than other numbers bigger than 1. Thats the important part.
Identical ordnance. AIM-54s would be unfair against F-14B.
F-15C is 1:1 on full fuel ~500kph & higher.
F-14B is never 1:1 on full fuel regardless of speed.
I guess fighter aircraft with carries 4 & 6 ARH BVRAAM such as F-4F ICE, MiG-29M 9-15, F-16CG Block 40, F-14B Tomcat, F-16C Block 30, F-16A Block 15 ADF (Italy) & Chengdu J-10A could be 12.3 minimum
And 12.7 probably fighter aircraft with carries 8 & 10 ARH BVRAAM such as F/A-18C, Shenyang J-11A MLU/J-11B, Su-30 (Su-27PU), F-15C MSIP, F-15J-MSIP (Modernized), F-15C “Akef”, F-15E, F-15I “Ra’am”, Su-30M2 & Su-27SM
F-4F ICE carries 4x AMRAAMs, and 4x Aim-9s.
F-14B is not 12.3 capable.
F-15C is 12.3 capable tho, while Su-27s aren’t.
It depends on the capability of the ARH and the platform. Something like the ICE which is a poor platform with a decent ARH will be lower than F-16C which is a much more potent platform even though it has the same sticks.
Su-27S is sufficient uplift over existing 12.0 that it should probably be a BR higher. IDK about balance versus AMRAAM, having 6 R-27ER is serious given the range, but ARH gives effectively better range in BVR.
You have no idea what you’re talking about regarding BR’s.
Full fuel is what you’re using now instead of gross combat weight? lol, and I didn’t know T/W ratio mattered so much… look at F-4 Phantom vs MiG-21s this whole time.
Regarding the F-14B/D the AIM-54s could see a buff that puts them at 25G overload capacity. This would make them equivalents to the early AMRAAM in that you trade acceleration and maneuverability for range. There’s no reason it couldn’t stay at 12.0 with those either imo.
I guess modern 3rd gen fighter with ARH such as JA37D, F-4F ICE, F-5E Tiger III, F-5EM, Kfir 2000, Kfir C.10, Atlas Cheetah C & Shenyang J-8F at least 12.3
Chengdu FC-1/JF-17 basic to 12.3 like F-16C Block 30, F-16CG Block 40, F-16I Sufa & F-16C Block 50
F-15C MSIP, F-15J-MSIP, F-15C “Akef” MSIP, F-15E Strike Eagle & F-15I “Ra’am” to 12.7 so make sense
F-4E and MiG-21bis have very similar TWR so I don’t know what the hell your point is here. Regarding fuel load, even if you equalize fuel load the F-14B loses. A full load F-15 as noted is ~20000kg(12700+6100+1400=20200). A F-14B is 26000kg(being 6000kg heavier empty) with the same load of armament and weapons, and it doesn’t have very much if any thrust advantage. So it has considerably lower TWR, and is a bigger, draggier plane as well. This gets worse if both planes take less fuel.
There’s a general theme here of buying into various vaporware upgrades for the F-14. Like even if the TCS is modeled a capable of maintaining a track in conjunction with radar illumination, A: it can’t do it in incliment conditions B: it has a small gimbal limit, which poses serious issues in a BVR engagement. And we buy into AIM-54C getting buffed, and into APG-71 being a wonder-radar(it isn’t, main improvements were range and sidelobes. There were thoughts about adding MPRF, interleaving, complex ground radar modes etc but F-14D upgrades were canned so none of this came true).
If they fix the AIM-54C it is, seeing as its missing both max G load as well as an improved seeker. Ppl will probs cry if they fix it tho
well of course they would have counter parts now but spreading out the players more maybe having 2 air fields on each team similar to some prop maps would potentially make the maps feel slightly bigger but it would make fox 3s feel a little less spammed since they wouldn’t be all launching on one concentrated group
I’ve been accurately predicting BRs for 2 years straight now. From EJ Kai, F-16, Mig-29, F-14B…
F-15C is superior to F-14B.
Full fuel + weapons are a gross combat weight.
@Aetreus F-16C with ARHs will be higher [12.7+] for sure. But yeah, ICE will be 12.3 due to 4 rather potent missiles.
I never said Su-27 would be below 12.3. In-fact I implied the opposite.
There is no “fixing” Aim-54C. Single-plane G-load is 17, which is accurately represented in WT.
Dual-plane isn’t simulated and once it is ALL missile get buffed, not just Aim-54C.
Ive been saying we need bigger and more complex maps at top tier for over a year now, so you’re preaching to the choir there. Top tier air and its weapons development is hamstrung by the glue sniffing idiots that buy their way to top tier and think it should play like air arcade, crying because they have to bring more than min fuel.
2 Likes
We have the bigger maps. People aren’t going to go back to high altitude anytime soon, and missile ranges at mid attitude is only going to drop from Aim-54C from this point forward.
We won’t see a return of longer range ARHs until AIM-120D. Buckle up cause it’s low-altitude for at least another 2 years.
There is “fixing” the AIM-54C.
- Its been stated to have the same effectiveness as the sparrow for dogfights, but having twice the minimum range, so the fact it doesnt match the sparrow in close range shots is obviously a clear indicator its underperforming
- Regardless of “all” missiles being buffed, the enemy jets AREN’T getting buffed. The comparative advantage between missiles doesnt matter as most missiles arent easily avoidable purely kinetically anyways, an increase in 8G’s to the AIM-54’s max pull would substantially improve its kill potential without hampering any other aspects. Other missiles “also” getting buffed is irrelevant to its own pK%.
- Its seeker is suspected to be underperforming, likely to a substantial degree, considering rn its the exact same as an AIM-54A but with improved INS, which makes literally no sense when you consider the actual seeker upgrade was to improve many aspect of the missile, most notably vs small and very low altitude targets like sea skimming AShM’s
ARH BVRAAM only 12.7+
and MiG-29M 9-15 also like 29K/KUB can carry 8 AAM up to 8 R-77
MiG-29S 9-13s and SM, SMT MiGs 6 aam
1- If that is from pilots, that’s what’s known as an opinion. Not fact. It’s also an opinion from other sources if worded a certain way.
2- An incorrect assessment.
3- Water is not land.
@I_Phobos_I Depends on the aircraft.
Gripen will probably be 12.3 along with F-4F ICE while having AMRAAMs.
Largely cause Gripen is 11.7 without them, and F-4F ICE is 11.3 without them.