F-20 Tigershark and MiG-21 Bison in current mixed Fox-3 matchmaking, no viable role left

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
1

I honestly don’t know which attempt this is to raise this topic, but after recent matches it feels impossible to ignore.

About a year ago, I could still understand the argument that giving AIM-120 to the F-20 or R-77 to the MiG-21 Bison would push them too high in BR and make them ineffective against aircraft like F-15 or Su-27. Back then, that logic made sense.

The problem is that the game environment has fundamentally changed.

In my recent matches, the same lobby included:

AV-8B Harriers with AIM-120A

Su-30MKK with RVV-AE

JA37DI with RB-99

F/A-18C carrying up to 6× AIM-7P

alongside F-20 Tigershark and MiG-21 Bison

This is no longer an occasional uptier or rare encounter. This is the standard matchmaking environment.

These are not older Phoenix or Fakour style missiles with obvious limitations and counterplay. Modern Fox-3 missiles (AIM-120A, R-77, RVV-AE) allow fire-and-forget engagements, immediate defensive maneuvering, and fundamentally different BVR gameplay.

The issue is not that F-20 or MiG-21 Bison are so weak aircraft.

Both platforms have:
modernized radars with TWS capability

modern RWR systems

BR placement where Fox-3 missiles are already common

Yet they are forced to fight in a Fox-3-dominated environment without any equivalent tools. As a result, they lack initiative, engagement control, and even the ability to meaningfully participate in BVR combat.

In practice, their role is reduced to:
staying low and avoiding detection

bombing bases

or opportunistically finishing already-engaged targets

This is not a healthy or engaging role for aircraft that are clearly designed to operate in modern air combat environments.

This is not a demand to make them overpowered. It is an observation that, in the current mixed Fox-3 matchmaking, F-20 and MiG-21 Bison effectively have no defined gameplay role.

Possible approaches could include:

limited access to appropriate active radar missiles

BR or matchmaking adjustments

separation or restriction of Fox-3-heavy matchups

or other balancing measures that acknowledge the current state of top-tier air combat

The core issue is simple: these aircraft are already fighting in a Fox-3 environment, but without the means to function within it.

I hope this can be reconsidered in light of how much the top-tier air combat meta has shifted.

1 Like
2

yes they can give the fox3 to f20 and mig21. but money print comes first for gaijin.

now we are going in a rank 9 planes, we need more than a f20 or mig21 fox 3.
that why they added su30 to both ru and cn.

i am gonna call it, f15 premium for the us

3

I understand the “money printing”, but I think this actually highlights the core issue rather than explains it.

If Fox-3 missiles are already being distributed widely including premium aircraft and multi-nation platforms like Su-30 variants then the argument that F-20 or MiG-21 Bison cannot receive them “for balance reasons” no longer holds.

The problem is not that we need more Rank 9 aircraft. The problem is that aircraft already placed in this environment are left without a functional role.

F-20 and MiG-21 Bison are not fighting “future aircraft” anymore they are already matched against Fox-3 carriers every battle. At that point, withholding equivalent tools does not preserve balance, it simply creates dead-end platforms.

4

no dude i said that we are getting rank 9 plane who would gve gaijin the chance to add more moern fox3 plane and make money of it. no wants a f20 or mig21 at 13.0 or 13,3.

they gonna add something more new, maybe they already did it with f18 but if you fox 3 its gonna be a lot harder to ask for it

5

The mig21 Bison has a 1.1 KD, so its fine where it is TBH, the F-20 has a 0.82 KD but USA is normally people’s first TT to grind so you will get new players in general playing it compared to Britain who is normally 3rd,4th, or 5th TT to grind.

All KD taken from Statshark showing only last months games played so its up to date.

2 Likes
6

I think we’re talking about two different timelines here.

Yes, Rank 9 aircraft will likely expand Fox-3 usage further, and yes, Gaijin will monetize that I don’t disagree with this at all.

But this does not address the current problem: aircraft like F-20 and MiG-21 Bison are already placed in Fox-3 matchmaking today, not in some future Rank 9 environment.

This is not about wanting F-20 or Bison at 13.0 or 13.3. It’s about the fact that they are already fighting aircraft at those capability levels while being permanently locked out of that gameplay.

7

you can do nothing about them.

putting the in lower br, going against 11.3 and 11.0
give them fox 3, auto 13.0 (13.3 for f20) who face capable plane than 13.3. worse is you gonne go against rafale and su30sm.

2 Likes
8

13.0, harrier flight model.

13.3, whole BR above either Bison or F-20

13.0 with one of the most god awful RWRs ive ever seen (still could be worse lmao)

Compared to Bison it doesnt get access to IRCCM missiles nor HMD

compared to Tigershark…Yeah Ive got notning, I actually dont know lmao.

Ive took 18C early for the spin recently after not playing it for a few months and the matchmaker really did not change. Being uptiered to 13.3 sucks more than ever but the frequency of uptiers certainly doesnt feel any different.

in other words, gimping themselves.

With F-20 its issue that AMRAAMs were never fitted as far as I know and Im not aware if it had neccesary provisions to launch them (and let us save some time, the AMRAAMs carried by F-20 in that one photo are mockups).

With Bison its safe to say it would go higher than it currently is.

Thats not issue limited to those two aircrafts, but 12.0+ as a whole.

1 Like
9

I helped add to that K/D when I played my Bison during the event. Really is an excellent plane although I would gladly switch out the two slow ass R-27R1s for the R-27ER variants. It could carry them IRL.

10

I think this response actually proves the point rather than disproves it.

Yes, Harrier AV-8B Plus is 13.0.
Yes, Su-30MKK is 13.3.
Yes, JA37DI has a poor RWR.
Yes, F/A-18C Early has limitations compared to Bison or F-20.

But none of this changes the core issue: these aircraft are all part of the same matchmaking environment.

BR labels do not prevent encounters. In practice, F-20 and MiG-21 Bison regularly meet Fox-3 carriers, regardless of whether those carriers are 13.0 or 13.3. The exact BR number does not negate the capability gap.

Regarding the argument that “staying low and avoiding detection means gimping yourself”: that is exactly the problem. Aircraft without Fox-3 are forced into self-limiting playstyles simply to survive, while Fox-3-equipped aircraft can initiate, disengage, and control engagements. When first can just spam with 7P or 27R or other FOX-1/2 missles, F-20 or Bison need what to do?

As for historical arguments:

F-20 not carrying AMRAAMs historically does not change the fact that it is placed into an environment where AMRAAMs are standard.

MiG-21 Bison potentially moving higher in BR does not invalidate the concern either, because the problem already exists at its current placement.

Finally, I agree that this issue is not limited to F-20 and Bison alone. It affects much of the 12.0+ range. That does not make it less valid it makes it more important.

This is not about a single aircraft or a single missile. It is about capability-based matchmaking being outpaced by BR-based matchmaking in a Fox-3 environment.

11

so what is your solution to this matter.
decompression wont happen soon. fox 3 solution wont work either. putting in a lower br will creat more problem with 11.0.

12

F-15E early coming soon

13

90$

1 Like
14

problem of uptiers is not unique to the F-20 and Bison.

It limits how often planes can see partial or full uptiers, as well as whats the “worst” they can see.

BR does not negate capability gap, true. But BR determines what pool of enemy vehicles can specific vehicle meet in game. Thats why F-20 and Bison sit one whole BR below planes like MKK.

Worse kit = lower BR.

You got me wrong, F-20 and Bison players are gimping themselves by hugging the ground.

These days I climb even in F-16A.

Theres no downside to it.

F-20 is 12.3. Earliest AMRAAMs are 13.0. AMRAAMs are not standard at F-20s BR.

Kinda dishonest of you comparing 12.3 kit to 13.0+ kit and saying the 12.3 kit sucks.

Since youre hyperfixated on how F-20/Bison performs in uptiers, lets turn that argument around to see how much water it holds - lets compare F-20/Bison exclusively to 11.3.

I mean uptiers work both ways, no?

As such I propose raising the BR of F-20. My poor F-4E has no business seeing plane carrying all-aspect PD radar + 7F and 9Ls.

I also propose raising the BR of Bison. Same argument, on top of Bison having IRCCM missiles, which F-4E has no business seeing.

F-4E is part of the same matchmaking enviroment as F-20/Bison while being outclassed in RWR, radar and missiles. And as you put it, exact BR number does not negate the capability gap.

Clearly there is an argument to be made to raise the BR of F-20/Bison.

Funny how that works, no?

EDIT:

Now dont take this personally but theres no nice way to put it - I think the issue is less with planes themselves as with you simply jumping straight to 12.3 without working your way up the TT normally, since you are currently forced to learn 12 whole BRs worth of knowledge on a single premium jet.

Id advise you to finish single TT proper first, before asking for AMRAAMs on F-20/Bison.

Because I have extremely strong feeling that even if the game allowed you to have it your way, youd continue complaining about F-20s, now 13.0 at minimum, performance being behind 13.7/14.0s.

2 Likes
15

I don’t take this personally, but I think this framing misses the point of the discussion.

This is not about individual player experience, progression speed, or whether someone “earned” a BR through a tech tree. Those factors affect player skill, not aircraft capability.

The issue being discussed exists independently of who is flying the aircraft. An experienced player on F-20 or Bison faces the same structural limitations in Fox-3 matchmaking as a newer one lack of initiative, inability to disengage safely after BVR launches, and exclusion from the active-radar missile gameplay layer.

Learning the tech tree does not change the fact that these aircraft are placed into matches where Fox-3 missiles are common, while being permanently locked out of that mechanic. That is a design question, not a player progression issue.

As for the idea that complaints would simply move upward if Fox-3 were added: that assumes the concern is about “being top dog.” It is not. The concern is about having a defined and functional role within the environment an aircraft is placed in.

Moving an aircraft to 13.0 or 13.3 with Fox-3 would at least align its tools with the rule set of that environment. Remaining at 12.3 while already fighting Fox-3 carriers does not.

This discussion is not about asking for AMRAAMs out of frustration. It’s about whether transitional aircraft are balanced as transitional platforms, or left as dead ends between gameplay layers.

16

I assure you it does not.

However player not understanding capabilities of a vehicle correctly can lead to wrong conclusion of its capabilities.

it would be like claiming F-104A sucks as dogfighter and arguing most planes around it can dogfight more efficiently, ignoring its strength lies completly elsewhere.

Experienced player will also note youre comparing 12.3 to 13.0/13.3 aircrafts exclusively, ignoring that just as 12.3 is uptiered to face 13.3, 11.3 are uptiered to face 12.3; as well completly ignoring that ARH platforms are only % of all planes between 12.3 to 13.3, not entiriety.

Just as you are comparing F-20/Bison to 13.3 and calling them weak, I can compare MKK, plane thats arguably undertiered as hell, to likes of Rafale, and ask for “fixes”; but that would be done in my dishonesty since if for example one of the fixes was downtiering it to 13.0, now 12.0 planes would have to face PL-12 capable aircraft.

Not only you are once again comparing 12.3 plane to 13.0/13.3 and not comparing 12.3 plane to 11.3s as well; you are comparing only two 12.3 and trying to portray them as suffering when theres entiriety of 12.0/12.3./12.7 being also affected.

If problem affects entire BR range, it will never be fixed by changing individual planes.

Which both F-20/Bison have, you just choose to ignore 11.3-12.3 and compare F-20/Bison exclusively to 13.0/13.3.

And then you would get to play F-20/Bison at 13.0/13.3 and would find them lacking in CMs and in FM department. F-20/Bison massively benefit from being at such relatively low BRs.

Im fairly confident it would take one battle against Rafale for you to request further changes to F-20/Bison.

Certainly feels like it.

Except now youre questioning that 12.0/12.3/12.7 aircrafts as a whole are balanced against full uptier - they are not.

But as a whole.

The 13.0 is massively compressed with MiG-29G sitting at same BR as Su-27, and Su-27 sitting at the same BR as Su-33. Theres massive power difference between these three aircrafts, so much that it would require them to be at different BRs.

But then if you placed Su-33 at 13.7 you would suddenly find it at the same BR as Su-27SM which is more capable than Su-33, so now Su-27SM would have to go up…

Or the current issue with EFTs. You have standard EFT at 14.3 and EFT with massively improved AESA radar at … 14.3. These two should be entirely different BRs, yet they are not.

Do you realize what the problem here is?

Its not whenever F-20/Bison are bad, or whenver F-20/Bison should face ARH carriers.

Its about entire top tier being compressed to hell and back; which affects all BRs bellow it.

But this issue cannot be solved by focusing on “buffing” only two vehicles out of all that suffer at that BR range.

1 Like