Well, you can do that in the T-2 and F-1 aswell, you just cant expect to sit in a turnfight for long. The AoA they have give you an easy job getting hits on target
Actually 9Ps are way more useful here as you can use them closer to a enemy while actually expecting to hit a manouvering and otherwise busy target.
I dont know how one can call the 9E, “slightly worse” than the P/J. Its a way larger upgrade than what the 9E was to the 9B. And id say that was the case before the FoV buff to P/J
Well you can get close and personal with the enemy in a B-17 or F-104 as well but it is far less reasonable to do so. Combined with the lack off countearmeasures at that Br T-2 as well as F-1 should avoid dumping speed wherever possible. This precaution is not necessary when flying F-5.
The 9P is lovely but if you manage your angle etc. chances are the enemy will either flare the missile anyway no matter which one it is or you set up a scenario in which it wont matter wether you are firing a 9E or 9P.
Alll in all there wont be to many situations where the 9P is absolutely necessary while guaranteeing a high hit probability still.
Depends on how you launch your missiles of course.
Unlike the E you can actually shoot at non-AFK targets.
Actually in the F104 its perfectly reasonable to get close and personal, you have the AoA to do it, and as long as you don’t stick around for too long you are fine.
Yes, i dont think anyone is arguing the F-5 doesn’t get more freedom to dump its energy and sit in turnfights.
Well way more situations as you arent functionally rellying on the target to be practically AFK. You have way more viable targets, way more options for avoiding detection, and more options making people not flare.
The times i have missiles left on the rack after a match in the F-1, T-2 and F-104J before and after getting the 9P is stark. Just because the P presents way more opportunities to reasonably get a kill.
Regarding the missiles I can only speak from my experience. Sure 9P is a straight upgrade but if the enemy is not afk as you put it they will flare the missile or attempt to dodge it.
Regarding the latter 9P is of course more resistant but there are limits.
In the end the discussion was about capability between F-5C and T-2/F-1.
That is what the sentence about the 9E you quoted was aimed at.
F-5C with 2 AIM-9E is superior to T-2 with 2 AIM-9P and F-1 with 4 AIM-9P both.
Simply due to it’s flight performance and countermeasures.
And add it to Swedish TT while we’re at it ;-)
While we are at it let’s also remove the YAK-38, it never had missiles. Let’s also remove the Type-4 Chi-To, Type-5 Chi-Ri, The E-100, and all the prototype US heavy tanks designated T. As well as all the Objekt vehicles none were serviced in any large quantity to be properly documented.
“Not afk” =\//\//= “Omnipotent”. Just because one isn’t AFK, attention can be on engaging someone else, turning or otherwise occupied while maneuvering. Aka, not a target for the 9E most of the time.
And while a J/P is dodgeable, unless one is very aware and is in their optimal manouvering window, it is exceedingly unlikely to be dodged. Unlike the E which is worse at manouvering than the B last i checked.
The practical target set for a P/J is so much larger that “they will just flare it” Is a very wierd way to try to say its not meaningful.
And ive for the most part not talked about the 5C. Ive talked about what the F-1 and F-104J can do, and what a stark difference the 9P/J and E is.
Yes i agree the F-5C is easier to get into and more forgiving to play based on what i know about it. Wether its better or not idk as i havent flown it.
That is why I think AIM-9E is decent. But it always depends on who is launching the missile and wether you judged the enemy properly. AIM–9E just needs to be handled differently to a AIM-9P.
Both can achieve the same kill oftentimes just by waiting for a diffreent launch angle, seperation, speed or whatever else.
The E is a straight upgarde from the B.
You were a little off on the T-2/F-1 and F-104. In regard to each other and F-5.
Again I compared T-2/F-1 to F-5C and F-104 taking their missiles etc. into account as possible. That is where you seemignly hung yourself up on the 9E/P/J comparison viewing them in a vacuum.
Because that is what i was talking about. I made remarks about other things, but that was the one thing i was talking about.
And i, looking through the convo, did not compare these aircraft as far as i can tell. I made some regards that that these aircraft can get “close and personal” When responding to a comment implying they cant where the F-5C was mentioned in the sentance
Edit: correction, i made one comparison in the message you replied to where i compared how forgiving and easy to get into the 3 planes were
getting back to the thing i was talking about:
Yes, one is way way more restrictive in what is a viable target.
Yes a straight upgrade will be able to do the same job.
It is in 3 qualities, speed, uncaged and improved seeker. It is however less maneuverable because its faster and retains the same 10G limit. So it is in fact not a straight upgrade even tho given neither missile turns much, and as such the target set is improved by the fact the 9E is faster.
Only the T-2 is documented as having chaff pods. Also the F-5C gets access to CM’s due it being a renamed 5A which could mount them.
I can’t quite follow. Why did you reply to me then?
Because you made a remark about a missile in a response to me. Which is the bit i responded to. Also comment about implying F-1/T-2 relly on their missiles and cant get in close.
Why that was the response to me talking about the “work” That is flying a flareless jet i dont entirely get.
I was talking about anything but missiels when I replied to you since you seemed focused on missiles entirely. What a surprise.
You overlook the finer points made or implied in a sentence most of the time which leads to pointless back and forth going around in a cricle leading nowhere.
Yes, and i looked at the points you made and i thought some of the points mischaracterized the difference, or ability of missiles in question and in some comments about the jet in question.
As such i commented on them.
Well looking at my first response to you, you were explicitly using missiles as part of your argumentation.
And looking at what i responded to:
I looked at, thought some of the points were silly and as such commented on them.
Edit:
No i explicitly responded to what were “finer points” About the Aim-9P/J and 9E in responses you made to me saying
Here as in here on the F-5C compared to AIM-9P on T-2.
The bits about the missiles in the first post were made to highlight what F-5C has beyond missiles i.e. why AIM-9E is good enough on it.
Damn man.
We are still going in a circle and you still put words in my mouth or are not reading properly.
Yep.
And as part of that you mentioned missiles which i thought is a mischaracterization of differences.
Idk what words i could be putting into your mouth, but to be very clear:
I responded to a point you used to build your overall message. I did not really care about the overall message.
What a waste of time.
I know.
Idk why the upgrade 9P/J represents had to be downplayed so hard (edit: hard as in it was contested even tho one could own the fact without any consequence to the overall conclusion)
Generally never was as I’ve been telling you.
Do we really need to keep circling around a point I made which you put out of context?
Okay then if you never made that claim ive completely missunderstood
Sorry
Insight:
Words i considered to downplay or otherwise mischaracterize the differences.
Hopefully that gives some insight as most of these were the responses to me implying that the 9P/J offered significant uplifts allowing for way more oppertunities that the 9E