I mean, T-2 is 9.7 with Aim-9J. Given the performance similarities and differences between it and the F-5C (without flares), that would seem like a reasonable assumption.
The F-1 goes to 10.3 just because it got more Aim-9J and CCIP.
Tbh the T-2 is probably more favorable at 9.7 than a flareless F-5C just because of the missiles together with nose authority.
I personally don’t mind the flares assuming they’re there for balance reasons. Its a sort of “semi-historical” upgrade that they’ve done before, so I think it’s okay. The game has long since gone away from 100% historical accuracy, such as the T-54 (1949) getting 3BM8 (in service ~1967), or the whole debate on implementing AIM-9E/J when the German Phantoms were introduced. I don’t mind it, the problem with the F-5C is that the flares are way too good because the engine(s) are absurdly cold. They don’t measure temperature by afterburner they measure it by the middle of the engine or something so the flares are almost always a guaranteed failsafe.
The flight model is the worst at 11.0. Literally zero aircraft is worse than the F-5A/C at 11.0 in airframe performance.
At 10.3 there were at least 5 aircraft equivalent to it before Hungary was added and Mig-21s corrected.
Most aircraft as good as the F-5A/C is at 10.3 [with flares] and 9.3/9.7 without flares.
I think the flares on F-5A/C wouldn’t be an issue if afterburner heat plume was taken into consideration because right now they can avoid missiles easier than Harriers due to somehow colder running engine…
I’ve had few F-5Cs flare a Magic 2 fired below 1.5km in rear aspect. Magic 2 at that range AND in rear aspect shouldn’t be able to be flared