I mean, it is to be expected. American mains constantly get the best air stuff, but will cry about Russian stuff when the Russians manage to get a hit on them. Expect them to buff the AIM 7Ms and 7Ps, because they will do it. I mean, take a look at how broken the rest of the American missiles are: AIM 9Ms, AIM 120s, Farkour.
Take a look at how broken American premiums are: F4S was the king of top tier for the longest time, F5 was a monster dog fighter for a long time, AV-8 NA is amazing in Sim, A-10… yeah, 4 AIM 9Ls at a BR where they are fighting people without flares.
American mains will continue to get broken planes that will never be properly fixed and balanced because the American mains will cry, and spout out how they are undefeated in wars (as long as you ignore Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Laos, Syria, and more) or their 104-0 ratio (against MiG 19s and 21s).
The Americans ruined 11.0-12.0 (F4S), 11.7-12.7 (F-18), and 13.0-14.0 (F-15E), and they’ll justify it because “Russian bias” or something.
America is strong but that doesn’t mean they don’t have strong competition.
First, the F-15E is not the king of top tier (13.0-14.0). That title belongs to the EF-2000s or the Rafale. Even with Russia which is typically considered weaker, I have been having a grand time in the Su-27 and I think the Su-33 would probably be even better once I have it researched because of the maneuverability changes.
The strongest F-18 relative to its BR is the premium (no surprise there). But compared to an Su-27, I don’t think it’s under-br’d. It’s actually one of the most balanced match-ups in the game. Granted it could maybe go up .3, but it is far from broken.
And yet another topic with raging arguments from all over that could all be satisfied entirely with BR decompression.
Some of you are too busy hating the wrong thing.
it belongs to the rafale. typhoon keeps getting nerfed out of nowhere and its radar sucks. MICA-EM is also the best dogfighter missile in game by a long shot.
Definitely one of the strongest but with the radar is (form my personal experience), it’s kinda miserable.
Not saying the jet itself is bad, the radar is just pathetic when trying to use the R-24R, but yeah it is still strong for an 11.7, however I’ll argue that the F/A-18A should be 12.7 and receive the 7P, while the F/A-18C (Early) go to 13.0 and receive the 9M.
It’s definitely a problem when you’re perhaps in a completely weaker aircraft that can’t even compete against it (the MLD can in terms of speed and if you catch them with an R-60 in a head on).
But I see your point, the ML/MLA/MLD still is one of the best planes at 11.7.
For me, it’s fun, but boring to play when all you face if F/A-18’s lol.
r60m is pretty bad when it comes to range and flare resistance . but you should fire it within 1km at ppl going full head-on to u while not pre-flaring(although no experienced player with an operating brain would do this, considering there are loads of new players at 10.7-12.7 it is a particularly useful technique) It can easily catch people off guard.
Its radar is still better than the F-15E in my experience- which for BVR makes it kinda the best. The micas are very op though i agree- they are like r-27ers on steroids.
With the new R-77s, the Su-30SM is also a strong contender.
Ong, the moment the MiG-23 is mentioned the conversation is always immediately derailed to “Britain suffers!!1!” on the basis of how the aircraft performed two years ago- when the MiG-23 was never even all that great. Good, yes. Great, no. Unstoppable? Certainly not.
Even before the nerfs it had a worse radar than its competitors, much worse gun, lower acceleration, lower sustained turn rate, less radar missiles, and shorter-tanged IR missiles. Now, it also had a higher top speed, higher instantaneous turn rate, and all-aspect missiles. Was it good? Yes. Was it the best? Arguably. Was it overpowered? No. Well, for the two months before the introduction of the F-4J, then sure. But even then there was the FG.1/2.
And after that, at worst it was simply the first real competitor the Soviets had in any sort of BVR compared to the Western trees, which players weren’t able to adjust to.
And it would only be 8 months until the introduction of the F-14…
But I digress. This is again, a decompression discussion, and derailing it to “mig-23 was op” is neither productive nor relevant.
not at the time, basically only competition was F-4J and that was after it was added, and F-4J was still undeniably a worse jet overall
lol mig23MLD never had bad accel for its BR, it’s always been good in that regard. It’s still one of the fastest acceling and top speed 11.7s
lol MLD prenerf beat every jet in game prior to f14 in sustained turn rate afaik
it also did very well here
actually, the MLD didnt have R-60Ms for a long time, only R-60s. This is the part where you actually made it sound better than it was funny enough.
I don’t agree at all. It was undeniably overpowered with no real counters that existed prior. All of the things that can effectively counter MiG-23MLD were added after the MiG-23MLD like the F-14A and later the M2K. Before that, you had the F-4J which was worse, then far below that you had the rest of the jets like the F-4E, MiG-21bis, etc
FG.1 and FGR.2 were never really competitors. They are both slower jets and worse at dogfighting so any engagement generally ends in a dead phantom. They had 7e2s and PD on their side but this was when MP was at 100m and the FG.1/FGR.2 would have a much harder time dodging the R-24R than the inverse for the MiG-23.
No, it’s always had a lower acceleration ad low-mid speeds and lower TWR. This isn’t super obvious because Phantoms are so often laden with bombs, but a properly light Phantom will leave the MiG in the dust
Nope, though it was certainly a lot closer than today.
Actually I was referencing the R-24T. But yeah before the R-60M the MiG-23s were even worse
Very debatable. Better radar, better missiles, more missiles, better acceleration, HMD, better gun, better sustained rate.
Not slower. These were and still are the fastest F-4s with 20% higher thrust. And what, the MiG-23s magically don’t have multipathing to deal with too? Especially as the Phantoms can be used at altitude, allowing top-down shots, while the MiGs radars wouldn’t be able to MTI above around 1km
But most importantly
This is again, a decompression discussion, and derailing it to “mig-23 was op” is neither productive nor relevant.
marginal, and only really seeing a large difference if you climb to altitude.
not true
true by 2 missiles
even if i do agree that the low end mig accel was worse, you’d still be way wrong here. MLD has always smoked phantoms to mach, especially if both start at say, 600kph after a turn rather than 0kph on a runway.
LOL HMD was not on F-4J then… you have timelines way wrong
debatable
Yes. Slower. They don’t reach the same speeds at lower altitudes and the speys get worse fast at higher altitudes. Slower.
You know what sure the MiG-23 was such a big bully should have been 18.0 so sorry that poor sad US mains had to suffer so dearly, how could Gaijin mistreat you poor innocent souls like that
Now can we get back to the discussion of 4th gens annihilating 3rd gens? Or do you need to to keep your 2021 self pity party going?
You make yourself look uhh, uneducated when you call someone named “allnationenjoyer” a USA main, especially when you do read this forum and you do know I rail on USA pilots constantly. What a joke comment lol. It’s double silly when you consider how I’m one of the biggest if not the biggest advocate for decompression on this website as well.
The topic was DEFINITELY not just 50 comments talking about mig23 before this, surely its just me