I agree. F-4C is basically free food for AIM-9J, D slingers
Very worth it. The F-4C is really capable now. The AIM-7D’s feel like pre-buff 7E’s now. I enjoy it.
Ignore what everyone above me has said.
How are you enjoying it? You haven’t played the jet since like 5 months ago lol
This jet has always been powerful and underrated at 9.0 and now its simply overpowered. It should go to 9.3 probably
2 Likes
Only played it a little a few days ago but it’s still annoying that if a j35 comes out of nowhere and glues to you the whole match it’s your eventual end unless you can make it to the airfield cause he outruns you while not being as bad at manuvering
Not that it’s awful, but the plane seems pretty vulnerable if you aren’t camping really high, and the game in a way favors low height planes because there’s barely any ai air targets
It should probably never go down in rating especially with the buff now
Holy crap. I hopped into a 8.7 match and nearly the entire team is F3H.
Well, it was already undertiered, let’s see what happens.
1 Like
It’s turns like a deltawing without the benefit of going fast as balls. Any jet aircraft you can “hold onto your speed” easily by just not turning.
If it gets up-tiered it sucks ass. bad if it gets down-tiered it becomes super powerful. There’s no inbetween because it’s hard to balance jets and Gaijin’s inability to balance properly.
Is your understanding of balance the same as Arrowhead’s?
“It’s good, so we need to make sure it’s shit.”
AIM-7C is a little strong in downtiers but the real issue is that you have full teams filled with F3H facing 2 fighters 6 attackers and 7 bombers…
2 Likes
This isn’t from statshark if you haven’t noticed.
If you don’t believe my graph gather your own data and make one that’s correct. You don’t get to dismiss hard data collected from localhost during a regular turn at sea level using full elevator and as close to 90° bank angle and 0m/s climb as you realistically get with RB controls.
Not just because you “feel” like it isn’t right, not without providing some data of your own. That’s not making an argument, that’s making assumptions.
And if you don’t trust my data collection process I’m more than happy to make a new graph and record the entire process on video so you can see I’m not manipulating data.
*And before we fall into the same trap again, this is not SUSTAINED turn rate data, this is maximum instantaneous turn rate at a given speed, with flaps engaged at the appropriate points where they start to give an advantage i.e. what gives you the chance to cut into someone’s circle and nuke them instantly.
There you go. The CL13 can reach an instantaneous turn rate of 31.91172 deg/s at TAS= 702kph / IAS= 696 kph with a load factor of 11,12 G, in a horizontal turn
By having TAS = current airspeed from locahost, and Ny= current G load factor, we can calculate the turn rate in that instant. Which is about 32deg/s at min fuel.
Turn rate Calculator | Calculate Turn rate
The F-3H from memory in ideal conditions will do at max around 28 deg/s instantaneous turn rate. Which is around what you got in the graph
So, as I said, your graph is wrong for the CL-13.
In no circumstance can the F3H hope to win a 1C or 2C fight when both pilots know what they are doing.
By the way, you can use WTRTI for a quick test, it will give similar results to doing the calculations from locahost
1 Like
Blockquote
but if they overreact and shove it all the way to 9.7, it’ll be really unpleasant to fly due to it being completely out-matched in flight performance in an uptier
You mean like the Hunter F.6 with 0.5km range missiles, subsonic, no countermeasures and bad at turning, at BR 9.7? Correction: BR 10.0 so even worse than I thought.
Or how about all the attackers with horrible performance that are at high BRs because they get good missiles?
Better 1 plane having a tough time at 9.7 than absolutely kerb-stomping 8.3 jets and ruining an entire BR bracket. There are still gen 1 (WW2) jets at that tier, which should never, in a million years, have to face BVR missiles.
0.5 km range missiles? Were they nerfed recently? Last I played them, I would use them like I would use an AIM-9J
Like no missile in the game even has that short of a range lol
Yes, the range is limited because they instantly detonate once the boost runs out of course because it just being a tube has no way to maintain direction during flight, but the range is still at least like 2km if I remember right
People hate on them too hard, after the buff it removed the ridiculousness of them literally clipping through your plane to get a target almost, but they have good turn in return for the range limitation, the only other issue is if you shoot it when sharply turning they will just spin out unlike any other missile and then explode, but you get 4 of them in return
Haven’t touched it since it became 10.0 though
On paper they have a range of 3km, but as we know that doesn’t equate to being able to use them against a target 3km away. Because they’re rear-aspect only, any target you’re firing at will be moving away from you so unless they’ve stalled out, you’re not going to be hitting at anything close to that range.
0.5km was the old useful range tbf, and now it’s been changed from 2km to 3km 0.5 might be an exaggeration, but generally you have to wait till people are inside 800m, 1km TOPS. Anything further than that and the motor will burn out and the missile will immediately explode.
Unfortunately, there is so little public information on the SRAAM that it’s hard to verify how the game models it.
The justification was that the SRAAM missiles had 30G of pull at a time when that was considered top tier… But bearing in mind, the Hunter doesn’t get countermeasures and was at 10.3. Then they added the Su-25 with R-60M at 9.7, a longer-range, ALL-ASPECT missile with 35G of pull, on a platform that had only slightly worse performance, but came with countermeasures.
The changes to the missile, while they increased the range from 2 to 3km, they also reduced the max G the missile could pull to 20G, which is fairly average even for Sidewinders.
Honestly, I think this is the strongest evidence for Gaijin’s bias for Russia over Britain in-game.
Buff?
They increased the range, sure. It can now do a while 3km (on paper, not in practice), but at the same time they reduced the max G from 30 to 20, so it lost its best characteristic. It’s not even an all-aspect missile either, has to be fired withing ~800m of an enemy’s tail and while they have dropped it from 10.3 to 10.0, that’s still at a BR where there are FAR better missiles, and it’s not even on a capable airframe for 10.0 either. Compared any other 9.7 or 10.0, it’s worse in almost every respect.
At 10.0 on the German/Swiss side, you get a Hunter F.6 with exactly the same flight performance only with 2x AIM-9J missiles and COUNTERMEASURES. The British F.6 is closer to the 9.3 Swiss Hunter (though better; I’m not sure it’s 9.7 better).
The plane unless you mean years ago hasn’t been 10.3. I can agree it’s a little bad now but you seriously can’t expect all aspect at such a low rating, and the range is much more than that
I think they travel more than 3km before exploding. In a rear aspect pursuit at high speeds I expect them to hit if launched at like 2 to 2.5km, like an AIM-9J more or less.
Can’t expect all-aspect at such a low BR?
Su-25 at 9.7 gets all-aspect R-60Ms. Lightning at 9.3 gets the all-aspect Red Top (though you can only really use that against a supersonic target from the front).
Sparrows are also all-aspect and go as low as 9.0.
If anything, the SRAAM would be more balanced as an all-aspect missile, as its range is a massive handicap.
Su25 is 10.3
Are we talking about the same mode??
1 Like
Not sure how you’ve managed that then. Even when launching from high speed, it will only burn for < 6s, then detonate.