J35D would absolutely massacre 8.7-10.0.
2 Likes
It’s getting a 50% maneuverability nerf :P
I don’t think that will go through, but even if it did it would still be a mach 1.1 capable jet 9.7 with 6 9Js and 12 flares, that would be 10.3 minimum as it is.
That’s the J35XS, I’m talking about the TT J35D, it only has 4 AIM-9J’s, closest thing is the F-104. No flares btw either.
Oh yeah I read too quickly. In that case it’s still a mach 1.1 capable jet with 4x 9Js lol, won’t go to 9.7. 10.0 at best
1 Like
Sea Fury should get it’s performance buffed and stay where it is, as AFAIK it’s engine is running on peacetime specs.
F4E at 11.7? Not a good idea imo. It’s fine as-is. F-16’s and MIG-29’s are already a handful, I’d rather not be fighting those + the best planes top tier has to offer.
It doesn’t even have pulse doppler so those 7f’s won’t be of much use. I’d rather give the 9L’s to the FGR and FG.1 Phantom instead.
RE2005 should go to 5.0 imo. The closest thing to it in terms of performance is a Spitfire F.MK9 at 4.7…
Zeroes should go down, but only after their FM is fixed to match the historical performance of the thing. (Ingame, it doesn’t roll slower to the right, and has far more high speed pull than it should have. )
FGR2 and F4J(UK) could get Aim-9Ls
The FG1 did get them in RAF service (I think) but not in RN service which is the version we got.
But that would create a meaningful difference between 2 essentially identical airframes and a reason to get both.
1 Like
Yeah… are you stuck in 2019? This does not matter unless they decide it does conveniently.
1 Like
What’s the point of giving the FG1 ahistorical Aim-9Ls when the FGR2 could get them historically. There is no difference between these aircraft currently.
Gaijin is convinced FGR2 with 9Ls would mean 11.7. I don’t think it would, but if it did, then you’d still have FG1 at 11.3 with Aim-9Gs
Imma pop in here with some 'cade stuff:
All prop J21s: 5.3 → 4.7
Extremely underpowered for their BR, good armament but in no way 5.3 worthy.
J22-B: 4.0 → 3.0
Why is this even at 4.0…
J22-A: 3.0 → 2.7
Not quite 3.0 worthy, should fit well with the Hurricane Mk. 1L
1 Like
A bit of personal feedback/opinions on some of the common BR changes im reading in this thread:
-
“give F-4E better missiles and move it up in BR” : I’d rather the current F-4E stay at 11.0, and gaijin instead add a foldered “F-4E Late” which is a later block with the TISEO camera/sensor in the wing, Pave Spike/Tack targeting pod, various laser guided ordnance, AIM-9L, and AIM-7F, and put it at 11.3 essentially being a sidegrade to the Kurnass 2000 ingame in terms of gameplay. The radar would still be a non-PD APQ-120 similar to the existing F-4E.
-
“Give F-5C the AIM-9J and move it to 10.7” : This makes no sense, as the F-5C in american service never used the AIM-9J. It also technically didnt use the AIM-9E either, since that didnt arrive in Vietnam until almost a full year after the Skoshi Tiger program ended and the F-5Cs were returned to Vietnam, meaning they only used AIM-9B in American service. Alternatively, gaijin could reskin and rename the F-5C from an American F-5C to a South Vietnamese F-5C and give it the AIM-9J afaik.
-
“raise the BR of the J-35XS” : No, just fix the overperforming engine (which ingame has around 300-500kgf more thrust than it should depending on the source) and keep it at its BR. Currently it has a higher TWR at some speeds and altitudes than even the biggest TWR monsters like the F-104s, which is hilarious.
-
“J-7D/J-7E move down to 10.7” : Possible for the J-7D, but the J-7E would slaughter anything there, being a exact repeat of the massacre that happened with the F-5E moving down to 10.7 and being unstoppable in downtiers. Instead, i personally would recommend that both planes stay at 11.0 AND instead recieve access to the PL-5C all-aspect missile (which is already ingame on the JH-7A), at least for the J-7D which is currently just a major downgrade for the J-7E at the same BR.
And also, some of my own suggested BR/balance changes:
- If the Su-25 and Su-25K will not move up in BR, then replace the R-60M with normal R-60 to stop terrorizing flareless 9.0-9.3 planes.
- If the A-10A and A-10A Late will not move up in BR, then replace the AIM-9L with AIM-9J or AIM-9P to stop terrorizing flareless 9.0-9.3 planes.
- F-15 to 12.7 for very obvious reasons.
- MiG-21F-13/J-7II and MiG-19PT/S/J-6A to 9.7 and 10.0 respectively. These planes need to move up in BR for the same reason as F-104A/C.
- Yak-141 should lose the fictional R-60Ms and recieve the R-73 it tested irl instead, and move up to 12.3 (or even 12.7 with a un-nerfed R-27 loadout). It was added with fictionally nerfed loadouts at 12.0 because no higher BR existed back then, but thats no longer the case. Of course, should be 13.0 minimum if it recieves R-77s next update.
- F-14A should recieve AIM-54C and AIM-7M and move to 12.0; F-14B should recieve AIM-54C Blk.60 (which can go Mach 4+) and access to the AIM-7P (US Navy’s AIM-7M with datalink and lofting) and move to 12.3 or 12.7 depending on how gaijin models the datalink and kinematics of the Blk.60 Phoenix and the AIM-7P. Any more advanced missiles (such as AIM-9M) should be saved for the future F-14D model.
- Give the Syrian Su-22M3 (soviet squadron vehicle, not the hungarian subtree version) its real-life Syrian service flare-dispenser upgrade and move it back to 11.0
- Give the Su-17M2 its SPS-141 Countermeasures pod and move it to 10.7
- Give the MiG-23BN the SPS-141 Countermeasures pod and move it to 10.3
- Move the F-5E back to 11.0, Move the F-5E FCU back to 11.3, introduce an equivelant model in the US tech tree (perhaps an F-5N with AIM-9Ls and the upgraded radar at 11.3)
1 Like
gimme a sec checking this rq
Edit: Looks to be overperforming by a tiny amount, ~200kgf with A/B and like 15kgf without.
Source i have says 7525 kg of wet thrust. Ingame it currently has 8030. Im not saying you are wrong, however. Mind if i have a name to your source? im interested in reading more from there.
understandable, thanks for the info.
200 or 500, its still a noticable difference in TWR when you remember how light the Draken is.
True. Honestly idc, im fine with the engine overperforming since they wont give it an accurate flight model. Thing cant even cobra ingame which is…
Sad.
Alternatively, the AIM-9P4 as a middle ground that would be far more dodgable due to the shorter range/lower agility but still offer a powerful enough option
1 Like
Thats mostly in RB, where the Instructor completely messes up the handling of the plane. Any minor movement of the mouse will make the instructor throw the control surfaces into full deflection, bleeding all your energy away. If you fly it in sim with a HOTAS and all instructor aids turned off, it actually feels a lot better than the brick it is in RB.
A few other planes suffer from this issue, namely the A-4 family and Su-27s.
1 Like
Alternatively, the AIM-9P4 as a middle ground that would be far more dodgable due to the shorter range/lower agility but still offer a powerful enough option
whilst that is true, that would make all the Su-25 players cope since the Su-25 either gets R-60, or R-60M. Nothing in between.
The soviet equivelant to the AIM-9P-4, the R-14 missile, was only ever tested on the early MiG-29 prototypes before being cancelled in favor of the R-73.
1 Like
And AB, sadly. I would love to see the ability to keep mouse aim but remove the instructor, or just have them fix it for those aircraft. I might try getting a joystick and taking some aircraft out for a spin in AB, though. Honestly the MA/Full Real control difference needs to be changed, maybe with artifical MA buffs to not screw up aircraft like the Draken.
2 Likes