ofc the better aircraft are tiered lower
I’m probably wrong but I think the last tech tree addition of this era was the CL-13B Mk.6? Only 5 years ))
The problem with the hunters is probably down to not being played frequently and the skill level of the people that choose to play them despite their many flaws.
Unfortunately, as is the case for most British aircraft
We’ve had a few additions since then but it has been minor additions that should have been added in 2017 when the meta was in korea. Examples are variants of Hunters or MiGs (J34 and MiG-17PF/Lim-5P come to mind, though J34 was with Sweden and that came later)
Wonder why, could it be because they are overtiered relative to their peers?
My experience playing the F6 was basically flying around and hoping I could third party someone whilst remaining out of the death AoE of all the all-aspect slingers you see at that BR.
More often that not enemies would just totally ignore me because you’re slow or they would die to others before you could reach them. I still like playing it now and then because I enjoy playing trash fire vehicles.
its a run away problem, less people play them, so the average skill level goes up, so their BR goes up/doesn’t go down, which means they are even more niche and the average skill level increases again
2 Likes
It’s a vicious stalemate for sure.
You need more average players to play the vehicle to get its stats to drop for it to get changed, but the vehicle is so bad and has such a poor reputation that nobody wants to play it except for diehards who can work wonders with garbage so it stays where it is so it will never get those players unless it drops first which it won’t.
I’ve started to enjoy it in Sim recently, quite good there, but judgning the distances for the SRAAM is tricky and I find my missiles falling short by a few metres. The hard range limit really sucks. The double ramge bug report would make me play them a lot more than I do currently.
Additionally, Hunter FGA9 would be so much fun to play at 9.0 or 9.3 instead of 9.7
I don’t want to start on how comically bad the SRAAMs are now. OVERWHELMING ARAMAMENT.
In my opion the brits start off bad get great planes in the middle of the TT then you get the jets and they suck again.
yeah… before any BR changes happen, they need to be fixed
There are some good aircraft at higher tiers, but they are usually screwed over by Gaijin and not because they were bad aircraft IRL.
Such as the Sea Harrier FRS1. IRL, during training, they routinely beat F-5Es in 1v1 combat and even beat F-15As rather readily in 2v2 combat. The problem in game is that they are modeled rather wrong due to major game limitations. This results in them being way harder to play than they should be and far more vulnerable.
Just curious, how are they modelled wrong, and what could be changed to make them better?
Flares being too effective, F-5’s in general are like ridiculously cold aircraft.
I don’t think the British flight models were ever going to be competitive post-korean war/early cold war era, however it doesn’t help that the weapons sets that were relied upon are not effective enough in-game.
Things like F-5s (and many others) can drop like 1 flare (after you can only lock them from like 600 metres) and defeat a 9L whilst in full burner, IRL you had to drop burner, reduce engine thrust turn and flare several times and it was not possible to defeat them within about a 30 degree rear aspect radius if you had an afterburner on.
Again though, I don’t think Harriers, tornado’s, hardwing phantoms, jags etc were ever going to be good fighters, just ‘good enough’.
Probably easier to just link this
But mostly heat sig. Harriers should be able to deny rear aspect locks just via a VIFF and flares barely work.
Also 9Ls are way too easy to defeat usually.
Even things like the sooty exhaust from the back of all harriers is technically wrong. Big boost for those at 9.7 where VID is most common.
1 Like
Hunter F.6 used to be OP and is now borderline impossible to Balance.
The 9.0 Hunter would be fine at 8.7 while the 9.3 ones would still be reasonable at 9.0.
Considering we have F-104 at 9.3 and 9.7 still as well as all aspect on SU-25 and A-10 I really don’t see the issue.
The 10.0 Squadron Hunter used to be a bit too good at 9.7 and now competes with some crazy machines just because it has AIM-9J and countermeasures.
1 Like
Its crazy that they still havent fixed SRAAMs
I got killed by one recently when I did not expect it to be a F.6.
In a downtier it can be quite the surprise.
The 9.0 ones with the weaker engines and without missiles should be fair at 8.7.
The 9.3 ones with stronger engines and AIM-9B/E still would not surpass CL-16B Mk.6 which is the best 9.0 period.
CL-13 is not to be moved up in Br considering the compressed state this BR range is in but the Hunter deserves to shine in a similar fashion to the CL-13 I should think.
I just started with the Swiss 9.3 Hunter. It is bearable but far from ideal.
Yeah, Hunter BRs are a mess. Gets even worse in SB:
At 9.7:
Hunter F.58 with 2x Aim-9Ps and CMs
Hunter F6 with 4x SRAAM (would be fine if they fixed SRAAMs)
Hunter FGA9 with 2x Aim-9E
All 3 have the better engineAt 9.3:
J-34 with 2x 9Bs - This is just a Hunter F4 which only really gets more internal fuel over the Hunter F1 from what I can find
At 9.0:
Hunter F6 (France) with 2x Aim-9Bs - Unlike the J-34, the Hunter F6 gets a more powerful engine and the improved wing design, meaning it is superior to the J-34 in pretty much every respect. It also gets drop tanks which neither the J-34 or any of the British Hunters get.
Hunter F1 with no AAMs - Similar performance to the Hunter F4 (J34) but hasnt got any AAMs at all. This could do with being at a lower BR compared to even the J-34, but being the same BR as the Hutner F6 is just insane.
Its a little better in RB, but yeah. They are a total mess right now