Im talking about ingame classification being literally useless. F-15E is classified as strike aircraft but its mostly played in A2A role. Milan has kit built around groundstrikes (CCIP, AS-30 Nord, various assortments of bombs and rockets) and should be balanced around that, not because someone classified it as fighter.
F-106A on the other hand has kit built around A2A role, with no groundstrike capability whatsoever.
They fulfill different roles. Milan is worse in A2A role, F-106A is worse in A2G role.
The aircraft’s classification determines its primary role and game balance; the fact that players often fly the F-15E in an A2A role doesn’t change the fact that it is optimized for A2G.
The Milan is primarily an air-to-air fighter, and its battle rating should reflect that, just as the F-15E is optimized for A2G even if players often fly it in an A2A role.
Most of you guys doesn’t even turn to avoid anything when loaded with bombs,… despites ennemy missiles being worse in any point,…
But going the same as you do : shouldn’t the MIRAGE 5F (and not 2000-5F) be at the same BR as Milan does? because at 10.0, the Mirage 5F is overall a worse airframe than Milan, and despite having Magic-1, it doesn’t have flares/chaff as the Milan does.
Milan turns better than Mirage 5F
Ect.Ect.Ect.
What i see in this particular thread is about complainning about the Milan, for the wrong things:
Milan is based on Mirage
and both are Ground attack variants. (Swiss at the time used F-5E Tiger II as air-air fighter, French used Mirage III’s then Mirage F.1’s)
Its a naval fighter, Who’s primary role was defending the fleet, especially from high alt shadowers and not really inteded to be performing all that much ground attack.
Yes, but strike refers to the ability to engage naval targets, most likely with Sea Eagles rather than ground attack which is usually desginated by the G (like say Phantom FG1). But was not the primary role of the aircraft. Also just because it has strike in the title doesnt mean it shouldnt be classed as a fighter. As otherwise should the Typhoon be classed as a strike aircraft as it has Fighter Ground Recon? designation?
in practice it really isn’t, since your kit is so oppressive and your low speed thrust excellent, you never feel in my (limited, so far) experience. You can also save the boosters for that extra punch if you’re vertical for a hail mary shot so it’s actually fairly quick.
Wiki is of course wrong, resp not accurate. Even though some sources call the Mirage Milan a “tactical support aircraft”, that doesn’t mean it was a dedicated strike platform. In the Cold War context, tactical support referred to multirole fighters with some air-to-ground capability, not pure bombers. The Milan was fundamentally a Mirage III derivative with canards designed to improve maneuverability and air combat performance, so its battle rating should reflect its fighter role, not treat it as a ground-attack aircraft.
That’s a just an arbritrary in-game classification, not saying anything about how the Milan plays or what its role is.
if anything, that classification should be changed, and it would be best if that wholye classification system would be completely reworked, as it’s very inhomogeneous, unrealistic and only confuses people…
The Milan was specifically designed as an attack version of the Mirage for the Swiss evaluation of a new attack aircraft. The Milan was one of the two final contenders of that evaluation, and lost to the A-7 Corsair II - which was then also not purchased because of political reasons.
It’s not just wiki, it’s every single source and information on that aircraft that says the same.
That’s not really the point. As a ground-attack aircraft in Air RB, it’s practically useless — the matchmaking constantly puts it into uptiers where it gets shot down before dropping its bombs, or forces it to fly halfway around the map. The only viable way to play it is as a fighter, which is also its primary desiginated role in the game, and its BR should reflect that.
Thats a general issue with attackers in high tier Air RB. This aircraft class is much more suited for Sim EC.
See also Corsair II, Tornado, F-111, Buccaneer, they all face similar issues in Air RB.
No, that was not the primary reason for the Moustaches: They were designed to improve handling especially at low speeds during take off and landing, with the higher weapons load of this attacker. They also improved maneuverability at slow speeds somewhat, but they were (contrary to the “real” canards of the Mirage IIIS C.70 KAWEST 85) not designed with air combat in mind.
That’s not entirely accurate. While the Milan featured modifications like retractable canards to enhance low-speed handling and reduce takeoff distance, these changes were aimed at improving overall flight characteristics, not specifically to convert it into a dedicated ground-attack aircraft. Its primary design intent remained as an air-to-air fighter, and its battle rating should reflect that role.
As always decompression would be a dream come true.
Milan is a strike fighter at worst and with The Six at 9.3 it would indeed be reasonable to have it placed at 9.7.
Of course what is and isn’t reasonable does not necessarily matter.
The only reason F-106 is 9.3 instead of 9.7 is the lackluster AIM-4 Performance.
