So, I agree that there are some planes (F-16C, JAS-39s, MiG-29SMT) that should not have been introduced yet and the devs probably should have fleshed out the rest of the Cold War before going forward…but the cat is out of the bag. Tech is going to accelerate.
Well considering how unrealible AGM-65D’s are and Mirage2000-5F has similiar capabilites its not much of a big deal in this case.
Real problem is besides USA and France no other nation has similiar safe CAS potential(you can also count British Tornado GR1 with PGM loadout but that thing is a huge flying brick against any proper Sam systems).
The Mirage 2000-5F does not have similar capabilites. Only two things that comes close to the moment are Mirage 2000-5F and JH-7A, the rest is inferior.
And even then, the F16C or D is miles better than both. Considering you have a better airframe and better A2A capabilities while still doing cas.
The Mig-29SMT is not that good, both for CAS and Air Capabilities to be truthfuly honest with you.
Having 2 Nords missiles that can effectively engage and kill from 10km and couple Gbus is pretty effective, not to mention you can always equipped with PGM missiles if you wanna play safe even more(that will reduce your cas capacity but it will be much safer option) and lets not forget DAMOCLES targeting pod makes a huge difference in identfying and finding targets compare to bugged lightning 2 on F-16C.
Both platforms have their own pros and cons.
As for A2A option, Well i didnt thought about that part so yea İ’ll give points to F-16C in that case but unlike F-16C or Mirage2000-5F Barak-2 is only limited to Gbus which makes it less effective against Sam systems.
There is no point in arguing with this “panther2995” guy as he isn’t open for real debate. Guy is just trolling/waste arguing.
Even if you prove him wrong with concrete evidence he is either going to try and argue using logical fallacies or he is going to ignore you being correct.
1 Like
Mavericks can do that from 14-15 KM without much issues. As long as your objective is killing SPAA’s Mavs does this job perfectly.
You do not need to do that at all with the F16C, you can carry 6 mavericks and 2 GBU-24, and keep 1-2 Mavericks for SEAD and they work perfectly on that part.
Good point, though the F16C tpod is bugged.
Grown up and get over it already, you’re acting like a child now.
Ofcourse i’m going to bring awaraness to your trolling even if you don’t like it.
I don’t recognise Panther from other threads, but in this thread his replies/arguments have been perfectly fine and well formulated?
Follow the link and scroll up. He tried to act genuine in that thread too. In reality he wasn’t up for a real debate despite trying to say so.
1 Like
Mavericks are unreliable thats the issue, sure they have better range and gives much safer approach but damage is random even against Spaa’s, tho points for F-16 in this case.
Thats also my point, on paper F-16 has better option in practise it will be the same if your Mavericks works perfectly.
Yea im still waiting for a fix on that case.
İt seems like this issue comes to personal choice, i do like nords more then Mavericks and DAMOCLES targeting pod but one thing true that F-16 has better capabilites on paper and in practise(as long as Mavericks works fine).
1 Like
He’s loves to cry because i used “no one” instead of “majority” word.
He tried to debunk my argument by using that spesific word and kept going until there was nothing left.
Lying in arguments to make them seem more valid is pointless. When we are arguing, I’m going to address lying first and then we can move into the real issue. Instead of you saying “alright you’re correct” and moving on, you doubled down for the span of 20 texts of ignorance and other non sense you weren’t up for a proper debate anymore. You rather spend 20 texts to troll than 1 text to admit to your mistake so we can properly argue about something. Even after that, you were trolling and not open up to debate about your other claims. If you want to debate you have to be ready to own up a mistake instead of acting up.
Either way, regardless of who is wrong over there, I think it’s kind of petty for him to derail conversations in this thread because of old beef somewhere else.
USA has always had an advantage in the sheer amount of ground ordinance it carries, if you’re going for maximum destruction USA is better but in terms of the best A2G weapons and it’s capabilities I think France is really strong.
1 Like
Sorry im not gonna waste my time by reading your long pointless argument, if you cant get over this its your problem not mine.
Also what happened to part where you told me that you were not gonna answer me anymore?
Seems like you cant even stay loyal to your words let alone acting like grown person.
The only derailment issue comes from any other arguing against an exact fact provided with a link. Move on with the knowledge that if you disagree with him, it may not lead to anything constructive.
It is useful information for anyone who is going to “debate” him on anything. What is not good is the pointless spammy replies from both of you. Acknowledge it, move on. I provided the context as you wanted, are you moving on? (don’t complain about derailing if you contribute to it)
+1.
Like you and i explained it comes to personal choices in that case.
Also in context of derailing, we have both of you talking about other A2G weapons when the post is literally made about the smoke visibility of 9M.
What are you even doing? Are you the debate police following him around doing us a huge favour making sure everyone knows about your disagreement? Grow up.
Sure it went slightly off topic for a second, that’s not the end of the world - all threads to that. At least it stems from a discussion regarding top tier jet capabilities which is fundamental in whether or not 9M is appropriate
1 Like