Just talking: Which 10.7?

Game Discussion Simulator Battle
,
1

I’ve got a ton of 10.7s researched, bought (often years ago) and, mostly, sitting there unflown and unspaded. The 10.7 BR seems a ‘significant’ one rather like 9.7. There are quite a few 9.7s and it’s where the first genuine supersonics sit, such as Lightning, MiG-21 and Starfighter - y’know, not just able to nudge M1.0, but able to smash through it and still climb at a phenomenal rate, IR missilesI, v fast in straight lines and run out of fuel before you finish your coffee. Then, aside from the US, there’s little or nothing at 10.0/3 in most TTs (Jag and improved Su-7 at 10.0 for UK, USSR respectively, but no 10.3s and nothing at all for GE, SW, IT). After 10.7 there’s often another jump before much in the way of better aircraft come along, just like post-9.7, so the 10.7s have a lot of utility at nominally higher BR brackets.

Thinking it’s about time to start working on some 10.7s and was thinking the following:

Phantoms

For the US both F-4C & F-4E sit at 10.7 and I initially planned on putting both in a lineup, but on looking at them I see no reason to waste time on the C, as the E offers the same and them some more on top.

The German F-4F looks like a solid choice, with Mavericks for SEAD and the usual shed-load of other bombs for anything you fancy bombing. Genuine multi-role fighter.

For Japan the F-4EJ is similar to the German Phantom. No PGMs, but gets the Sparrows lacking on the F-4F, so still a good multi-role option with a bit more ‘fighter’ and a bit less ‘precision strike.’

MiG-21s

I part-spaded the STM in the USSR tree when it was new, so a simple case of finishing that, as I have all the missiles unlocked.

In the German tree the MF looks an obvious choice, as it offers something different to the Phantom and F-104G. Same goes for the equivalent in the Italian tree.

Starfighters

I had planned to use the F-104G in the Italian tree, but, rather like the US Phantom case, the F-104S simply offers more. If I want a 104G the German version offers more and also adds something to the German 10.7 lineup, so ‘yes’ to German 104G and Italian 104S, but ‘no’ to Italian G.

CAS Specialists

Both A-10A and Su-25 are obvious good options for any EC lineup and add something unique to the US, USSR 10.7 lineups. Easy choice.

British Tree

I’ve got half-way through spading the Harrier FRS.1. The 5 x 1000-lber loadout is just right for base-killing, but once I start work on the Jag GR.1A the Harrier will revert to the pure fighter role. Both of those look obviously useful.

I’m not so sure about the Buccaneer S.2B. Same raw performance as the S.2, which is great at 9.3, but is becoming inadequate at 9.7 when faced with MiG-21s or Starfighters, and by 10.7 everything is that fast and carries much better missiles. The bomb loads are still good at 10.7, but getting 3 LGBs when the Jag already carries 2? Not adding much. The Martels are something different at least. Better CM suite than the S.2. Probably fun to scream through valleys on Afghanistan in dog-sh*t weather and maybe saving it for such missions is the way to spade it. Not a priority, but adds a bit to the UK 10.7 lineup.

Others

The Su-17M2 is a Fitter that finally has decent avionics, so completes a useful lineup for the USSR: Fitter, Fishbed, Frogfoot.

The AMX makes an obviously useful addition to the Italian F-104S and MiG-21MF.

I spaded the J35D way back, but it’s had a fire protection module added sometime, so needs re-spading. Was fun when it was the top tier; no doubt still good.

…

As I said, there are a lot of 10.7s and the above list is by no means all of them, but those are the ones I have ready for use. Any thoughts on the above aircraft or which nations have especially good/bad 10.7 lineups? BTW, not a place to discuss aircraft not at 10.7, but which you think should be moved up/down to 10.7, nor those which are 10.7, but you think shouldn’t be.

1 Like
2

A-10A as THE true CAS specialists. I myself prefer the early variant as the Scene Mag AGM-65B helps identifiying your main danger - SPAAG’s - at long distance, which may be more difficult to achieve with the less magnified “blobs” the 65D’s IIR seekers sees. This I find more important than the difference between AIM-9L capacity.

I don’t like the Su-25 for CAS, as the lack of good fire&forget AGM’s doesn’t work for me. But they’re great base bombers capable of killing 4 bases with 8x incendiary bombs in one sortie!

Don’t also forget the A-6E! Not necessarily for CAS (but can be done too if enemy fighter opposition is not too harsh, as you need altitude…), but good for bases and against ships.

I actually enjoy the Buccaneer S.2B: Good load, targeting pod allowing to fine aim bases for those buggy maps like Afghanistan, ok RWR and also AIM-9L capable. It’s big truck, with some special charm.

Sea Harrier FRS.1 should be fine, the 4x 9L’s of the late variant higher up not really that much of an advantage if you use it for bombing.

Jaguar GR.1a is also fun as base bomber.

Inly have the Brazilian AMX at 11.3, which works well, so the almost identical Italian variant at 10.7 should work equally well as base bomber.

3

A10 is either nightmare CAS or free flying titanium bathtub

4

Nightmare for who?

5

i imagine he’s referring to ground units given the reputation of the aircraft

6

On paper, you are right, its not much better than the Buc S2 but with a much higher BR. But what is rather lovely about it is the radar and RWR. (though the Buc S2 should have the same radar)

The radar is actually very nice to use and whilst its not PD in anyway, it handles low level ground clutter rather well. The RWR is also very good and gives full target ID. The combo give you exceptional situational awarness and if anything, leaves you overall more survivable in SB than the Jaguar Gr1A does (with a bomb load you are barely faster and you burn fuel quite fast so you dont want to sit on reheat all day. Buc rips if you use sit at 100% throttle. so fuel is never an issue). The Buc Also has remarkably good handling once the bombs are away and the 2x 9Ls do give you a bit of hunting power if that is something you are after. I often find the 9Gs of the GR1A more of a dead weight than an actual use in self defence.

So overall I almost prefer the Buc to the Jag at times. (though the Jag could also get target ID/digital RWR, a 2 year old bug report for that) The main reason Id prefer the Jag is the more advanced HUD that allows for more advanced use of CCRP.

Sea Harrier has incredible potential, but my god, they need to hurry up and well… finish it. Rather underpowered at the moment.

1 Like
7

Hehe yeah! I also love the eerie howl of the Bucc’s engine when they spool down…

8

Also who doesnt love its airbrake :P

1 Like
9

Thanks for the replies. Good to hear the Buccaneer S.2B has some useful advantages over the earlier version. I’ve effectively finished the FRS.1(e) now - just the SNEBs that I’ll never use still to get. Made a start then on the Su-25, which doesn’t disappoint when it comes to armament even when stock, but does have a concerning lack of rearward visibility. Unlocked the first of the laser-guided missiles and had a play with them, and I see the point about lack of the stand-off needed for dealing with ground battle SPAAG, which is what I hoped the Su-25 would provide an answer to.

Noticed a couple aircraft in my original list which have been affected by the recent BR changes. The F-4C dropping to 10.3 makes sense and there’s now a good reason to play it, saving the clearly better F-4E for the 10.7 lineup.

The other change I had to look at several times, just to be sure I was seeing it right. I see the Su-17M2 has dropped from 10.7 to 10.0. Yes, 10.0, not 10.3. As far as capability is concerned I still have no worries about taking the M2 at 10.7, whereas I would regard the Su-7BKL, which remains a 10.0, as a bit sub-standard if I still needed it at 10.7. The M2 retains the blistering speed and pretty standard range of Soviet dumb bombs/rockets of the BKL, but adds: the swing wing for better low speed handling; R-60 AAMs in place of no missiles at all; some laser-guided missiles; CCIP/CCRP for bombs, the lack of which was a real handicap in the BKL. All considered, the M2 is a big improvement over the BKL, while being clearly a bit worse than the M4 at 11.0 (M4 gains CM, all-aspect R-60M).

10

Do you mean bases where the bombs refuse to drop with CCRP after you toggled through the ‘select mission target’ options? I always select targets from the map now, which saves faffing through 20+ target points and has, so far, always been accurate enough and the bombs always release. Putting cross-hairs over the target and selecting always works too, but if you’ve had to visually acquire you could almost stick to CCIP.

Very interesting, as that is exactly why I’m in need of something like the A-10. Up to BR 8.7(?) or so the battlefield SPAAG is not too bad - it can kill you, but if you take care of it quickly CAS is possible and rewarding enough. From about 9.0 SPAAG becomes close to insta-death and usually beats bomb/rocket with CCIP. So often you throw away one attacker for each active SPAAG on the battlefield - “Player X kills SPAAG; SPAAG kills Player X,” being a very common sight in the kill feed - before you can start ‘working’ the battlefield.

11

Exactly that.
Yes, the new marking function works well, but I usually prefer some finetuning with the TGP if available (Note: VR player - working the map window quite a bit clumsier and less precise than monitor).

You can already use the A-7D at 10.0, which also has 6x Mav’s. Less-zoom 65A, but still capable of taking care of the SPAAG’s before rolling in with bombs and finishing with the 30mm pods.

12

Will be buying both the A-7s in the May sale, but the A-10 is ahead of them in the TT, so I’ve had it for ages.

For a moment, as I continued spading the Su-17M2, I thought I’d found a similar stand-off, precision capability with the Projector-1 pod and Kh-25/29, but no, the Projector-1 is literally just a laser pointer… like you could buy in ‘Office World’ for some presentation and is by no means what I have in mind when I think, ‘precision, stand-off system.’