More relevant as CAS in GRB than ARB, so it can have a different BR there.
We’re pushing more high power missiles down, decompression is always the answer.
5 Likes
“high power missiles” such as the Aim9J (found on the supersonic fighter T-2 and the harrier AV8S 9.7) and the Aim9G (found on the supersonic Jaguar GR1 and Harrier GR.3)
They are not exactly briming with power, ESPECIALLY when combined with a slow attacker chassis that is the A-7. You have the right mindset of decompression, but im almost CERTAIN even with them moving to 9.7, it will not even be slightly overpowered because its a brick!
1 Like
Yeah, you make great points.
A-7D/E really do be a Harrier GR3 equivalent aircraft at this point.
With A-7K being Sea Harrier Early equivalent.
@MagikWT
High power? AIM-9J/G aren’t high-power. Just don’t give the A-7 your rear.
1 Like
Sounds great in a vaccum, however in Air RB its 16v16, you can’t watch or deal with everyone.
1 Like
I suppose thats fair.
Inadvertently the BR’s shown as suggested are the essentially the same ones they had for a brief two months before seperate BR’s were introduced (although I’m pretty sure the A-7D was 9.7 as well).
An yeah I’ve been pretty annoyed with how the F-5A(G) got a 11.0 BR as afterall the reasoning the A-7K was so high was due to the AIM-9L & lets be honest most players are going to bomb with the F-5 like most fighters at & around the BR, so it’s hilarious to see this dumptruck attacker at 11.3 still.
I had planned to type about it in the BR change thread after misreading the rules but hey they berely listened to suggestions anyway.
1 Like
Good, Rational argument. Its a shame Gaijin will never listen to the common sense argument
2 Likes
It’s good that more people are realizing the A-7 Corsair Battle Ratings in Air Realistic are getting more attention since they added the Thai A-7E Corsair for the Japanese tree.
Unlike the A-10 and Su-25. The A-7 despite having a higher overall top speed and being able to carry more bomb ordinance on its wings are quite literally just subsonic flying speed bleed bricks in the sky that cannot hope to do any kind of defensive maneuvers or air-to-air combat at all without losing so much airspeed to then become easy prey or kills in the Air RB furball meta.
Even the early AV-8/G.R. Harrier strike aircraft are capable of dogfighting better than the A-7s with thrust vectoring and they also can carry only 2 missiles most of the time.
2 Likes
A-7 has a pretty good flight model while Harrier gen1 is among the worst at 9.7.
1 Like
Yes the Harrier, a plane missing around 2 G ITR and STR
takes around a minute longer to climb to X altitude than it should and a whole 30 seconds to long to accelerate to .9 Mach.
The Gr.3 gets a total of 60 CM but has an IR signature of an Imploding Super Nova as Gaijin has modeled that WAY off. Its so High throttling back and pre flaring+hard turn is usually not enough to evade an AIM9G yet alone anything else.
Its also missing tons of its IRL functions and weaponry.
So if anything else the Harriers should go down or get the Massive buffs they need.
The A7s are fine where they are.
Functioning flight model
Guided weapons and lots of other options
good missiles
lots of CMs
Stop the cope.
They are not.
9.7/10.0, 10.0/10.3 and 10.7 would be the best BRs for them, because they are comparable to other planes around those BRs.
The A7D would be best at 10.0, because it is better than the harriers at 9.7.
The A7E would work at 10.0 or 10.3 because it is a minor upgrade to the D.
The A7K should be 10.7, because 11.3 is unreasonable. It would be in a similar spot to the AMX, Shar, or A-10.
That applies to the Av-8s as well.
We don’t need more free kill missiles at 9.3, on platforms that can’t be killed by missiles.
I can say the same thing to you about the harrier.
Just accept that the A7s are overtiered relative to other stuff with similar performance.
3 Likes
Bro i have agreed with everything you have been reporting on the harriers, and they kind of suck right now. BUT. so do the A-7s
they are very comparable to the harriers in performance besides having a much much slower acceleration but higher wing loading and energy retention (but that’s compared to attackers, not fighters)
The A7s ingame are being balanced as if they where a much better platfrom then what they are. They suck and need to go down in BR
The harriers DO ALSO need fixing!
lets make this game great, one change at a time!
Well, the SLUFF is prone to snap wings at the slightest negative G though…
They wouldn’t cause any issues. The missiles they get are all rear-aspect, aside from the event A-7.
There’s planes with the same missiles and better flight performance lower than the A-7, and they don’t cause issues, so moving the A-7s down simply makes sense.
1 Like
I agree that 11.3 on these jets is insane. Unless Shars got their IRL HUD and FM ect. than they would be perfect there.
I think one of the main reasons they are so high is because of AGM-65 and at 10.3 that is not too bad.
The A7D is already at 10.3? 9.7 is basically 10.0 as it almost always sees uptiers. Not sure how much of a difference 10.3-10.0 would be.
I can agree with you on this 2 AIM9L is not enough to be 11.3 however in Ground it should remain 11.3 due to ATG abilities.
The A-7E ( US) should be a top of the line A-7, not the K. Therefore it should also present better weapons than the 7D.
They should give it it’s 9Ls ( which it DID use) and a pair of AGM-65F/Gs ( which it ALSO USED). It wouldn’t be busted at all and could stay at around 10.3/10.7.
As of right now though, the devs don’t give a damn, they’re too busy powercreeping it.
While this topic is up, we need to report missing AGM-62ERDL, AGM-65F and AIM-9L/M on dev.
If the hornet can get them so can this old beauty.
2 Likes
