It did get better, wasnt even that long ago, then they decided the legacy fighters wer eto go to 8.0 and the F16 etc to 12. 3
further recompressing
, we could get decompression, if we all stopped bickering.
Didn’t realise the milan was faster than 3C’
IIIE is compareable to MiG-21MF/SMT which sit at 10.3.
I’m still confused as to what variant you mean. Switzerland had one C, then S/RS and BS/DS twoseaters…
Well, the Milan was designed specifically for Switzerland… ;-)
For the Swiss Mirage it depends on the variant of course the innitial one would be reasonable at 9.7.
Compare to MiG-21S.
Perhaps 10.0 if AIM-26B turns out to be amazing.
The later variant does depend on the missiles it gets and thankfully does have countrrmeasures.
3E performs better than them in my experience with it.
I know next to nothing about the french air craft designed to go outwith, so if the Milan was designed for the swiss, did something prevent them getting it IRL?
What do u mean.
Even as
@Schindibee
“I’m still confused as to what variant you mean. Switzerland had one C, then S/RS and BS/DS twoseaters…”
How could there be a 9.7/ 10.0 variant when there was only the one mirage 3C variant for the swiss?
Im getting confused af 😂
(Which we sadly then also didn’t get because of our [-----heavily censored-----] politicians…)
Wait u had an a7d ? Or e variant.
I gotta ask is the Milan any good?
I think a Swiss IIIC should be treated as the French one, as it differed little from it: Could carry FALCO’s, but not fire them.
IIIS early (with AIM-9B and E) could be at 10.3, like French IIIE
IIIS late (, what is modelled now; with AIM-9P-3, P-4 and P-5) could be at 11.7 (like Thai F-5E FCU/SCU)
Btw, anyone know if the AIM-9P-3 has a limited all aspect capability?
Just read in my new Swiss Tiger book that during shooting trials in Sweden with the AIM-9P3, they could successfulyl lock and fire also 9P-3’s from frontal aspect!
Read my note on it above…
Both Corsair and Milan were evaluated, Corsair won with a wide margin, but for political reasons it was then decided not to purchase it after all. It should have been called the A-7G, but based on the D… = (
I love it for base bombing in Sim EC.
But if you try to use it as fighter in AB/RB, you’re using it wrong…
IIIC later got upgraded to the IIIC C.70.
IIIC is IIIS and later IIIS C.70.
The later variant got the canards and all aspect missiles as well as countermeasures.
MiG 21MF and SMT easily are on eye level with the IIIE.
Are you sure about that? Afaik J-2201 left service already in 1978, way before the C.70 canards were developped and introduced…
Yeah i seen you mention that it couldn’t fore the FALCO’s.
Due to the canards and counter measures i reckon 10.3 would be its lowest, people sleep on aim9Es a lot but if you use the missile right its still decent enough.
Ngl with the p-5s i could see it going to 12.0, they are IRCCM and as you say 9M equivelant.
Would be a bit daft a mirage to have aim9m equivalent at a lower br than a harrier.
With just p-4s reckon 11.3 of 11.7.
That would of been intersting to see tbh.
No, I mean early, the silver ones without canards and CMS…
Harrier Gr.7 is at 12.3, yes, but has 4 9M’s, and is in general a much more advanced aircraft. Not as fast and no radar though (although Mirage IIS’s TARAN would be utterly useless at that level anyway…
Note A-10C’s have 9M’s at 11.7. Four of them.
A10C barely meets 800 kmph without load, also I seriously believe it should move up in BR.
All the su25’s and A10’s have done since they were added is cause massive compression.
they pushed the mig19 and F104s etc from 10.0 down to 9.3 D: never mind the ones packing all aspects.
bear in mind, you’re comparing a subsonic, heft strike platform, with an incredibly nimble in comparisson air superiority fighter.
The harrier is over Br’d at 12.3 if this gets aim9m equivelants and gets to sit at 11.7
it’s no where near as fast, nor as agile as it should be compared to IRL, Ill try dig up the reports on it but im sure you’ve seen this nonsense come up all the time.
I generally just want stuff to be balanced.
EDIT : just to state, I truly think the 11.0 SU25 with R73s is under BR’d as well.
See why I said im getting confused xD, rightly so with the BR’s you said, realistically the 3E sits at 10.7, if its no CMs, and canards it shouldn’t be as high as the 3E, maybe sit 10.0 as you say with the 3C.
*so many 3C’s 3E’s and 3S’
Personally I hope they “just” give the Mirage the 63/80 (P-3). this would mean it could stay at 10.3.
All aspect and IRCCM would only increase the BR drastically, I guess 11.0 with all-aspect and even higher (I would guess 12.0) with the P-5s. And on that BR it would be very outmatched by other 12.0 with 1. more and better (especially radar) missiles and 2. better flight models.
11.0 would be doable, but I would very much prefer to have it stay at 10.3 with only the 63/80.
Which exact sub variants or airframes were modiefied I do not know.
I only wanted to point out that existing airframes were modified and bring the early IIIS capability into focus by connecting it to IIIC.
I did not mean Mirage IIICS but Mirage IIIS which is of course derived from the C variant.
Especially in game the initial IIIS essentially is a IIIC in practice even if it has AIM-26B instead ofr Matra 530.
I’m talking about getting the single Swiss Mirage IIIC at a Br of 9.7. Having a Mirage III without good missiles at a relatively low Br could be quite fun I think
That is what should have happened with an early Mirage IIIS as it was in service in the 60s and 70s.
It would be similar enough to MiG-21S in capability.
The same should be done to the French IIIC.
