Nerf Hunter F58 damage model

I’ve never seen such bullshit damage model, the f-5 and su25’s damage models are normal compared to that thing. I’ve had them tank missiles and return to repair. These things are literally unkillable and to add more salt to the wound they’re more 10.0 than the hunter f6 itself (flares, better engine, better missiles)

1 Like

Swiss quality - no wonder most Hunters that still fly worldwide come from the Swiss AF… ;-)

Joke aside, I never had any issue getting killed in the Mk.58. It never struck me as especially tanky, and I also never had any issue killing them (apart from the anguish to kill them at all, obviously…).

4 Likes

Out of all planes, HUNTER being called names?

It feel like its 2016.

7 Likes

no not any hunter, the f58 only. The fact it’s at a lower BR than the f6 which is worse and has sraams and no flares is also laughable.

That could be explained by saying the F6 is overtiered.

The F58 is fine at 9.7, it trades away speed for good missiles and flares. However, it only has 2 missiles, and it has terrible matchmaking.

2 Likes

The F58 is fine at 9.7, it trades away speed

Speed? Thing has the best acceleration of any subsonic aircraft, even better than many with afterburner. :skull:

The only time I had NO issues dealing with the f58’s damage is when I gun them down with the Mig21 SMT, GSh23L hits like a truck and the only two bullets that land on anything else are strong enough to get it completely obliterated in a fuel explosion.

Nothing wrong with Hunter F58 at its current BR and its overall performance is fine. With performance akin to aircraft like the Harrier Gr3, AV-8C/AV-8A, etc.which are subsonic with better AAMs and CMs.

Now it does certainly outperform the Hunter F6 despite being the exact same BR as the Hunter F58. But instead of nuking the F58 by increasing its BR, the Hunter F6 should probably join the Hunter FGA9 at 9.3. Alternatively they could buff and fix SRAAMs and add fuel tanks to the F6. Which would certainly restore it to an effective 9.7 once again.

(though that BR is absolutely trash currently for any 9.3 or 9.7 because you are guaranteed to be uptiered to 10.3 where F-5C, A-10s, Su-25s, Mig-21s, etc will eat you for breakfast. Though that is as much a compression issue as it is an issue of premium spam)

The only thing I can think of, that might explain why the Hunter F58 “feels” a tad more tanky is that it might have the same reinforced airframe the Hunter FGA9 has. Its basically impossible to wing rip a Hunter FGA9 but you can wing rip a F6 if you really thrash it.

1 Like

Top speed. It is still a subsonic aircraft facing mostly supersonics. Everything can just run away from you easily.

It can’t go up because there is no way it would be .3 below an F-5C or Mig-21smt.

1 Like

I remember those days.

I also dont think hes ever seen aircraft like the Harriers accelerate. Heck, I even think the Buc has a higher acceleration than the Hunters (though of course that is with no bombs)

That.

I talked to a Swiss Hunter pilot about it, and he said it’s impossible to break a Hunter Mk.58: It is aerodynamically or controls-wise not even possible to get to a G load that would damage it. They could do literally anything they wanted with it (except if carrying Mavericks, then aileron movement was restricted).

As to the Mk.58, we could even argue it should get the all-aspect AIM-9P4, because we used this in Switzerland (but then at the time the 9P4 came, Hunters rarely were equipped with Sidewinders, or SIWA’s, as we called them…).

Yeah, it would make sense. The FGA9s reinforced airframe was so that it could carry a greater A2G payload, and as the Swiss used it as a ground attacker, that makes sense.

SRAAM also need their all-aspexts abilities 😜

you really are comparing a hunter to the boats with no ER that are the harriers?