I could be wrong because I don’t play ground events. Think I saw the multipliers being lower or am I confusing them with air battles? I’m prob wrong.
Thailand’s F-16A MLU, which is entirely plausible since its been 8 months since the last sub tree.
While missiles such as the AMRAAM, R-77, PL-12, etc can be seen as a major influence on a vehicle’s BR, you also have to keep in mind the performance of said vehicle itself
If it’s something that flies like an F-16 or F-15, 12.3 minimum absolutely makes sense.
Something like the F-111B, where you haven’t a gun, can only rely on anti-bomber weapons, and cannot turn well because god has it out for you, then that’s a case where even 11.7 is being generous
Possible yea.
Though I feel like capability wise, having 6 ARHs vs 8 ARHs isn’t a big deal. Realistically, unless they change multi-pathing, people are going to be probably running 6 AIM-9Ms still.
Not failed tho. LanceR literally uses some of MiG-21-2000 upgrades
1 Like
6 vs 8 is a big deal when it’s a superior BVR airframe.
It’s why Rafale, Typhoon, etc were denied as well despite also being 8 AARH carriers initially.
Im still expecting the Sea Harrier FA2 to be at least 12.3 maybe even 12.7
Whilst it does have a better engine. its flight performance is not dramatically better than the Harrier Gr3 at 9.7 or Sea Harrier FRS1 at 10.7.
Su-39 with R-77 I would imagine would be easily 12.3 as well.
Well EFT sounds to me like Gripen levels of flight performance on top of having those missiles. I can’t speak for the Rafale.
Plus what do other nations have? US surely they won’t add it to the F-16C right now? Older phantoms that can carry it (I’m not familiar to say what can or can’t)?
Just feels like if they’re going for ARH, best to put them on capable gen 4s and up BR them rather than slowly tip-toe into them.
Gaijin’s behavior is to be cautious.
This is how they were with radar missiles, all-aspects, and IRCCM.
There’s currently no evidence they’ll change their behavior.
There there my Israeli Mig 29
1 Like
Ermm m8 you know that line if thinking doesn’t really work with 2024 gaijin.
It may have worked in 2016 but not now.
I’m not sure about that. I think they’ve been accelerating compared to before. Lot of people were skeptical of Gen 4s for December 2022, and even the last update skeptical about F-15s and Su-27s. Heck even ARHs seem a bit ahead when the game modes are in dire need of changes.
It’s likely that since there are technological gaps as nations modernized their air force, the quicker they jump ahead, the more equal the playing field becomes.
1 Like
I was calling gen 4s earlier than many.
Just as I was calling F-15 since Mig-29.
Sure, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a faster pace than what we were expecting the past couple years prior. I think ever since the F-14A things have started to pick up (which is a good thing IMO as these are long awaited iconic aircraft).
1 Like
I like how everyone once again forgot that there is a tree without a single 12.0+ plane. SMH
If there will be anyone getting ARH first it will be them, considering how few has the tree fully researched, they wont break the game if it turns out to be OP since only a handful will have them before gaijin decides on further balancing.
What nation are you talking about
polish***
The one that has a top tier MBT that cant tank even the 3BM42, yet gets constantly nerfed into oblivion; no viable missile AA since its existence; the least played tree by both k2 krabiwe and ts sources.
2020 lockdown income increased their abilities to hire more staff and purchase more contracts.
1 Like
It did lost to elbits proposal, which can justify giving it back to Israel, although all of the above might just be j-7e or kfir plus.
1 Like