If it had been a real battlefield with no multi-paths, where we repeatedly cycled between HOT and COLD, I could have agreed with your opinion.
I said the C, not the E.
The E is heavier by ~3 tons due to more fuel required to run the thirstier engines, and the significantly higher empty mass.
Also real life has multipathing and terrain following. High altitude launches reduce multipath effectiveness, especially against non-maneuvering targets.
So 70% fuel on the F-15E is 5 tons heavier than 65% on the C?
If the Su-30 and F-15E had equal competitiveness, Gaijin would have placed them in the same BR bracket. I’m just curious to see how well the Golden Eagle, with its upgraded radar but reduced airframe performance compared to the E variant, will hold its own.
If I’m being honest I kind of prefer the C FM. Now ofc, maybes it’s because I don’t have many mods for the E, but it feels nicer for defensive flying and a more aggressive playstyle
Well, if I had to choose, C is more suited for close combat like the F-16. E just fires off AMRAAMs with its enhanced power. Plus, C has a lower BR.
Unfortunately, this level of weight difference won’t make much of a difference. While it could be a significant factor in a 1-on-1 engagement, considering sustained combat capability, jettisoning fuel and AAMs requires careful consideration.
No it is not.
Plus, the Su-30 carries the R-73. While it can be easily evaded with chaff, having more options is always good. The 9M isn’t suited for close-range combat. That said, the 9X might be a bit too powerful.
I feel like our differing perspectives are causing a disconnect in our conversation. I’m talking about combat effectiveness in actual combat, while you’re discussing individual performance metrics. I’m confident that, based on a comprehensive assessment, the Su-30 holds an advantage over the F-15C/E. And while it’s still unclear, I don’t believe the Golden Eagle will overturn this advantage.
I don’t get why gaijin is so against the AMRAAM being even remotely competitive in the current meta. Like, even just fixing the pull on the C5 would make it instantly better.
3 Likes
Remember the DEV server when C5 came out? Give me that back…
3 Likes
I apologize for bringing this up again, but please let me say this one thing. Multi-path does exist in reality, but it’s not as omnipotent as in games. If such game-like multi-path existed, stealth bombers like the B-2 wouldn’t be necessary, nor would WW HARM missiles. You’d just fly low, dodge all missiles, and drop your bombs. (Well, it’s not quite that simple, but that’s an extreme example.) You’re probably confusing multi-path with terrain masking or sea skimming.
1 Like
Man i hope we get a surprise addition for china…
Even if its not the J-10B/C they could literally C&P a J-11B late give it ever so slightly different engine nozzles and slap an AESA in it and it would be done… no need to change the cockpit or anything, but no i guess we have to wait 2 more months
(PRELIMINARY))))
Lie
yeah this is pretty much the same thing with the AH-64E for the uk would be a super easy copy paste some very minor model changes and boom its done
1 Like
Have ZERO actual gameplay impact.
they arent adding next gen AAMs to aircraft yet they already said such, and if they did 9X would be pretty mid and not really change a whole lot when compared to contemporary AAMs
2 Likes
AESA radar has zero gameplay impact? You sure about that?