Air RB, JAS-39A (Sweden). 13.0>13.3.
BR 12.7 upwards is in dire need of further decompression. Most aircraft starting from BR 12.7 on up need to be adjusted upward by at least one, if not two, increments- including this one.
1 Like
Air RB, F-16D Barak II (Israel). STAY @ 13.7.
This is an excellent aircraft with very lethal armament and excellent flight performance. It does not need to go down in BR- the BR in this range needs to be decompressed upwards. Nothing 12.3 should have to try and tangle with an F-16 equipped with R-Darters and AIM-9Ms.
2 Likes
Vehicle: Mirage F1C-200
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Simulator
BR Change: 12.0 → 11.7
Reason:
The Mirage F1C-200 is currently overtiered at 12.0 due to critical flaws in its weapon systems, flight performance, and BR compression effects. These limitations make it non-competitive against 12.0-13.0 jets and even underperforming compared to some 11.3-11.7 contemporaries.
1. Missile System Deficiencies
-
Super 530F SARH Missiles:
- Pulse-Doppler Radar Incompatibility: The Cyrano IV radar operates in pulse mode, making Super 530F highly vulnerable to chaff. Even a single chaff deployment can break lock, rendering these missiles unreliable against aware opponents.
- Guidance Logic Flaws: Unlike AIM-7F or R-24R (CW/Pulse-Doppler hybrids), Super 530F lacks speed-gate filtering. This causes frequent loss of tracking against maneuvering targets, even without countermeasures.
- Limited Utility: Players widely consider Super 530F a “trap” due to its high risk of exposing the aircraft during guidance. Most pilots abandon SARH usage, relying solely on Magic 2 missiles.
-
Magic 2 Limitations:
- Quantity & Range: With only two Magic 2 missiles (20G limit, 2km effective range), the F1C-200 is outgunned by contemporaries like the F-4S (6× AIM-7F + 2× AIM-9H) or MiG-23ML (4× R-60M).
- IRCCM Weakness: Magic 2’s flare resistance is inconsistent. Front-aspect shots are easily defeated by flares, forcing pilots to rely on rear-quarter engagements.
2. Flight Performance Disadvantages
-
Engine & Energy Retention:
- Thrust-to-Weight Ratio (0.76): Inferior to the F-4S (0.96) and MiG-23ML (0.85). Sustained climbs or acceleration after maneuvers leave the F1C-200 vulnerable to energy-focused opponents.
- Speed Decay: Instantaneous turn capability is negated by rapid energy loss. Even a single defensive maneuver can bleed 400+ km/h, making recovery impossible against supersonic jets.
-
Radar & Sensor Deficits:
- No PD Mode or ACM Lock: The Cyrano IV radar cannot track targets in ground clutter, forcing pilots to manually scan. This is catastrophic in 12.0+ lobbies dominated by look-down/shoot-down radars.
- Outdated RWR: Missile launch warnings lack directional data and fail to distinguish between radar types (e.g., CW vs. pulse), leaving pilots unable to prioritize threats.
3. BR Compression & Matchmaking Impact
- Pseudo BR of 12.7: With no 12.3 bracket, the F1C-200 consistently faces 12.3-13.0 jets (su33, f14A，su27，j11) where its technological gap becomes insurmountable. At 11.7, it would primarily face 11.0-12.0 aircraft, aligning with its true capabilities.
Conclusion
The Mirage F1C-200’s current BR placement contradicts its actual combat effectiveness. A reduction to 11.7 would mitigate its technological disparity while preserving its niche as a high-speed interceptor with limited BVR capability.
Air RB, F-15 Baz (Israel). 13.0>13.3.
BR 12.7 upwards is in dire need of further decompression. Most aircraft starting from BR 12.7 need to be adjusted upward by at least one, if not two, increments- including this one. It goes up alongside the US and Japanese F-15 variants (per rules, see separate posts).
Already is 11.7 in SB
This is the same for most aircraft at this BR, though unlike the F1C-200 with its magic IIs, equivalents like the Tornado F3’s Aim-9Ls will be defeated by flares even when fired in rear aspect at the target. All IRCCM missiles function poorly in front aspect
It has MTI which works well enough in my experience. It also has an ACM mode.
It’s already at 11.7 and even if it was 12.0, It would still have its own bracket as its not 12.3. So im not sure what this about.
I would advice not using ChatGPT for these posts
It has good speed, a good loadout (though it does have a few limitations of note), a great CM count and a fairly decent radar. For Sim It has an excellent cockpit/HUD. Its only notable weakness is a rather poor RWR (at least compared to more than a few at 11.7/12.0)
11.7 I think is fair for it in SB, but It doesnt need to be 11.7 in RB
2 Likes
Tornado GR.1 (and Tornado IDS (1995) and ASSTA1), Realistic / Simulator Battles, 11.7 > 11.3.
They don’t have anything of advantage in air battles compared to the 11.3 variants. They have the same bad flight model for air combat, same AIM-9L missiles, same cannons which do questionable damage. There is no logical choice in why these tornadoes are set at a higher BR.
It is my understanding that strike aircraft with limited air to air armaments and combat performance should get better armaments compared to the fighters of that BR. For example, they should get all aspect missiles when fighters have rear aspect missiles, IRCCM missiles when fighters have all aspect missiles and good SARH missiles.
At 11.7, all aspect missiles become a common thing among fighters. Mig-23s get up-to 6 all aspect missiles, Thai F-5s and Kfir C2 get Python 3. Mirages get Magic 2 with IRCCM in sim. You face fighters with long range SARH missiles and PD radars just a step above in BR.
Please reduce the BR of these tornadoes to match the 11.3 variants.
Not in air RB, we do not need Magic 2s at 11.7. It’s already 11.7 in sim, and judging by how much it’s spammed there, I wouldn’t call it bad.
35g* and well more than 2km range, but that depends on the launch situation.
1 Magic 2 is worth more than 4 R-60Ms.
-1
1 Like
dude stop using AI without checking.
“magic 2 (20g)”
what the hell?u sure that’s correct?
I have the Turm III and it’s a SL and RP printer lol, great tank. I also think that 8.3 is too low.
Generally agree. I do, however, think a case should be made for- after doing this- raising their BR to 13.0, so long as all the aircraft in that BR range (12.7 on up) also go up by at least one BR increment, if not two. We need to make the decompression happen sooner rather than later.
1 Like
Additionally. out of the 6, the GR1 is arguably the weakest with its Mk101 Engines. This is mitigated partially by the Mk13 bombs, but Id rather take Mk103 engines and just have Mk83s if that was an issue.
People also bring up the PGMs being the other reason why the GR1 should have Mk101 engines, but that argument is even worse given the GR1 also has the weakest Tpod out of the 3 and if it was such an issue, then just give it a higher GRB rating than the other 2 with GBUs.
yeah need to have something like 14.7 and decompress everything from there
The JH7A performs very poorly in Ground Realistic Battles (GRB). Compared to the F16C and Su-34, it lacks competitiveness. If no adjustments are made, its battle rating should be lowered to 11.3 or 11.0
1 Like
Aircraft: Canberra B mk 2
Gamemode: ground RB
Change: 8.3 → 7.7
Reason: No offensive/defensive armament such as seen on IL-28s, prolificity of radar equipped SPAA at 8.7 and differentiation from the B mk 6 which is equipped with 4x centerline 20mm offensive cannons
1 Like
Even with some good SPAA BR changes, Gaijin still gotta nerf a British SPAA. Basically zero reason to spade the AEC AA anymore and should just skip to the Crusader aa mk2. That has double carried ammo, doesn’t need to drive in a wide circle to reposition, and has tracks instead of zero traction wheels.
With recent Naval changes I was expecting to see top tier decompression minimum to 7.3.
7.0 is too cramped right now, and there are ships with vastly different capabilities at the same br… We need Naval decompression. Recent changes allows that.
1 Like
Ground Realistic Battles, F-1
10.0 > 9.7
Would allow Japan to have a somewhat effective indigenous strike aircraft to go with the 9.7 lineup
1 Like
With that being said. Canberra Mk2 has the ability to run 2x 4K bombs which is quite a powerful CAS loadout for the BR. With the drop to 8.0 already, I dont think 7.7 is needed
Agreed. Its a real shame that naval gets so little attention
I still think the kugelblitz should be 6.7 rb to fit in with the tiger 2s is there a reason it isn’t 6.7?
1 Like