Yeah, it’s such a random change. I assume it won’t make it to the final changes. Also, it’s typical of Gaijin to do this to minor nations like Britain and France, while they’ve added vehicles such as the XM246. But no, Falcon with a weak little engine and crammed crew department, that can’t take a hit, is the problem, lol.
2 Likes
the TV seeker on the 65B is nowhere close to good enough above 10.3 on a light fighter.
the 65D or G (any IR seeking maverick) should be standard on the BAE hawks. the 209 is allowed them so why not the 200 when its 99% the exact same plane
Then why not move the T-80UK and T-80U at 11.3 too?
Air Realistic:
Mirage 2000D-R1:
12.3 → 12.0
It has only 2 missiles, requires an external gunpod for gun that sacrifices some flight performance and does not have a fighter radar to appropriately detect targets, should not be 12.3 while F-15As are moved down to 12.7
5 Likes
Foldering the US Hornets before the Tomcats and the AUS Hornets before the Sea Harrier is absolutely braindead
1 Like
whats even funnier is that the 14.0 AUS hornet has the potential to get ASRAAM missiles in the future, which would puch it even higher in BR than the FA2
2 Likes
And when they add the AUS Super Hornet… the efficient research will be with the FA2???
ARB
Mirage 4000: 13.0 => 12.7
With a maximum of 8 IRCCM missiles (Short range), it lacks sufficient competitiveness at 13.0.
6 Likes
probably.
Even though i dont think the RAAF super hornet has ASRAAM capacity, meaning it would also be lower in BR.
unless they add a second RAAF hornet with the jailbroken software to use ASRAAM its going to be a real disaster
ARB
Mirage 2000C-S5: 12.7 → 12.3
Mirage 2000D-RMV: 12.7 → 12.3
Mirage 2000D-R1: 12.3 → 12.0
Mirage 2000 R1 and Mirage 2000 RMV can only carry two IRCCM missiles.
Their effectiveness has been overestimated, so adjustments are needed.
Mirage 2000C S5 currently falls short of the F-15As in terms of performance, so it is appropriate to make adjustments.
4 Likes
GRB
M26 (FR/US) 6.7 > 6.3
M26 isn’t very effective at 6.7. Its armor, firepower, and mobility are all unimpressive and T26E5 is superior in almost every aspect yet shares the same BR so it should be adjusted to 6.3.
3 Likes
So can it’s peers, but without all the downsides.
What reload speed is worth a 7.3 ?
I don’t think my statement is false, I play the F106 a lot and its one of the, if not, the fastest plane for the BR bracket and even I have a difficult time catching up to the Yak28B on the deck. We both max out around mach 1.1 on the deck and I have to climb a bit to gain speed to catch up, yak28b is ridiculous.
yea maybe. Probably a little bit of both issue (Yak28B too low and B-66B way too high)
1 Like
Can’t wait for the new rank IX packs at 100 bucks…
GRB
MEPHISTO: 8.7 > 9.0 and HOT-3 missiles
The current MEPHISTO is not particularly impressive.
HOT-2 is ineffective and easily countered.
So, I request the addition of HOT-3 and an adjustment to 9.0.
2 Likes
We need the Mirages IIIE to go down to the MiG-21s level
Worse overall performance, 3 missiles, Vs 4, trading 2 R3Rs for 1 R530 which can go both ways (Range vs quantity)
Mirage IIIE - 10.7 → 10.3
2 Likes
To add to this for GRB Japan currently has ZERO ground vehicles between 9.7 and 11.7 so it currently is only usable in an 11.7 line up unless you up-tier you 9.7s 3 BR steps, improving the number of ATGMs would make it more viable at the BR it has to be played at anyway and might actually make it a viable CAS option to pair with the Fuji or TT Type 90s.
tbf Im expecting some Indo leopards and Malay PT-91s Soon:tm:
which would be around 10.7-11.0
Vehicle: F-2A ADTW
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.3 → 12.0
Reason: It has no weaponry capable of destroying moving targets, only GNSS-guided bombs.
1 Like