the entire lineup including a5c are just extensions of mig19’s largely, and have been used ALOT for grinding.
They are excellent energy fighters etc, but there’s a really stiff line that needs to be drawn around these tiers when you don’t have counter measures, and aren’t a f104…
I was surprised to see a5c pushed so high as it is.
There is no chance this guy isn’t trolling
@主席的白战士
Prove to us that F-18 isn’t under-BR’d.
Prove to us that Mig-23M can even win against F-111C.
Prove any of my post’s statements to be incorrect.
Coming back to this thread after both Q-5s have gone to 10.0.
Still have not seen any arguments for them to be equal to other 10.0 planes, and absolutely nothing from Gaijin. Gaijin needs to explain how they are balanced at 10.0 by looking at comparisons against other similarly BR’ed planes.
How are they 0.3 worse than the J35XS, F-8U-2, or the Mig-21SMT?
The F18 is obviously under BR’d
I’m referring to the fact that you think a 9.3 plane with flares belongs at 10.0 because it’s good at destroying immobile AI targets in air battles, there is no universe in which I can believe that you are a serious person.
@主席的白战士
The Q-5 has been a guaranteed Thunderer for years due to its flight performance.
Who knows, maybe Mig-23BN is the same, but that one does lack flares.
F-105D is the same but lacks flares and is 10.0. Though it does have 2 “useless” at 10.0 AIM-9Es.
If F-105D had flares I’d call for it to be 10.3 - 10.7.
What is this mysterious Q5 flight performance you speak of, it’s a MiG19 at 10.0, you cannot engage most of your contemporaries in a fair fight, and if you get uptiered you might as well J out. Like Pietr said, unless you play like a bot the plane is worthless.
10.7 with just Aim-9Es is way too high. And don’t bring up the F-5s, those are special.
It should be 9.7 in AIR RB, and there is no justification otherwise. Yeah it’s an attacker, but that shouldn’t wholly define it’s BR. It’s abysmal in air to air combat at 10.0, because it lacks missiles (everything else at 10.0+ has them), powerful guns (the 23mms are weak compared to what else is found around that BR), and it’s also quite slow.
It has good flight performance, and it would be 10.0 if it had something like an Aim-9J equivalent. But it doesn’t, so 9.7 is best.
The Q-5L can carry PL-5Bs IRL, and it should get them and move to 10.3 with the A-5C.
I’m not saying it’s bad, but it’s nothing special at its BR, and yes moving it to 10.3 with missiles would be the right move
The Mig-19 is 9.3, it doesn’t have flares or CCIP, it’s objectively worse for earning rewards than Q-5L and Q-5A.
They have identical climb rates, and the Q-5 is slightly worse in the turn due to the older tail.
I think that flares and CCIP does warrant 0.7 BR in improvement when general flight performance is effectively identical.
Ground striking [the Q-5’s purpose] is less reliant on dogfight performance and more about survival performance.
A-5C is 10.7 with Magic 1s, not 10.3.
In no way do flares warrant a 0.7 increase that is an insane take. CCIP doesn’t affect your performance in ARB in any way, a bomb sight won’t help me against other planes. Other attackers around that BR either have heavier loads than the Q5 or much better AA capability.
They have equivalent flight performance, the only difference is flares. Flares should bring it up be 0.3, but the worse A2A capability does not outweigh the benefits of CCIP in an air RB setting.
And that survivability is quite bad since you only have 9 flare pops until you become a 9.3 plane at 10.0.
Precisely
Said this about the draken hence why it ended up so high. Cause folks rocket ran bases with it
I’ve just double checked now, every single attacker I see from 9.7 onwards has better AA capability than the Q5
or both
remmeber A10A and Su25 sit at 10.3 with a boatload of CMs, slower sure but better handling, and all aspect missiles
Even the A7D has better A2A capabilites.
Idk whether I should laugh or cry
I am not insulting you or saying that your perspective is wrong; I am merely providing my perspective.
Flares is why F-5C is 10.7 while T-2 is 9.7 and F-4C is 10.0.
What flare-equipped CCIP 28000 feet per minute supersonic attackers at 10.0 or below have AIM-9Js or R-60s?
Su-17M2 lacks flares, climb rate, and is arguably under-BR’d.
Mirage 5BA lacks CCIP at 10.3.
AJ37 lacks ground-strike capability at 10.3.
Super Etendard lacks climb rate at 10.3.
AMX is 10.7 with 9Ls and lack of climb rate.
G91YS at 9.3 lacks flares and climb rate, 9Bs max.
IAR-93B lacks climb rate and flares at 9.0, and is equipped with 9B equivalent missiles.
Buccaneer lacks climb rate, 9Bs max.
Now, when it comes to strike aircraft whose primary purpose is striking AI ground targets, their survival is what matters.
Thus their survival aspects must be taken into account for BRs. It’s how bombers are BR’d otherwise they’d all be BR 1.0.
With that said what are the survival aspects that warrant a thunderer aircraft be 10.0…
Q-5A/L has the best climb rate in the game, it has flares for those few instances it needs to use them during the climb, and at altitude it can go mach 1.3.
So what at 10.0 and 9.7 is comparable with flares and without missiles, or at most 9Bs?
Buccaneer is 9.3; Why is it not 10.0? Its climb rate once its bombs are gone is 17000 feet per minute.
And you can go down every jet around its BR with its air to air loadout.
@Ion_Protogen
The sole time I ran out of flares I was out of ammo and the 9th missile that I wasn’t prepared for in the match needed flared.
Usually I only need to flare 0 - 2 missiles in an entire match due to my positioning.