Even the A7D has better A2A capabilites.
Idk whether I should laugh or cry
1 Like
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.
What? The super etendard is phenomenal for climbing it can actively bleed out stuff like the F5C and out energy them…
This is talking about survival at ~10.0, not being a fighter.
Super Etendard is better as a fighter than strike aircraft anyway.
All of what you listed are far better than the Q5L in ARB mate tbh in both survivability, fighting capabilities and ground strike
6 Likes
I don’t think that will ever come through to him, pointless conversation
3 Likes
Claiming the super etendard is worse than the q5 is wild tbh
Anything that Alvis claims is a wild take 99% of the time
4 Likes
What? How is this decompression or a simple oh no?
I mean it is technically decompression but its stupid the Q5 is 10.0 while stuff like mig19 sits at 9.3 xD
But Mig-19 can’t get thunder wager with every game this same can’t bomb and avoid all missile with flares .
Well many YouTube videos explaining how to get millions SL so gaijin not like bombers and lower BRs printing SL was obvious something will chance took them years to realise it so now Q-5s will cope like the rest.
I’ve held off commenting here for a bit but that’s kinda funny in away that you say they’ve been making SL due to their low BR but now must suffer with a higher BR yet…
Only the Q-5 Early has really had a low BR as both the Q-5A & Q-5L have had different BR’s throughout the years, iirc the Q-5A was 9.7 for most of its life up until midway last year.
And the Q-5L only just got to 9.3 again just last year, as it was originally a 10.0 aircraft (the A-5C was only 0.3 higher than) & was dropped to 9.7 around a year an a half ago, the Q-5L has only really been a good grinder since the BR change last year.
An hell it was only last year it got its bloody countermeasures as it went down to 9.3, still waiting on missiles now (but ohh no people feared it would dry up A-5C sales if it got AAM’s eyeroll).
1 Like
You seem to be confusing the A5C wirh the Q5L ive yet to see anyone get more than half a base with it in arb…
Now at 10.0 its dead in the water.
I had them last year man and tbh they were good at a2a like s mig19 is .
I wasnt out there printing “millions” of SL with it like the dude above says.