This data that you showed is very interesting, but it shows a reality that gaijin doesn’t know how to deal with, statistics without context are just empty numbers.
Let’s look at the examples, the difference between kd per spawn, per match and the win rate between the EFs.
The 3 are practically the same plane, the only difference is that the German one doesn’t have an irisT and the Italian one is British and has it, and even so, the difference in performance between them is gigantic in their statistics, but there is nothing that justifies these differences.
Another example is the F18s, as the Finnish F18C has better statistics, even though it is a much inferior platform to the American one.
Maybe a buff to the F15’s flight model would be less harmful to the game than implementing a new missile, it just needs to perform its function better.
If all F18C lates had the new Bol Pod like the MLU2, it would already be a change that would make the plane healthier, the implementation of the AIM120C is quite unnecessary.
I think theres more to it but this theory of mine makes the most sense.
Hello
Just to clarify its for sure not a question of if they could carry or them or not. Its very clear Eurofighter could and did.
Currently the Eurofighter and Rafale perform very well in game. So its very much a balance consideration which aircraft get which missiles. However its still being reviewed and decided upon which aircraft will initially receive AIM-120C-5.
Not really. It needs a radar fix more than anything.
Just to be clear, Eurofighter is one of the aircrafts currently being reviewed for whether or not it will receive AIM-120C-5?
One of.
as per usual youve said my exact thoughts
Yes they should get C5 if the F15E is getting it for no reason
good thing there is a reason for f15e to get C5, so by your logic EFT should not
Im proud of you for having basic reading comprehension
Give it to F-16ADF)
Its fun how the team is considering ‘balance’ regarding the introduction of the 120C5s, because they’ve really just cooked an 120A/Bs with an extra secondary booster, same maneuverability and a glimpse of less drag. This turns all the current variants in the game in a bunch of frankenstein missiles that have no relation to any extent of the AIM-120s capabilites other than a booster with fins and a seeker.
They could’ve just handed the original AOA back to the 120A/B, adding some drag and calling it a day, making them a sort of jack of all trades but master of none (as the typical fashion of the US systems spread in game) for medium to close ranges, but the delusion of ranged shots will be enough for their conscience i guess.
Not to mention that without the 30° of AOA, the SLAMRAAM will be a meme that will require a kilometric ton of lead to avoid misses.
The F18 with BOL rails only has GPS/laser guided bombs for air to ground, so the bol rails are pretty sensible for it.
In terms of CAS yes. In terms of A2A?
Im worried it might be a giant hurdle for actually getting BOL fixed and if BOL is fixed. Then 10x Aim-120C5s + 1200+ CMs, is a powerful combo, and the airframe isnt exactly a potato either
The only way we are getting BOL fixed is weapons like IRIS-T on airborne platforms, frankly. If they cared to fix it, they would have as they kept killing Gripen. I’m not sure it really matters if the platform has a lot of rails or not, as long as it’s on any even vaguely effective fighter, it’s only going to be resolved with the introduction of missiles that would require it getting resolved assuming Gaijin model the seekers properly.
I think Python 4’s could justify it and make Israel mains happy, as well as better AIM-9M’s
Win win
Maybe, but aircraft like the Tornado, Viggen and Shar have suffered enough and its annoying as hell on the Typhoon
Forgetting a plane aren’t we 😿
F-14B?
:P
(yes this is a sentence)
Yeah F-14B going through it at 13.0 with no 9M
Haha