Should the f5c get access to other missiles ? I know looking at my posts i might seem like an usa sucker but i genuially want to know what the community might think.
F5c is a fantastic plane still usable today but its missiles are some of the worst of the br. There are many other f5s premiums or tech trees that go into the same if not lower br with better missiles
What do you all think ?
On the historical side, I might want counterproposals to remove flares and AIM-9E from F-5C as long as USAF didn’t have a window of opportunity to mount them when they used F-5C. Sounds evil, though.
On balancing side, [‘shitty’ AIM-9E] were always magical shield of F-5C main, back in the day when it was undertiered. And if we consider NF-5A(France) or F-5A(China), which has an AIM-9J counterpart.
Give them AIM-9J, and removing their magical shield might not be a bad idea.
Would love this tbh doesnt need flare but 2 9j is pretty nice
The f5c would become very bad if it had aim9J but no flares, without either it would be pretty okay, but trading flares for aim9Js would not end well
For what, to send to 11.0?
No please I dont want to fight 10.0 or 9.7 f5c’s
The chinese F5A is 10.7 while having aim9Js
How about 10.3 with only 9B and flareless, which will be historically correct :P
But well, as long as there are some other F-5 that have AIM-9J/P in the same BR, so having 9J wouldn’t be a problem if we completely ignore the historical things, but focus on balance. and will be fairer.
and we will seeing no more of damn ‘it has AIM-9E, noobs’ magic shield.
Key point xdd
I’d say yes, all other f5c/a have aim-9js at 10.7 while f5c has 9e. It’s unfair tbh as the new f5 has 9n and extra cm
Im pretty sure the thai f5A also only gets the aim9e
I don’t see the issue. It’s not particularly fast so most can outrun it, and an F-100D can outturn it.
Unlike other overpowered 10.0/9.7s (e.g Mig-21 or Hunter F.58) the F-5C will lack both missiles and flares.
I’ve never played the F-5C, but I’ve never had issues fighting it either, even in full up tiers.
Wait, what…?
If you’re calling MiG-21(9.7) overpowered
But seeing no issue when F-5C goes down to 10.0/9.7 without flares because it has a POS missile (which is quite common on downtier, while F-5C’s main weaponry is a gun.)
I need to tell that soviet MiG-21 on 9.7BR has R-3S, which has similar manoeuvrability to AIM-9B
And the majority of other jets in a 9BR radius also use similar missiles(AIM-9B equivalents).
I think your pov is quite contradictory this time.
If sending F-5C down to 10.0 will not be a problem because it has neither a missile nor a flare.
Then, MiG-21 in 9.7BR also will not be a problem.
If you think MiG-21 in 9.7BR is overpowered and is a problem, then F-5C on 10.0 will also be a problem.
Mig-21 was superior flight performance, which is why it’s undertiered at 9.7. The F-5C, which has worse flight performance, wouldn’t be undertiered at 10.0.
Having R-3s still makes a pretty big difference, although they’re slightly worse than Aim-9E.
They are equivalent, with the F-5 having an edge in a gunfight. If the Mig-21S is undertiered, so is every other 9.3 and 9.7 plane.
Without flares, it would be fine at 10.0.
That’s what I was saying. It should have flared and missiles removed, and put at 10.0
and fix all the issues regarding its FM, DM, and engine heat. (Read: all really fat nerfs in these departments)
Without flares, its engine heat can stay the same (and when I say stay the same, I mean continue to be calculated like every other plane). The only way to nerf its airframe in a realistic way would require nerfing every jet in warthunder cause the all overperform in the same ways.
Either way, F-5C as is, but with no flares or missiles, would be balanced at 10.0.
No, its massively overperforming and is cooler than the F-117.
It currently overperforms in energy retention and damage model. This is not related to anything war thunder does for gameplay reasons.
No.
The F-117 is as hot, without afterburners, as an after burning jet. Not really a great comparison.
Actually it is. Warthunder has a very basic flight simulation where changing one value effects multiple aspects of flight performance. This means that lowering it’s energy retention would also harm its turnrate, so Gajin has to choose which irl value they want to go with.
It’s better that the F-5C has a realistic turn rate but unrealistic energy retention, than the other way around.
We also saw this with the F-104 nerf, where they increased the drag from the wings to an absolutely absurd amount (literally making them the least efficient wings ever created) so that the F-104’s max G pull would reflect irl documentation.
Counter argument. Yes