I dont think it would make any difference, most things would still have a RWR and chaff. They effectiveness wouldnt increase.
2x Magic Is vs aircraft like the F-4E sligning 4x equal AAMs and you have now lost your only advantage of the Mig-23ML/MLD or the 12.0 fighters you had. In a 1v1 fight against a Mig-23MLD you would have to somehow get onto its tail to fire, all whilst defending against R-60Ms and R-24Rs being fired at you on something more nimble.
the F1C would be miserable at anything above about 10.7 with only Magic 1s
In this though, this is just because France never produced an all-aspect non-IRCCM missile like the Aim-9L or R-60M, so its either them or rear-aspects
Respectfully, Gaijin are the biggest liars in the gaming scene. Nothing they say can ever be taken for fact, and their policy on things change faster than ancient China’s government.
Chaff resistance has been reportedly buffed on missiles like Super 530F. Magic 1 had been buffed overtime. It would do well at 11.3, versus 12.0 where aircrafts have far more countermeasures to do well against Super 530F.
We have sources ready to buff the speed of the Super 530F but there’s no point in reporting it if it’s still remaining at a BR of 12.0 where it can be defeated with relatively more ease.
Still think it would be woefully underpowered vs a Mig-23 or F-4E, let alone the fact it would still face 12.0 and 12.3s like the F3 and F-18 but now without its main defence. Yeah, its rough for it in a full uptier at 12.0, but just sounds like a weaker Tornado IDS at 11.3
I would support it. And I’d perhaps go a step further than that even. Remove both the Magic 2 and Super 530F in exchange for putting it a whole Br lower. Those who wish to use the 530F and Magic 2 can use the F1CT instead - giving it an actual purpose ingame
absolutelyn the FIC200 and the F1CT should not loose the magic 2, I m just asking for the F1C, thus allowing it to have its own identity and to allow the french tt to get a decent fighter at 11.0 11.3 br. Especially now that they are working on a 11.0 line up
what are you all smoking, the f1c has good flight performance for 11.3, we must play very differently because you can energy fight with most 12.0’s and get some firing solutions in there if you take good lines. Sure its not the most agile but youre hella fast and your retention is decent.
I think I haven’t made myself as clear as I thought I did. I’d suggest having the F1C with Magic 1s and R.530/Es at 11.0, making it an “early” F1 of sorts, having the F1C-200 with Super 530Fs at 11.3 without Magic 2s as well and finally having the F1CT at 12.0 and letting it be as it is. Each F1 would have a raison d’etre that way
Magic 1s are 9L equivalents, Magic 2s are 9M equivalents, if 9Ls can be given to lower BR aircraft without them becoming garbage with inferior performance, so can the F1C.
Magic 1 were considered slightly superior to the Aim-9G by the RN prior to the Falklands but when the Argentines found out the SHars had 9Ls they avoided A2A combat at all cost.
9L slaps the living hell out of magic 1.
The problem is that France has no Aim-9L/R-60M equivalent
This would make it worse than the F-4E/F in almost every metric (except radar because MTI pog) since the 530Fs are pretty much useless in RB and its ordnance is meh. It would barely be an improvement over the Mirage IIIE and the J-7Ds would easily prey on them.
Yet as the best rear aspect seeker in game to the point that it can be reliably used as an all aspect missile against most targets.
Cool IRL performance in combat is not the metric that is adhered to in game, missiles vastly outperform their own counterparts in game.
After using both I would prefer the Magic 1 in most situations due to how comically flare hungry the current 9L is, if I had the option of the R-60M over both I would take it.
It isnt… that title goes for the pl5b, and even then, it doesnt make it an “equivalent” to the aim 9L, it is just a better aim 9J due to being more maneuverable, but at the end of the day is an equivalent to other