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.
No… it is a rear aspect missile.
3 Likes
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
Yes.
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
3 Likes
only the F1C, and leave the F1CT, then I agree
That isn’t true at all. It’d be fine at 11.0 or 11.3 with magic 1s and 530f
In a dogfight, no, and outside of a dogfight only in endurance, not effectiveness while it has missiles.
1 Like
Sure the missiles other than Magic 2s are hot trash but it has insane CM load rivaling even some higher BR aircrafts. Not on PC right so i might be wrong but doesnt it get more CMs than like F-16C or MiG-29SMT?
The thing is that even at 11.3 the 530F are mostly dead weight, i much rather have the aspides on the J8b, that while thee have radar a is worse than the f1 since it lacks MTI, the missile can actually filter chaff, the 530f on the other hand are stupidly easy to throw off, just a chaff is more than enough most of the times.
Their niche is surprising people because they don’t set off launch RWR warnings. When you use them with this in mind, they do fine.
Still all it takes is a single press on the chaff, and even if they dont get launch warnings they still get the lock warning and even 11.3 they are not a good missile.
Ya, yet still workable if used how I describe, especially at 11.3
The thing is that they only work on a very specific scenario and even on that specific case youre praying on the enemy player to be borderline incompetent, as anywhere else they fell short, also something being “workable” doesnt make it good or decent at 11.3.
The plane would be fine as I said though at 11.3, since its FM is competitive with gen3s (much so), and magic 1s are still good missiles… 530F would also, again, still secure the not that uncommon kill because if you use them as I describe, they DO work.
Make that 11.0, and folder the F1CT with it. The latter can stay at 12.0 with Magic 2s because at least it has a usable rwr
what i don t like about your solution is that it would gate keep the 530F to either the 12.0 br range or hide it beind a paywall if you want to play them at a more favorable br for them. i would love to get an early variants that could feel that gap, but as for now, with only two plane in the tree having a early modele with 530F and magic 1 and 1 modele with magic 2 would feel good enough as for now. I would love to get a third one with only early weapon kit and less flares that would feel more at home in the 10.7 11.0 br range but right now, it won t help to close the gap in the tree as there is right now the dutch F104
1 Like
I regret to inform you that is false, the Magic 1 has superior autopilot values across the board
PL-5B
Magic 1
For reference, lower PID values mean the missile maneuvers more aggressively and efficiently, with higher values causing the missile to use less of it’s G loading and instead choosing to load over a greater period of time, this commonly takes place in the likes of the AIM-54 or other extremely long range AAMs which are artificially limited by their autopilot shortly after launch as a hacky way to elongate their range.
Lower guidance warmup delay, superior track rate, superior maximum launch angle, and a ever so slightly larger seeker FOV, which, due to it’s band preference is a better thing. The only non-band guidance benefit the PL-5B has over the Magic 1 is it’s maximum track angle which is 10 degrees larger.
PL-5B
Magic 1
Both missiles happen to be nearly identical when it comes to band preference, with the only difference being the PL-5B’s minor preference for countermeasures which, incedently is a negative.
If you in any way, shape for form think the current AIM-9J is somehow relevant in modern WT than I don’t think you can be saved sadly. The original 9J before it’s nerfs, maybe, but as it stands right now the J is a worse 9G in every conceivable way and if you somehow think a 18G missile with a vastly inferior seeker is somehow equivalent to a 35G missile that can target aircraft in AB out to 2 miles you need to get your head checked.
2 Likes