since US jets will be outperforming in WVR now even more, shouldnt we get something to let us truly excel in BVR? such as the jets you listed with their respective radars
eurofighter typhoon has a very good M-scan radar, compounded with rafale PESA, id say its maybe not 100% necessary but like 85-95% necesary for AESA
F-2 wont be as much of a game changer as itll only really be good because of its AESA radar
not early AESA radars, their AESA radars in general arent good lol
I wouldn’t put it that high, more like 40-50%. The F-15C, F-16C, and F-15C are all already extremely good in BVR. They have fantastic radars, very good flight models, and the best BVR missile in the game.
The Eurofighter will be the only plane that will contest that next patch, but I doubt it would surpass the F-15E in BVR - rather match it.
Edit: If they were to add AESA radars to the US planes it wouldn’t do very much either way. They’re fine with or without them.
if it matches it in BVR, and also exceeds it in WVR by a good margin, then shouldnt E get a better radar to bring back the BVR advantage but let EFT have WVR advantage?
It already will hold the advantage in having potentially double the number of AMRAAM and CMs that work.
I would argue the F-15E is good enough in WVR to not need a full on BVR advantage.
CM/BOL issue will be fixed i think, i believe in you guys to raise hell about it
The Eurofighter should be capable of at least a 6/2 loadout of 120A/B and 9M respectively iirc
We have done so for more than a year. Still nothing.
not compared to a typhoon, j10b, or rafale
Hopefully the 12 missiles load out
What’s up with BOL?
what if, they gave F-15 its histroical BOL, and now a whole chunk of the playerbase has a reason to complain about it too
Nerfed to the ground
I’m curious what variant/Tranche that is for
We’ll have to see, I can see them limiting it to 6x IR and 4x BVR.
But even with 6x BVR loadout, that still gives the F-15s 2x more AMRAAM that is no small advantage in a long range slinging match
yeah, and we can get an advanced eagle if that actually comes down the road
Probably what it would take to get it fixed, but then defo no reason for the F-15 to get AESA with 500+ CMs
Sorta? Personally, I was thinking tags be more international organizations.
Let’s use modern-day Canada for example, it would have 3 tags:
Basically, it won’t be hard to make a line-up with two nations, but as soon as you add a third(or more) they all need to share at least 1 tag. (AKA, you can’t add any non-NATO member commonwealth nation into a NATO line-up and vice versa. so US-UK can be used to build a line-up as they are NATO members but a UK-US-ZA line-up wouldn’t be possible.)
Side note, but certain tags should only be active at certain BRs/ranks(and that varies by nation), I think the highest BR vehicle should dictate what tags are active. Tho this breaks down tags into two types: permanent(things that won’t go away) and temporary(typically this is different alliances for different conflicts).
For example, WW2 Canada(as I used them as an example earlier) would have these tags:
I sorta made an edit to my original post with this exact thing:
