9Ms+Bol would move it to 12.0 atleast.
All of the 11.7 ones should be 11.3 in air RB, because they are functionally identical to the 11.3 ones in air modes.
1 Like
And there is a considerable difference in capability when comparing a Jaguar to a Tornado. 9Ms also might be better in air RB at that BR too.
The Jaguar is not a supersonic platform that can carry two bases of bombs [not necessarily for bases as I primarily use the bombs against howitzers] with IR missiles.
If you can show me it going even mach 1.05 on the deck with 1 bases of bombs and IR missiles, I’ll support it moving up to 12.3.
@Ion_Protogen
In reality 12.3 where Bison, Mirage 200D-R1, and GR4 are.
Actually, that is probably doable, though you’d run out of fuel near instantly after dropping the bombs.
You’ve forgotten the Mirage F1C that is a supersonic aircraft that has IRCCM + 1x Base kill of bombs at 12.0. That would be aircraft id use to justify IRCCM on it at 12.0, but would rather see it drop to 11.3 and keep Aim-9Ls (though getting dechirped 9Ls would be fun for the GR1, either that or SRAAMs as an alternative)
The F-1C also can’t go mach 1.05 on the deck.
And in full-load mode the F-1C is worse against soft targets.
I know you’re a sim main so these tactics aren’t as known to you.
In air RB there are two methods of using strike aircraft that can’t dogfight: Race or loiter.
Race means speed, which the British Phantoms do best.
Loiter means max load for the soft targets or bases if available, you go in subsonic because your bomb load is what’s going to grant you a lot of score.
Max bomb load goes to the F-111F specifically, but the F-111s are better with guns than bombs against soft targets.
And Tornado is better than Mig-21Bison and F-1C at the loiter tactic.
Tornado is better than both at the race tactic as well.
That’s why the Tornado starts at 11.3, and the GR4 is 12.3.
The considerable difference being the Jaguar likely being better suited for ARB with it’s smaller size and greater maneuverability. Not sure if I’d agree with the 9M being better at that Br range either. But alas, I’m not arguing for the Tornados at 11.7 to get IRCCM missiles anyways
Eh…
Jaguar is okay at times, but largely a bit of a bus. It lacks any meaningful thrust so is slow to regain any speed. Its RWR is also pretty poor for the BR as well. Id rather fly the Jaguar GR1 at 9.7 over the IS at 11.3. In pretty much every respect the Tornado GR1 beats the IS except for the IRCCM.
The Jaguar GR3A could be rather fun aircraft if we ever get it though with better equipment, engines and even HMS.
9Ms would move it up in BR
It wouldn’t and shouldn’t, people keep on going over how the Tornado GR.1 with AIM-9Ms would have to move up and I simply disagree, the performance of the vehicle itself already warrants a BR of 11.3/11.0 and giving it AIM-9Ms would put it on par with other 11.7 vehicles and give it a fighting chance at its BR.
Lets make a quick comparison between the Tornado GR.1 with AIM-9Ms and the Mirage F1C-200:
Mirage F1C-200
- Has better A2A missiles (Magic 2s, 530Fs and 540Es)
- Is significantly more manoeuvrable
- Has more A2A missiles (5 for the Mirage vs 2 for the Tornado)
- Has a more steady and overall better acceleration iirc
- Has more practical countermeasures
- Will out speed the Tornado to the base (when equipped with bombs)
- Is a overall better vehicle in almost every metric albeit being 0.3 higher in BR (without AIM-9Ms)
Tornado GR.1 + AIM-9Ms
- Has worse A2A missiles (AIM-9Ms)
- Is significantly less manoeuvrable (flies more like a F-104 minus the speed)
- Has less A2A missiles (5 for the Mirage vs 2 for the Tornado)
- Has worse acceleration iirc
- More restrictive countermeasures when compared to the Mirage
- Will NOT out speed the Mirage to the base
- Is a significantly worse vehicle whilst being 0.7 higher like proposed by multiple people here lmfao
If you honestly believe that giving AIM-9Ms to the Tornado GR.1 would warrant a BR any higher than 11.7 then you’re delusional (not targeting anyone), the vehicle with AIM-9Ms is still significantly inferior when compared to the F-4S or Mirage F1C-200, the low quantity of missiles and dogsh*t flight platform acts as a counterweight to the good AIM-9Ms.
People keep on forgetting that a GR.1 with AIM-9Ms is still a obese GR.1
Giving it AIM-9Ms only makes the experience for Tornado GR.1 players at 11.7 more bearable, it’d still be fast food for most vehicles
2 Likes
@TPS_Hydra
F1C is as maneuverable:
The Magic 2s are the only better missiles, which it has the same amount as the Tornado if the F1C decides to bring a base of bombs due to not having the double mount of F1CT.
F1C is slower to bases than Tornado due to lower top speed and acceleration.
F1C has less bomb load.
AIM-9Ms are not worse than Magic 2s, they’re equal.
Same maneuverability.
Tornado has better acceleration to its top speed. 95 seconds vs 110 seconds, easily out-speeding Mirages to bases.
And that’s not even with the meta base bombing loadout for the Tornado.
Zero results. If your post is going to contain lies, don’t make it obvious.
Maybe he is referring to GR.4 in 12 3BR. And difference between GR.4 and GR.1 is two steps.
(+0.6-0.7BR)
Don’t call others a ‘gaslight’ too quickly.
I think he isn’t gaslighting but disagreeing.
Well, maybe further arguing about ‘gaslight or disagreement’ is no more than derailing, so I think I need to ask you to stop politely.
Stay in topic
Love tonka and Discuss about Tonka.
Edit: glad that now we are in topic.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
@TPS_Hydra
We’re right, the Mig-21Bison is different cause it’s fighter only.
Tornado GR4 has 2 AIM-9Ms AND a base load of bombs, and/or a ton of Brimstones, tho the Brimstones are worse.
Neither screenshot cut off the time in the bottom left corner; and the video screenshot was sent.
And yes the F1C was given less fuel and is still slower than the Tornado.
The fact your post accuses Statshark of ragebaiting you is wild.
I’m being kind to you and treating you well, and your posts aren’t…
Your perspectives are valuable to me regardless of how worse your posts treat others.
9Ms don’t belong on a supersonic airframe at 11.7. There’s also the Tornado at 12.3 with more CMs and better engines, so I don’t believe that it would be fine at 11.7. You can also look at the A-10C that also has 9Ms at 11.7, and that certainly isn’t equal to a Tornado with 9Ms.
I’d prefer 9Ms at that BR honestly, and the Mirages radar missiles aren’t the best.
They’re equivalent missiles.
Then why is the 12.3 tornado with 9Ms 12.3? What about the A-10C, or even the Jh-7A with no IRCCM at 12.3? There’s also issues with 9Ls to 9Ms only being an 0.3 BR increase, which is too little for that BR imo.
1 Like
At least in the JH-7A’s case it performs really well and has 2 more good missiles.
And yeah most aircraft at 0.7BR upticks from 9Ms, if not more.
There are instances of OP aircraft with 9Ms only being 0.3 which is an issue.
I respect TPS’s perspectives.
I’m just sharing my own not wanting the first Tornado Britain has to be 12.3 with the Tornado they have.
Before this gets out of hand and the thread closed (this is an important issue that the CMs were supposed to do a thread covering last summer and never did)
Tornado GR1, ASSTA1 and IDS (1995) could get IRCCM and remain at 11.7. Im largely on the fence whether they would be too strong for 11.7 with that loadout or just about right. That being based upon aircraft like the F-111C/F with 6x 9Ls as well as aircraft like the Mig-23MLD with 4x R-60M + 2x R-24T/R being 11.7.
Ultimately though. They dont implicity need their IRCCM missiles and that is a meaningful upgrade for the late variants.
What is without a doubt needed is either an 11.3 BR or justification for them to be 11.7. My personal preference for the GR1 would be BOL, that should be just about enough to justify the 11.7 BR by giving it the extra mass of flares to make use of.
I am though of the strong opinion that for a ground attack aircraft, that should not be using any AAM if flown right (granted that is a luxury largely reserved for ASB at the moment) a lower BR is massiveely more valuable than the better AAMs (I actually hated the Gr7 getting 9Ms and I am so glad we finally have the T.10) . So if given the choice, I would chose being 11.3 over 11.7 with IRCCM and having the constant threat of it being 12.0 without all the buffs the GR4 has.
(I am also on the fence whether the GR4 should be 12.0, but I think id also just prefer Tornado buffs)
After that, Tornado IDSs just need buffs
- Mk103 engine for the GR1
- Radar being modeled
- Combat Thrust
- Completion of FM (if possible)
- BL755 (these could be psuedo-napalm like weapons) (MW-1 and JP233 would just be awesome weapons to add flavour)
1 Like
The issue is the only way for Tornado GR1 to get AIM-9Ms is for it to move up, or all strike aircraft to move down.
Its literal equal in air RB with AIM-9Ms is 12.3.
The multirole aircraft are 12.0 with a lower bomb load or missile capability.
Outside that, general fixes for vehicles is something I always support.
Except its not. GR4 gets 560 more flares, all-aspect MAWS and HMS (just covering the A2A stuff) as well as the better engines (which is relevant at the moment, but shouldnt be) and is just barely worthy of being 12.3. Its rather hard to do much when you have F-18s breathing down your necks, let alone anything from 13.0/13.3.
But im not going to sit here and debate this. I think the GR1 could get Aim-9Ms and not be unreasonably balanced at 11.7, but would rather just keep 9Ls and drop down to 11.3
2 Likes
Naah I don’t think Current Tornado GR.1 with
- half-baked FM
- worthless payload for current ARB meta which only napalm rules.
- outdated Mk.101 engine
Is 12.3 material as 2000DR-1 does.
Even if it gets 9M, still GR.1 will not have BOL and HMS
I prefer being down to 11.3 w/o 9M though.
3 Likes
The engines would matter if it changed that mach 1.07 cruise speed with bombs, but it doesn’t.
It’s primarily 0 - 400kph acceleration boost, which doesn’t beat FG1’s acceleration.
MAWS is primarily air sim, which is your bread and butter, but less useful in air RB.
@Stockholm_Blend
Napalm can’t frag pillboxes, howitzers, and AA with the same level of accuracy.
It should be 11.3 with its current load though.
Ehh. I don’t prefer to hunt those things down because it is nothing but a suicide mission in which I need to rush down to the middle of a missile fight in the middle of a map.
And there will be plenty of F-4S and MiG-23ML drooling to shoot me down after throwing their napalm.
Of course, a top-rank match can’t be won by fragging pillboxes as long as it is nothing but fighter pvp heaven.
:|
Way too high risk but the same or lower rewards.
This is just my preference, though.