Well to be fair - the Fulcrum is more of an F-16 counterpart than the Hornet. Similar vintage, similar initial role.
Although arguably a later block F-16 is a far more dangerous opponent (either in terms of A2A or A2G) than a late-model Fulcrum.
1 Like
Name me an “near peer” equivalent PACT aircraft has been used against a near peer since Vietnam.
Holding Mig-29As which were downgraded for export from their original make and grossly out of their prime in quite high regard.
Then again, such would mean that the F-15’s 104 to 0 KDR is accurate since more than 60 of it’s kills are similar vintage Mig-29 export models or better Mig-29s.
3 Likes
I’m not the one posturing.
sure lol
Do you know the difference between you and me?
I do not deny achievements of USA science and technology, while you seem to consume a lot of propaganda claiming that USSR/Russia is in stone age in technology.
1 Like
Fallacy of the extreme.
I didn’t say stone age. I said decades behind NATO. Which is objectively a fact.
Russia cannot make a competitive car, airliner, or electronic device. What other fact explains this other than insufficient technological capability?
3 Likes
US cannot make a competitive airliner either, I guess they’re decade behind Europe lmao.
And it’s a pish argument, F-15 has only ever faced vastly inferior aircraft in every capacity.
CR2 is another example “never lost in combat” until it was given to Ukraine and had to face a peer adversary. F-15s in real combat with a peer nation are going to die
2 Likes
Airliner? might be (still better than Russia)
military aircraft? probably not
Why does it matter what real life technological advantages one millitary bloc has over its enemy at a fixed point in time?
I’ll be the last person to ever support non-western millitary alliances given my demographics mean I’d have a pretty bloody terrible life if I did not live inside the EU with its cultural values and laws.
However:
If one nation has, whether real or imagined, such superior technology that peen-measuring contests claim nothing could ever level the playing field with it…
- Why add it? We can’t balance the Maus so it was removed from the TT and acts as a collector’s novelty piece.
- Why not give it a BR appropriate of this fact?
Vehicles that can meet each other should - if equal BR - have an even fighting chance against one another using the right tactics (that don’t rely excessively on teamwork - ergo, f4f is not viable vs a6m5 zero because it needs thach weave and similar numerical games). It doesn’t matter if they’re years or even decades apart.
Otherwise,
do we want F4F wildcats fighting A6M5 zeros? That’s historically accurate.
do we want F4U-4Bs fighting mig-15s? That’s historically accurate.
do we want PzIvs fighting IS-2s? That’s historically accurate.
Do we want fireflies fighting Tiger IIs? That’s historically accurate.
Nobody other than wunderwaffe-brained people want that.
In that case
why are we obsessing over using warthunder as a “MY FAVORITE PLANE WILL ALWAYS BE SUPERIOR TO YOURS!!!” If it’s so superior, give it a higher BR.
The Mig-15 is infinitely superior to my favorite corsairs. I accept this. My corsair will also never fight Mig-15s unless I uptier it intentionally by some 3.0 BR steps.
1 Like
Boeing orders right now, TODAY, would belie that statement.
1 Like
Eh. This is more about: “Now that Russia doesn’t have any advanced aircraft left IRL how will they compete now and forward?”
Have you read the thread?
It’s people claiming X nation is technologically superior and the other group arguing that such is propaganda and whatnot.
It should be irrelevant to gameplay.
If X is far superior to Y, they should at best meet in a full uptier if not even then.
And yes, this might mean one plane might have nobody to fight taken to its limit.
Which facts prove this statement?
1 Like
And, again, the problem is that as far as “up to date” aircraft goes Russia has nothing left except the Su-57. And that plane, in reality is crap.
Already Russian planes are at a disadvantage to Rafale and Eurofighter, and this is only the first gen models.
We are staring down a situation where Russia will have nothing competitive at top tier.
The situation is only bearable if Gaijin fakes the top tier Russian stuff (which they are doing already) and they are just going to have to fake harder.
IDC honestly. Top tier tanks and planes are just figments of Gaijin’s imagination at this point anyway.
My first comment was essentially summarizing this situation. The problem exists because, when it comes to modern weapons, China and Russia are, in reality, far behind NATO. Unless you assign a cutoff to NATO to the year 2000 and fake the best Russian and Chinese stuff, then you don’t have a competitive top tier for each nation.
It’s just the reality of the current global arms market.
It’s just some Vatnik’s and Pooh Bear loyalists that don’t recognize the situation as thus.
1 Like
Aren’t there countless older NATO planes to add then to keep parity?
There’s whole threads wishing for hornets after all and they’re quite absent.
There’s whole threads wishing for early cold war aircraft as well.
Like, if top of the line modern stuff cannot be reasonably balanced, why not focus on a bit more “Outdated” era that still fits the topgun vibes some people seem to enjoy?
Omg, you are consuming very cheap propaganda…
4 Likes
Come on now they in complete disarray retreating on multiple fronts.
Israel haven’t fought a peer adversary since the 1960s
I suppose you subscribe to the idea of the stealing chips from washing machines…
Russia have plenty to add the Su-30SM, Su-35, Su-35M there are more capable machines that can match US/European platforms are they superior? Probably not but they have powerful radars and good missiles.
6 Likes
Which statement did I make that was false?
Is NATO providing their best stuff to Ukraine?
NO. USA is just clearing out old junk that was going past it’s shelf life or tanks that were state of the art in 2004.
Other NATO nations have only provided previous generation equipment. Not their best stuff.
Russia is using it’s latest equipment except the T-14 and the SU-57, both of which are still “developmental”
Ukraine has destroyed thousands of Russian tanks
Russia has destroyed only a couple dozen NATO tanks (again tanks that are old models by NATO standards) and most of those losses were all in one minefield incident.
When it comes to aircraft, air to air is more limited. However, the F-16’s provided by NATO (again older models than what we make today) is 1-0 vs. Russian aviation. Small sample size, but the best Russian aircraft have proven entirely incapable of achieving any sort of air superiority during the war, let alone air dominanance. This is largely due to, AGAIN, older models of NATO AA, shooting missiles so old they were about to expire.
Ther ONLY country disputing any of the above statements is Russia. And it is established fact that they lie about everything when it comes to the Ukraine war.
1 Like
What are teh publicly available figures for Russian losses during the months of October and November of 2024?
Their worst two months during the whole war.
And we still don’t have the latest F-16’s, the latest Rafale or Eurofighter, or ANY F-22’s or F-35’s.
We also don’t have Any of the F-18’s yet, too include the E/F models.
Gaijin will have to fairy dust Russia to make it competitive. Like they already do with tanks and Ships, and arguably with Russian AAM’s ALREADY.
This is fine. IT’s a game. But only a Vatnik guzzling vodka will think it is at all “realistic”
To be fair, Top Tier tanks and planes are ALREADY as much fantasy as reality.
1 Like
What are the UA losses…like 100? Neither side is confirming losses.
We don’t and they will come to game the Su-35M is as close to a Gen 4.5 as Russia
To say Russia doesn’t have anything that could compete with NATO is just wrong.