MiG-23 in service never carried R-73. Not once. A single prototype MiG-23-98 did.
I mean it wouldn’t stealth is great advantage card however it’s just that advantage you can work around it
Yes however that’s why I’m saying it was used to test the missile same with r77
Please tell me how you work around the F-22 as a gen4.
It’s a grey area, but so long as its at the right BR. Should be fine. It’s an easy filler/premium
Heck, technically SRAAMs never even entered into service but we have 2 aircraft with them (and I hope we get a Hawk with them in the future)
I don’t know what you mean in game or in real life?
either but that guy is talking about irl
It is not historically accurate to my knowledge. The F4E and the F4F ICE did have HUDs as far as I am aware.
Also the FA2 is 13.0…it has a day where it fights in full down tiers and against things that do not have any ARH missiles.
So it’s like every other MAWS that is in-game. The GR.7 isn’t artificially being held back.
So should I be comparing the F4F ICE to the F-16C? The comparison is still the same…F-16C is better in every way.
So you can respect not being all aspect out of balance…but not the short range?
They have legacy battle ratings and the French Hunter is under-tiered. It should probably be 9.3 BR.
Pretty much every USSR plane below the MiG-29 has poor cockpit situational awareness.
1 Like
Well first of all you can always use terrain to get closer to the enemy target and before you say How are you supposed to see it on the radar you can’t see Stealth aircraft from pretty big distance the problem is locking them
Why the hell would the Hunter ever share a BR with a MiG-19? Why would it raise EVEN HIGHER than its parity aircraft at 8.7 such as the Lim-5? This is why I don’t listen to just about anything anybody in this community (read: entire WT playerbase) says… such uneducated assessments of the game.
And my source for this claim is the my conversation with radar operator during the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia
I was under the impression they never got upgraded HUDs, there was a big push to find information on it, but nothing came about from it I think.
Yes, this is true, which is more than what I was expecting anywhere in the first year. Tornado F3 didnt get a downtier bracket for its first year.
But even still, playing with placeholder HUD and RWR (especially as these are the SAME issues we’ve been asking to be fixed on the FRS1 for the past 2 years) is just frustrating and it puts me off playing it for more than short bursts.
(I know Im not the only Sea Harrier Fan that is put off by these same issues being present on the FA2. I know several british guys that would love to jump into the FA2 or FRS1 in Sim, but wont because of relatively basic issues like the HUDs being placeholder. A few months is one thing, but coming up to 2 years is another. Especially after they got their “bespoke new cockpits” that never fixed the HUDs)
Its being artificially held back compared to IRL. Especially as we were originalyl told in the F-111A update that it couldnt get MAWS because it uses a different MAWS to the F-111A and then 5 months later getting the F-111As MAWS.
Considering the Su-39/Su-25T have passive IRCM at 11.7 the bare minimum the Gr7 can have at 12.7 is its correct, decent MAWS. Especially as it doesnt have radar like the Su-39 has.
All-aspect would result in a major BR increase as you would have no defence at all, but considering aircraft like the Yak-38 exist with R-60s at a lower BR than the Hunter F6/Harrier Gr1 that have better overall performance to the SRAAM. Then giving the SRAAM its proper range would help a lot. Especially as its a hard range as they dont coast and fall out of the sky like other missiles do, instead they self-destruct.
Then so should the Hunter FGA9 at a minimum, 9.7 is kinda insane for it. Maybe even RAF F6 as well. Though that depends on the SRAAM fixes or not.
The MiG-19 is 9.7 BR in Air SB.
Lim-5 is 9.0 BR.
I am saying Hunter can be between those.
1 Like
How does the Yak-38 have better performance than the Hunter F.6 or Harrier GR.1? It’s even less maneuverable and bleeds speed even faster than the GR.1
GR.1 and Yak-38 are both at BRs where their gimmick is being able to shoot short range missiles at flareless jets or get clapped in a dogfight. Personally I would take the GR.1 over the Yak-38 in most situations.
FGA 9 should be 9.3 as well. F.6 with SRAAMs is fine at 9.7BR.
1 Like
You didnt read what I said at all.
I said the Yak-38 has R-60s at 9.3. So the SRAAMs at 9.7 getting a logner range is minimal. Its not like the best missile at that BR range was an Aim-9B.
Obviously I dont consider the Yak-38 = Harrier Gr1/Hunter F6, but at the same time, it does have WAY better missiles at the moment. Especially with how buggy SRAAMs can be when used at very clsoe range, which use to be their main strength.
Increase their max range and fix the close range issues and SRAAMs become a really good missile again in both SB and RB.
This really shouldnt be a thing and those are not unreasonable ranges to be using them. (especially in Sim where the range finder is all you have to judge exact distances)
Really comes down to SRAAM fixes for the F6. SRAAMs are not a big threat these days in their current state. I would prefer SRAAM fixes and it to remain at 9.7 though
1 Like
Mk 48 would be hitting you from the other spawn while Shkval would struggle to reach 10km, that is a significant decrease in capability. Mk 48 is also wire guided+active sonar homing, a definite advantage compared to the Shkval’s inertial guidance and no sonar homing.
This doesn’t even get into the acoustic disadvantage of a very loud supercavitating torpedo.
When did we start talking about sim?
Morvran mainly talks about sim most of the time which is why I considered it relevant.
You were the one who broguht up the A-10C (which is only good in Sim at the moment) and then accused me of being a bad player and complaining all the time that NATO stuff is broken (which a lot of it is)
and yes, I do mostly talk about Sim. ARB is garbage past 6.0 and GRB is bad at any BR imo. Especially at top tier.
But truth is. On average. NATO gear is held back at least 10-20 years and especially when we look at the original topic which is
Su-25SM3 (2018) with KH-38s (2012) vs ADATS (1986)
vs
Apache (1990s) with AGM-114 (1982) or Something like the F-16 (1998) firing AGM-65 (1986) vs Pantsir (2012)
It is very annoying