I have tried both the multi function menu and my keybind and it’s just stuck on the J-15T for me.
Dev server shenanigans, it’ll be fine in live server.
Hopium atp, wouldn’t be surprised if gaijin messes it up
Would be so sad, J-15T is a plane i really wanna play. It’s really cool.
5 Likes
To reiterate my points:
No, it nor any missile will save top tier for any tech tree, and in this case American.
AIM-120Cs & Ds should get their correct agility.
Dual engine’d fighters are too low in BR at top BRs.
And why is that?
Because I don’t understand the argument here
Please explain your point using relevant evidence as well, not like what you did with Fox-1 datalink
1 Like
P sure hes talking about stuff like the premium/tech tree 13.3 Sukhoi’s, and the F-15A/J/Baz.
Hes right about that.
Those are underbr’d other things rather than being double-engined
You give a single engine fighter the same avionics and kit as them at 13.3 and they’re also going to dominate
what is ECM?
So when we got AMRAAM carriers, F-15C MSIP joined the game alongside Su-27SM, Typhoon, and Rafale.
This is when F-16C was previously a top performer.
So this compression occurred without any filler, because how are you supposed to justify 1.3 BR separation between F-16C and Typhoon at that time?
F-16I, F-16CB52 now, F-2A, and Gripen E weren’t in the game yet.
Su-30MKK, missile powercreep, F-18E, etc also weren’t in the game yet.
So… this compression stayed, and it stayed for long enough that stats show F-15A performing worse than Mig-29G… which is wild, cause F-15A is objectively better.
Su-27 and Mig-29G share the same BR.
F-16CB52 and F-18E share the same BR when they shouldn’t.
And it’s not as if we can have the single-engine’d jets down because then 11.3 will suffer.
That’s why F-16CB52 is in a bad spot.
It’s also why when F-14D gets added, it HAS to be added at 13.3 because F-14B is 13.0, despite F-14D having a potential identical loadout to F-15A.
F-16CB52 is correctly coming in a decompressed state related to other single engine fighters, but 13.0 hasn’t been decompressed yet.
Its at the same br as the gripen E for example
Which is objectively better
The blk 52 should be 14.0, where it may actually perform well
Unless Gaijin gives it more amraams, I do not see it sitting at 14.3
1 Like
Gripen E being better or not is a discussion, but it’s not 14.7 for the same reason: Typhoons, Flankers, and Rafales sit there.
Now, we can argue if Gripen E is as good as Rafale, but the 13.0 compression is causing us to be at 14.7 when we can easily reach 15.3 now, and potentially 15.7.
And I could probably do long math to find a way to justify 16.0, but 15.3 is the minimum we can reach instantly without much research into the matter.
Your timeline is off.
The F-15C MSIP didn’t release alongside the EFT and Rafale, there was a 6 month period between their releases.
The F-16C wasn’t the top performer until these planes released either, the Gripen C was the dominant plane for the 6 months before the F-15C MSIP release.
6 Likes
The timeline is that 6 month span, because that 6 month span was in 2024.
And we’ve had now 6 new updates to add filler, and only 1 or 2 instances of decompression occurred.
Of course it’s range and the overall missile should be buffed, but this is Gaijin. This document, actually a web page from a site i got using the Wayback Machine states that the Aim120D has 50% more range than the C7, with info used from Raytheon and the US DoD
can’t wait for the day of realisation
also also, I think comparing the F-22 FM to a Eurofighter isn’t a good choice, it should have all the drawbacks of TVC which the EFT doesn’t have
AIM-120DoA
9 Likes
Right, but you see, Gaijin sees this and will only read it as “increased battery life time” other than anything else. Just like they see HOBS capability as being able to launch but not hit. Gaijin really wants us to pull a document that specifically states every single technical capability of the missile, except everything about this missile is actually classified.
8 Likes
They want actual values before they actually improve the pull
Simply stating “better HOBS capability” isn’t enough
Obviously Raytheon is known for its marketing lies
8 Likes