If you ignore the F-16C, F-16C-52, F-15C GE, F-18E, and plenty of other unique vehicles, sure…
Like France’s 14.0 is a Mirage 2000, the slowest accelerating jet at 14.0, fast top speed, but slow to get there. Lethargic radar.
Average at best countermeasure count. 6 Advance Medium Range Air-Air MissileS.
They make it work while having an objectively worse tool than F-18C.
Why should we apply a double standard for those of us that play the American tech tree?
Why should we be treated like it’s not our fault when players of other tech trees are doing better with worse aircraft? Mig-29 vs F-15A… like what is this? Even F-14A is as good as Mig-29 if not better…
@CyrusJacob
Please stop trying to derail the topic with bait-personal attacks. Be like myself and tripod, and always stay on topic.
All “top tier” US aircraft are heavily outclassed in their respective BR’s by other vehicles. M2K5F carries 6 MICA’s which makes any other plane at the BR irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that it has a mediocre FM or radar, the MICA is such a superior missile that just by carrying 6 of them the plane becomes the best 14.0. Also it is true that french players on average are better than US ones, but for this topic that doesn’t matter.
It’s playable, not good. It was also made DOA by the F-15C GE receiving MRML. And it was originally added at the same BR as the Rafale and Su-30M2.
Can’t read it now but AIM-120s deserve buffs. It’s just Gaijin thinking that 30 years of AMRAAM versions leads to only worse/similar performance. Go figure.
Being added at the same BR as Rafale and SU-30SM2 is a compression issue. This affects not only US aircraft, but other nations planes too. Mig-29 is a great example of this.
Does AIM-9M make A-10C OP at 11.7?
MICA is a medium range AMRAAM, it’s still defeated in an almost identical manner as all others. It also can’t engage as far away as AIM-120C and R-77-1 carriers. The carrier of the missile matters just as much.
Why else do you think Tornado F3 Late is 13.0 while F-18C, F-15E, and F-16I are 14.0?
Well, besides the total amount of radar missiles.
That’s identical to demanding Mirage 20005F move to 13.3.
F-16C-52 has an infinitely superior radar, equally good BVR capability, is the fastest F-16 ever produced, 120 countermeasures.
There are zero equivalents to F-16C-52 below 14.3 in-game. The closest total equivalent is the J-10C.
At 13.7 there’s the vastly inferior F-16C Block 50, F-16C Block 40, J-10A, F-16AMs, and at least notably inferior Gripen C [not dogfighting 1v1s].
Dogfight? Gripen wins. Air RB? Gripen’s rolling with less kit while being slower.
So I ask everyone. Why should USA be treated differently to all other tech trees?
What makes it that the American tech tree deserves to have aircraft at lower BRs to other tech trees’ equivalents?
In this case, single-engine’d fighters.
Not unique, as it is duplicated in the Israeli tree, and are functionally similar to the modernized Block 15 airframes in the French and Italian tree
Outside the heat limited AESA radar what is unique about it, stores are similar to the Late F-16’s, -120D’s are kinematically worse than the -C5.
Oh wow a radar it can’t make use of, and makes no difference where it would matter since the APG-70 already has TWS.
F/A-18F is literally turning up with this update in the British Tree, it’s not unique since it’s modeled as a Block II airframe anyway and so will share stores.
Anything that actually makes a difference? And besides I’m not really taking about an airframe but a capability, and it’s not like there wouldn’t be options but Gaijin are pretty shit about properly restricting stores or faithfully modeling any particular configuration.
Not talking about France, Sell me on the US Air Tree.
Because there should at least be some point of difference reserved for them, to actually provide reason to utilize the tree instead of playing another and just getting access to the greatest hits for nothing in return.
Can you actually prove that it is significant? I don’t think that T-Scores bare that out, any perceived difference is likely just the Law of Large Numbers at play.
I’d agree, it should be a MiG-23MLA (if that), like real life. But that wouldn’t be fair. Would it.
The F-14A doesn’t even have access to an All Aspect IR missile (it should have going by the specified configuration it trialed them in '76, where as the SAC’s cutoff is mid '77) , it’s IRSTS / TCS, and the thermal signature is massively overblown due to using internal Turbine temperature measurements instead of Inlet air.
Don’t really see what a sub 700kmh max speed CAS plane recieving 9M’s has to do with this topic.
MICA doesnt have the same range as an AIM-120 thats true, but i think you’re forgetting the fact that most of ARB engagements happen within the 15-20KM bubble where pull matters way more over range on modern missiles. There is a reason for Rafale being one of the most dominant planes in the game even though it has a worse radar, FM than something like a EF 2000.
Tornado is way lower than the other AIM-120 carriers because it has a brick of a flight model and less missiles. Again, i don’t understand what you’re trying to prove with this.
Mirage 2000 5F outperforms everything at 14.0 and below.
F-16C B52 is a sidegrade to the F-2A which is already considered a above average 13.7 at best. Compared to something like a J-11B, SU-27SM and as you said too the J-10C this planes does not have the same performance. F-2A has an infinitely better FM with better missiles and its at 13.7, yet the 16C B52 is 14.3 foooor what exactly?
Nobody wants the USA to be treated differently, you’re entirely missing the point of this. People want the AIM-120’s to have similar HOBS’s capability as their counterparts like AAM-4’s or PL-12’s.
A plane should be lowered in BR according to its performance, if the 16C B52 was in the French tree, i’d ask it to be 13.7 the same way.
Under BR’d vehicles exist in every single nation.
These types of vehicles exist in every nation.
Please stop trying to make up arguments for things that aren’t even being talked about here. Nothing here you mentioned has anything to do with the point of this post.
“Fastest F-16 ever produced” doesn’t really mean much when the engine is actually worse than the B50 for normal ARB gameplay/conditions. Same thing as saying F-14A is a better plane just because the TF-30’s have a higher top speed than the F-14B’s engines.
120 to 90 is so heart breaking for me, I was really looking forward to this F-16 and 120D. It having lower counter measure won’t make alot of difference but still would be worse than 120 :(
AIM-120D provides pretty much nothing except 0 drift IOG with the GNSS over the 120C-5. There really was no reason to be excited over it in the first place unfortunately. The only reason to use this plane over the F-16C would be the AESA radar (worst AESA in the game btw) but that isn’t worth the BR increase from 13.7 > 14.3 IMO.
It’s the same exact missile body except for software/seeker changes. There is no way to prove it has better HOBS than the 120C’s. Stuff for that is still classified.
I don’t get why the new F-16 isn’t 14.0, it’s weaker than the already fairly weak J-10C. It also certainly wouldn’t be OP, and I doubt it would be that much better than the hornets.