Reduced scale models and 3D renders of something doesn’t mean it’s final, the only actual images we have is from the tests on the few EF-2000 airframes of the Luftwaffe used for the project.
The same reason why you disagree so hard anytime someone ask for a buff for the SEPv1/SEPv2.
Some people would actually prefer to have most nations be in a similar range performance wise, while you just want the EFT to be better than most others.
5 Likes
I’m not inherently advocating for meteor, but I don’t think C5 is good enough to compete with MICA EM or R-77-1 that we’ve had to deal with for a year now.
Now we also have to compete with Aim-120D and PL-12A.
So either AIM-120C5 need major buffs (plenty of accepted reports) or they need to give it AIM-120C8s that at least bridge the gap a bit between C5 and what literally everyone else will be using
MICA EMs and R-77-1s are an other story, they’re far better than the AMRAAM in the regards of HOBS and ease of use at close range in general, but the current AESA typhoons can make the C-5s work pretty damn well at range thanks to their superior radar suites and flight performance at high altitude.
Concerning the PL-12A ? It would basically be a slightly worse turning PL-12 with more range, so more or less a C-5 with better turn but mounted on inferior airframes.
Concerning the AIM-120D ? It has already be proven to be barely an upgrade above the C-5 with only slightly better flight pathing and lofting which only copes marginally for the lack of flight performance of US made airframes. The Typhoons will still have a clear advantage over anything at range (bar the EX if added).
and what if the Typhoon is facing F-15EX with 12-16 Aim-120Ds and the Aim-120Ds are actually half decent, even if most of the upgrades it gets are just actioning the accepted bug reports for A/B/C5?
Though the only way US vehicles ever have half decent player stats if they are game breakingly OP
Smin said today that feedback will be followed once AIM-120D is available for testing. I could imagine that the feedback will get the devs to change it for the D3 instead of the base model once the feedback is essentially amounting to “This new addition is pointless”.
Will have to see how the WS-10 influences the J10 performance, it could be quite an impressive jump in terms of kgf.
The J10 afaik doesn’t have a high installed thrust percentage loss, so the new engine might as well provide almost the full 14500kgf fugure it puts out.
I lost faith in Amraams in general. They were really good as they were introduced, but it didn’t took a month until they were changed in a way they almost never hit at ranges >15km. MAybe even >10km. Also very easy to MP, unlike the Russian ones.
So the sooner EF2000 gets Meteor, the better.
They were also a new type of weapon and people didn’t know how to defend them, now that most do and matches end up in close range, of course missiles with better HOBS are meta.
1 Like
Yeah, it took like a month for most people to realise that their aircraft could actually turn rather than just being able to fly in a perfectly straight line whilst ignoring SARH/ARH missiles
Its currently MICA EM and R77 meta. Amraams are just the worst system, by far.
2 Likes
Up until the Strike Eagle released most people were still trying to multipath them, and they were inevitably getting slaughtered by them and the platform carrying em, so I guess a bit more than a singular month.
2 Likes
1 Like
C5’s are pretty bad, A/B’s are not as awful as people make them out to be, but if you limit your playstyle to unloading all of em 40 km’s out, then yeah, you ain’t getting good results.
Imagine WS15 on a J10.
Cmon Xi Jing, make it happen.
1 Like
Already did
They did?
1 Like