Top tier Air

[Kenlict]

Not here to complain about anything but point out something interesting most people probably don't know. Most top tier air are 1980's to early 2000's. Now this means nothing but its fun to point out in my opinion. The F14 is from 1970, F15 from 1974, and F16 from 1980. All 3 aircraft were developed during the vietnam war due to the huge issue with the Mig 21's dominating the airspace against America's F4 Phantoms. Developed off of physics and mathematics the F15 and F16 were such perfect designs that to this day they are still used and upgraded with better air frames, wings, and weapon systems. Now there are new variations of these afformentioned aircraft which are just upgraded versions of the original keeping the original design but replacing with overall better parts and structure alloys, even radar absorption and deflection in modern variations. I do wonder why the F18 hasnt been added given it was operational in 1983. I know that modern jets probably wont get added like the F22, F35, J22, Su57, and Typhoon. I mean from what I know the top tier is already missile spam to hell and modern jets all having a range of easily 100 nautical miles or more would just be hectic and rarely entering dogfights with the current play style of the game.

[Kenlict]

Oh and going back and checking release dates. the Newest fighter for the Russians is the Su-27 which came out August 1990. Then with the JAS39C being released for service in the Swedish Air Force in 1997, the Chinese J11 in 1998, the Chinese JH-7A in October of 2004, Mirage 2000-5F in 2000.

[Kenlict]

So the newest fighter in War Thunder is from 2004 at the end of the Chinese Air tree.

[xCrossFaith]

The F-18 will come sooner than later

The thing is that yes, top tier is just missile spam, and as you point out, we are using planes designed in the 80's, 90's and 2000's... On maps and game modes designed for vehicles dated around 1945...

Really doesn't matter what they add, it's not going to improve unless the maps and modes get an overhaul

[Kenlict]

Originally posted by xCrossFaith:

The F-18 will come sooner than later

The thing is that yes, top tier is just missile spam, and as you point out, we are using planes designed in the 80's, 90's and 2000's... On maps and game modes designed for vehicles dated around 1945...

Really doesn't matter what they add, it's not going to improve unless the maps and modes get an overhaul

Oh I absolutely agree. If someone somehow got the rights and a team to copy this game and simply add more game modes and objectives they would make a ♥♥♥♥ ton of money. And to be fair to the current devs they have nerfed all the top tier aircraft's BVR capability by a metric ♥♥♥♥ ton opposed to them usually buffing vehicles to their peak performance. Because all the top tier air craft would be able to lock on from where you spawn and shoot without being detected till its almost too late. Like the F14 had a sensor data sharing missile that could lock on 150 miles away with 100% accuracy even being able to connect to satellites. And now the F18 got that concept upgraded with a newer version with a max range of 250 miles relying mainly on satellite data but can use sensor data sharing between over aircraft. It should be pretty much impossible to dodge missiles top tier currently as stealth tech isnt part of the game even though the F15 and F16 both have low stealth capabilities during their time frame. But again it would ruin the game XD

[Kenlict]

Originally posted by xCrossFaith:

The F-18 will come sooner than later

The thing is that yes, top tier is just missile spam, and as you point out, we are using planes designed in the 80's, 90's and 2000's... On maps and game modes designed for vehicles dated around 1945...

Really doesn't matter what they add, it's not going to improve unless the maps and modes get an overhaul

Even though I love modern aircraft I think its for the best that they dont add anything new for a long time as things like the Typhoon and F22 are so incredibly maneuverable I dont think the average player could even push the aircraft their limits making an even bigger skill gap in top tier. Now those modern aircraft would be able to negate the missile spam of top tier because they literally can and have dodged missiles, but as I stated I think the skill gap and controversy of legitimacy around the capabilities of certain aircraft (mainly russian and chinese) would lead to some heat.

[Kenlict]

(Sorry for the long text I love aviation)

For reference to the last point I believe personally that the Su-57 Felon is the same as what happened in the Cold War with the MiG-25 Foxbat. It ended up being way less capable than they claimed only being a heavy interceptor and a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ dogfighter because its airframe was so heavy that its engines and wings had to be huge just to generate enough lift, and its top speed was 2.83 Mach which is very fast but its maneuverability was low compared to dog fighting standards. And the fear mongering around the Foxbat lead to the development of the F15 which ended up being the perfect air superiority fighter of the time back in the 1970's. The F16 was also developed in response to the MiG-21 and MiG-25 as a good interceptor and dogfighter but the F15 was mad for air superiority and later a multi-role platformer. And I believe the Su-57 felon isnt capable of what they claim as proven their radar systems arent up to date which will absolutely hold it back just like the MiG-29 (amazing aircraft btw just old systems) and its huge airframe making mauevers almost impossible given the heavy G forces applied during turns over such a large surface area slowing the aircraft down tremendously (which is probably why they crashed one of the three made when trying to land on their aircraft carrier and overshot lol). But Because of their exsaggeration of the Su-57 there is already two current 6th gen fighter programs in progress in america to replace the F22 and F35 as well as a 6th gen bomber to replace the B2 and the SR72 is test flying next year.

[Tankoslav Tepyatdesyatpyatovich]

Originally posted by Kenlict:

(Sorry for the long text I love aviation)

For reference to the last point I believe personally that the Su-57 Felon is the same as what happened in the Cold War with the MiG-25 Foxbat. It ended up being way less capable than they claimed only being a heavy interceptor and a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ dogfighter because its airframe was so heavy that its engines and wings had to be huge just to generate enough lift, and its top speed was 2.83 Mach which is very fast but its maneuverability was low compared to dog fighting standards. And the fear mongering around the Foxbat lead to the development of the F15 which ended up being the perfect air superiority fighter of the time back in the 1970's. The F16 was also developed in response to the MiG-21 and MiG-25 as a good interceptor and dogfighter but the F15 was mad for air superiority and later a multi-role platformer.

Why do people who use NATO reporting names in regards to MiG-25 and MiG-31 keep judging these two planes by air superiority/multi-role fighters standards? MiG-25 was never intended to be a tool to deal with another fighter, it was basically an idea of ВИ-100 (Высотный истребитель - high altitude fighter, which effectively means an interceptor) finally brought to life after 30 years had passed (the initial propeller aircraft would have likely been designated Pe-1 should it have entered mass production, but it was cancelled, and developments were used to make Pe-2, a plane of the completely different role) - super fast, high flying interceptor to catch any reconnaisance and bomber aircraft an enemy had at the moment and would develop in the nearest future; in 30s, Soviet generals foresaw planes like Tu-2, Ju-288, B-17 or B-29 would appear in the skies and require something to deal with them, and in late 50s they were concerned about B-58, SR-71 and XB-70. Have you played Ki-108, Ki-96 or Pe-3 in their intended interceptor roles (the latter is different from what VI-100 could have become, as it's a loitering interceptor and not so good at big altitude, having enough fuel for hours of patrolling at mid altitude instead)? These only shoot down conventional fighters of their era if those are operated by inexperienced players, should the skills be equal, the heavier interceptors are likely to lose. Then why view conceptually similar MiG-25 and MiG-31 as planes that should be more than 'Don't let those wannabe-astronauts American spies in fast, but bulky titanium birds enter our airspace, and if they do (spoiler: none did it, MiG-25's primary duty was done well), feel free to bring them down'? Because some were sent to the Middle East allies who used them inappropriately, but still managed to defeat a couple of actual fighters of the Israeli Air Force? I just can't understand the logic behind the Westerners always trying to compare 25 and 31 to fighters which weren't designed as interceptors in the first place, and moreover can't understand those guys who crave these to in War Thunder, it seems quite obvious to me the two would be worse than any F-104, with current mission objectives that don't require flying higher than 20 km and intercepting stuff there before time runs out.

[Kenlict]

Originally posted by АГЕНТ КАЛИТКИ:

Originally posted by Kenlict:

(Sorry for the long text I love aviation)

For reference to the last point I believe personally that the Su-57 Felon is the same as what happened in the Cold War with the MiG-25 Foxbat. It ended up being way less capable than they claimed only being a heavy interceptor and a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ dogfighter because its airframe was so heavy that its engines and wings had to be huge just to generate enough lift, and its top speed was 2.83 Mach which is very fast but its maneuverability was low compared to dog fighting standards. And the fear mongering around the Foxbat lead to the development of the F15 which ended up being the perfect air superiority fighter of the time back in the 1970's. The F16 was also developed in response to the MiG-21 and MiG-25 as a good interceptor and dogfighter but the F15 was mad for air superiority and later a multi-role platformer.

Why do people who use NATO reporting names in regards to MiG-25 and MiG-31 keep judging these two planes by air superiority/multi-role fighters standards? MiG-25 was never intended to be a tool to deal with another fighter, it was basically an idea of ВИ-100 (Высотный истребитель - high altitude fighter, which effectively means an interceptor) finally brought to life after 30 years had passed (the initial propeller aircraft would have likely been designated Pe-1 should it have entered mass production, but it was cancelled, and developments were used to make Pe-2, a plane of the completely different role) - super fast, high flying interceptor to catch any reconnaisance and bomber aircraft an enemy had at the moment and would develop in the nearest future; in 30s, Soviet generals foresaw planes like Tu-2, Ju-288, B-17 or B-29 would appear in the skies and require something to deal with them, and in late 50s they were concerned about B-58, SR-71 and XB-70. Have you played Ki-108, Ki-96 or Pe-3 in their intended interceptor roles (the latter is different from what VI-100 could have become, as it's a loitering interceptor and not so good at big altitude, having enough fuel for hours of patrolling at mid altitude instead)? These only shoot down conventional fighters of their era if those are operated by inexperienced players, should the skills be equal, the heavier interceptors are likely to lose. Then why view conceptually similar MiG-25 and MiG-31 as planes that should be more than 'Don't let those wannabe-astronauts American spies in fast, but bulky titanium birds enter our airspace, and if they do (spoiler: none did it, MiG-25's primary duty was done well), feel free to bring them down'? Because some were sent to the Middle East allies who used them inappropriately, but still managed to defeat a couple of actual fighters of the Israeli Air Force? I just can't understand the logic behind the Westerners always trying to compare 25 and 31 to fighters which weren't designed as interceptors in the first place, and moreover can't understand those guys who crave these to in War Thunder, it seems quite obvious to me the two would be worse than any F-104, with current mission objectives that don't require flying higher than 20 km and intercepting stuff there before time runs out.

Ok while you are almost entirely correct in everything you said, the only thing wrong with that is the fact that Russia literally pushed propaganda claiming the MiG-25 was a air superiority fighter that could do amazing maneuvers and have BVR. Yes its real role was as a fast interceptor and it did that job very well, but they pushed the idea that it could dogfight incredibly well. You are not wrong about anything else you said but you gotta look back at the propaganda and fear mongering Russia pushed around the aircraft.