Shika wrote:point 1 conflicts with point 2
If the range is standardized how come they're so elusive in your eyes? They just get a second missile off quicker, if you go head to head you will beat it unless it gets both hits. Short range missiles matter absolutely because it means if you get in close you win, if you try to sit back or go head to head from distance it's just a coin toss. MiG wins if both hit, if not, you win
The point is that getting those two missiles off at the same time instead of a 2-3 second delay will save you from flying over enemy ADN, which is a big part of the air game and a huge advantage. Further, "just get a second missile off quicker" isn't really cutting it. Either all planes with such a capability should be allowed to ripple fire or none. All interceptors got that ability, but only one ASF, making it far more effective than its counterparts.
Shika wrote:The Hawk is comparable to the ROK Dragonfly, the American A-6A, AV-6B, and the CF-116. That's if you want to compare it to planes with conventional bombs and not rockets or napalm. If you include those, it is similar to many on both sides
Did you really cite the Dragonfly as a viable plane? LMAO. 600km/h vs. 900km/h. Worse bombs, worse missiles and higher price for that.
The A6-A always flies over the target dropping in a line. A major disadvantage.
What is the AV-6B? I don't know and cannot find such a plane.
CF-116 is worse again. No ECM vs. 10% (pretty significant difference), worse speed and worse turn time (hence longer stay over target). Okay it gets another bomb, but again pays extra for being way less survivable.
Shika wrote:When did I argue against point 5? If you connect 2 missiles on an ASF the MiG-29 is dead, and you could do the same on any ASF. Fire and evac, it's always how it's been done. The MiG-29 just gets 2 missiles off quicker
The speed of missile use is exactly the problem here. It gives you 100% more instant lethality over any other ASF in game. Such a capability should not exist in section as streamlined as planes. Every F&F long-range missiles capable fighter has a two second "reload" before being able to fire the second missile. The same principle should be applied to the Finnish MiG.
Shika wrote:I honestly don't get your argument. We both agreed the MiG-29 needs a tweak, but now you're arguing things that are blatantly false if you take a look at the armory
Please name by blatantly false arguments. If you are hinting on that plane comparison, you should reconsider quite a bit.