For those who would of otherwise voted for my plan had it not had Tiberium power there is an updated version without Tib-power here:
Both new versions
In order:
1)Yes it does matter.
It translates to how many targets a single Firehawk can simultaneously engage. The ability to throw multiple missiles at a single target markedly improves your ability to generate a kill; a pK of 0.5 with one missile jumps to 0.75 with a pair of them.
2) We know nothing about the range of the missiles the Barghest-B carries, how good the seekers are, how susceptible they are to GDI ECM and decoys. I mean, it wasnt that long ago that we cracked Nod ECCM.
Just carrying missiles does not translate to suddenly matching GDI engagement range or missile capability.
3)Turning battle is not likely to be a big part of GDI doctrine. We developed the QAAM for a reason.
High offbore targeting is a thing with modern missiles. You can literally launch a missile over your shoulder at a pursuer you have on radar or EODAS. And regardless the Barghest's ability to sustain 15-20 gravity maneuvers doesnt help when a turn of the century AIM-9 Sidewinder can do 60 gravity maneuvers.
4)You are misreading that.
It doesnt say that the Barghest is better than the Firehawk; it says that the Firehawk no longer meets Air Force requirements to be in the air superiority role. That may be that its kill ratio has dropped against new Nod aircraft and SAMs, or simply that its being outperformed by the Apollo.
1. Please stop short-selling the Barghest. You are aware that their pilots (litteral brains in a jar that they are) are used to trying to evade the QAAM by now, yes? It's still effective, I don't doubt that. But their chances of getting past it are slightly better than they used to be. Add onto that, that a large engagement will see some pilots save missiles at the start to give the considerably more manoeuvrable Barghest pilot less chance to evade and thus a higher chance to kill despite the greater risk to themselves. Not to mention that it's hard to fire off you nice big racks of missiles if the other guy just dumped a pair of missiles in your face.
Care to also say that those missiles aren't all that important when our pilots can no longer almost guarantee a risk-free kill at long range? Or how about the part of the battle they were first mentioned in that noted our own pilots being at a disadvantage, in large part because our doctrine and training doesn't include our pilots evading missiles coming at them from hostile aircraft?
2. Actually, the battles where we have seen them note that they are actually a significant danger to our Firehawks hinting at either only a slightly shorter range or a broadly similar range. As for their ability to get through our ECM, we're trading on relatively even terms, even in an ambush. I would note that not only are we unable to guarantee hits with the QAAM in the same way that we could with older missiles (read the battle text) but I would remind you to not get cocky about "cracking" Nod ECCM. ECM and ECCM are
constantly evolving fields and what we crack today could change entirely a year from now. Especially since Nod knows we're likely to be trying to beat their ECCM, it's a constant fight to keep ahead and Nod already has something of an edge over us in this particular field.
Besides, cracking their ECCM only leaves us knowing how they counter our ECM. It doesn't magically mean we can easily hit their planes, that would require some sort of magic bullet and having cracked Nod ECM.
3. Interestingly, as stated from existing battles, the QAAM is not the magic "I win" button you are hyping it up to be. Something also noted in that battle is that the Firehawks closed to engage in a gunfight, our doctrine likely revolves around our Firehawks dumping missiles at Nod aircraft then mopping up what's left with guns. Apollo doctrine is likely more "boom-and-zoom" given their design. So a turning battle is indeed part of our doctrine is some form.
I am aware of high offbore targeting yet standard doctrine is to dump the racks before closing to a gunfight, which means that by the time a pilot is thinking of running, that means that they aren't likely to have a missile left for lobbing behind them. Funnily enough though, those missiles like the Sidewinder are what our missiles evolved into. Before it was proven that we required the QAAM to be able to hit the Barghest.
4. It does say that. The Arkhangelsk battle proved that getting the drop on the Barghest-Bis is probably one of the few ways that the Firehawk is able to match it in combat, trading at a ratio of 5 Firehawks to 6 Barghests. The Firehawk is now entering the realm of being thoroughly outclassed in the air-superiority role by an aircraft designed specifically to defeat it in combat. It is in fact the case that whilst the Firehawk still serves very well in a close air-support role but is no longer up to fighting on the frontline in an air war. This is something that needs addressed before
any big push into Nod territory. Never mind Karachi, which is sat firmly inside deep Nod territory where we will likely encounter a lot of Barghests in the air along with whatever other horrors are sat in India waiting for us. Then of course we have whatever the hell Varyag can pull off.
I know we'll be using Apollos for both targets but it would strip them from other areas which could let a quick nod air attack do a lot of damage somewhere we've just pulled Apollos from. Let's remember that the Vertigo has also gotten an upgrade.
