What after SU-25T? Viggen vs Harrier vs A-10C vs M2000C

Guys, thank you so much for advice. I would consider JF-17 as my first choice, but it is just too expensive for me. What a great timing for the free month! I can try Hornet, Viper and Harrier for free and ultimately decide which one I will keep :) But I am leaning towards Hornet as I only want to buy one aircraft and be able to play as many scenarios as possible.

I can't really comment on multiplayer because I don't do that.

 

 

But I think the Viggen is portrayed in a way that it is very limited.

I disagree with that.

Clearly the aircraft concept is centered on well-planned interdiction strike missions, but that doesn't mean it can't be used otherwise.

 

 

Personally really like the Viggen. It is very, very fast. In my opinion it feels by far the fastest of all the jets in DCS during very low level missions in the Caucasus valleys... :pilotfly:

 

 

I also like the fact that it is not FBW. It feels like real flying compared to F-18 computer game flying. ;)

 

 

I also like the cockpit lay-out. For me it is the only truly European fast jet in DCS: it has metric gauges but contrary to Soviet planes, they are logically and ergonomically ordered. (to be fair: the Albatros has that as well).

 

 

All in all, the Viggen and the Albatros are my favourite aircraft in DCS.

 

 

The Hornet may be more capable (except at low-level interdiction missions I think), it's also more modern and has a larger choice of weapons. I do find it hard to overlook the FBW style flying which I really don't enjoy.

So I tried F/A 18 and here are my first impressions. Harpoons are not anti-ship missiles, because they do not damage ships. Like, one KH58U deals more damage than 4 harpoons. Am I doing something wrong or it is supposed to take like 30 harpoons to take down a ship?? Also, I am not enjoying FBW, but please can someone confirm that low damage and if it will ever be fixed? Also am I supposed to set up each missile separately??? :-O

 

I hate to compare Hornet with Frogfoot, but come on. Frogfoot takes no setup, just hit air to ground mode, turn on fantasmagoria pod, tag the ship, get within the range and fire 6 missiles that will take at least 30-40% off carrier HP. All of them will hit if not shot down. Then fly closer, turn on shkval, laser on, and fire remaining two S-25L to cripple the ship. So much damage with so little setup.

 

Hornet requires like 5 minutes of setting up four missiles separately, I have to release them just in the general direction of the ships hoping they will manage to target at least SOME ship, then observe as they are flying a little off and miss the ships overall. Okay, rearm, go again. This time, I account for the movement of the ships, set up correct heading, set up all missiles again, get within reasonable range and fire four missiles. That carrier gonna be sunk soon. 3 out of 4 missiles hit the carrier. 6% damage.

Edited April 20, 2020 by chnapo
further information on topic

Okay guys, update. I am very disappointed in damage that harpoons deal to ships. I also realized that in MP missions, I actually know most of the enemy positions beforehand. So if I want to attack ships and known positions, Viggen may still be a choice, right? Such a pity that it is not among the free planes, I would love to try it so much. Also, I admit that I may be the faulty part of the hornet, I will try more missions and tutorials, before I stop considering it.

Edited April 21, 2020 by chnapo

I also like the cockpit lay-out. For me it is the only truly European fast jet in DCS: it has metric gauges but contrary to Soviet planes, they are logically and ergonomically ordered. (to be fair: the Albatros has that as well).

 

That is interesting opinion.

 

As while I have opinion that the flying is easier when it is metric gauges instead imperial (and especially based maritime navigation), I somewhat prefer the Su-25A instruments as I can easily fly them at low level in pitch black (limited by not having the terrain avoidance radar) by just instruments as I find it logical and easy to check the various instruments every few second.

 

But with the Viggen, their combination by the instruments is somewhat odd, and get fooled too many times by their instruments direction (like zero is at 6'clock position instead 12'clock position).

 

But I so admire the Viggen HUD symbols and functionality. Truly a low level strike fighter as you don't need to take your eyes away from the HUD like required with any other aircraft.

THAT makes it so awesome to fly as flying with the autopilot using trim to control it and just using HUD allows you to get to the target zone, perform the strike and out without much effort.

 

Thinking about the possibilities that we have when DCS offers ways to fly such aircrafts like Harrier, Viggen, Mirage etc, that there is so much more to enjoy than flying Hornet, Viper or Eagle...

So I tried F/A 18 and here are my first impressions. Harpoons are not anti-ship missiles, because they do not damage ships. Like, one KH58U deals more damage than 4 harpoons. Am I doing something wrong or it is supposed to take like 30 harpoons to take down a ship?? Also, I am not enjoying FBW, but please can someone confirm that low damage and if it will ever be fixed? Also am I supposed to set up each missile separately??? :-O

 

Yes, this is a known issue, but not sure when exactly it'll get fixed.

 

The main issue is the incredibly crude and wonky damage modelling for ships - it's a single health bar with no component level damage modelling and how they sink is very basic as well. I could go into detail but I think you get the gist of it.

 

I hate to compare Hornet with Frogfoot, but come on. Frogfoot takes no setup, just hit air to ground mode, turn on fantasmagoria pod, tag the ship, get within the range and fire 6 missiles that will take at least 30-40% off carrier HP. All of them will hit if not shot down. Then fly closer, turn on shkval, laser on, and fire remaining two S-25L to cripple the ship. So much damage with so little setup.

 

The lack of set-up is because the Su-25T features simplified systems modelling and is not a full-fidelity aircraft. The same isn't true for the Hornet, which is a full-fidelity aircraft and therefore better represents a real Hornet, as opposed to the Su-25T.

 

The Harpoons are WIP and there are reported issues wrt. the damage they do (which is only really a problem due to damage modelling of ships), and it sometimes being wonky wrt. guidance. When the Hornet gets it's AG RADAR (in particular SEA mode), you will find that the targeting process is more equivalent to the Viggen, which is only easier because you get a RADAR that makes it easy, otherwise you'd have to type in approximate coordinates.

 

 

Fun fact:

 

The Harpoon has nearly a 50% larger warhead than the Kh-58, and a 10% larger warhead than the RB-15F of the Viggen, but does a lot less damage in DCS World...

Edited April 23, 2020 by Northstar98

That is an interesting fact. I see that RB-04e in Viggen has even larger warhead, but I get your point. It should definitely deal more damage than it does. I understand that the damage model is very basic, although that should apply to all missiles, right? So basically I will find the same amount of setups in viggen, F16 etc.?

 

EDIT: Also it seems that Viggen can carry only two anti-ship missiles, while Hornet can carry four, so it can technically carry more payload, it just doesn´t work properly.

 

EDIT 2: One more argument pro Viggen is, that as someone already mentioned (and as I tested) Hornet has a REALLY hard time getting into transsonic speeds when carrying air to ground weapons, even on full afterburners, so not THAT fast. Idk how fast Viggen flies when equally armed tho.

 

 

EDIT 3: So discount on Viggen has finished, so it is not an option for me anymore (until the next discount).

Edited April 22, 2020 by chnapo

But with the Viggen, their combination by the instruments is somewhat odd, and get fooled too many times by their instruments direction (like zero is at 6'clock position instead 12'clock position).

 

 

I think that takes just some getting used to.

 

 

I used to drive a Saab 9-3. It also had some strange design choices, like the key locking the gearbox rather than the steering wheel, that nobody copied, but they still made sense.

 

 

EDIT: Also it seems that Viggen can carry only two anti-ship missiles, while Hornet can carry four, so it can technically carry more payload, it just doesn´t work properly.

Correct. In the real world, the Harpoon is the most common Western anti-ship missile, including ship-ship missiles. If it's the primary ship-ship weapon, where weight and size are not really considerations, then it must be plenty capable IRL.

 

 

The question however is how relevant it is in DCS. One aircraft vs four ships seems a bit stupid. It's not about how many ships one aircraft can sink, it's about how he can sink one and still survive.

 

 

I'm really looking forward to the Arleigh Burke class destroyer that will be included in the Supercarrier pack.

 

 

 

EDIT 2: One more argument pro Viggen is, that as someone already mentioned (and as I tested) Hornet has a REALLY hard time getting into transsonic speeds when carrying air to ground weapons, even on full afterburners, so not THAT fast. Idk how fast Viggen flies when equally armed tho.

I'll have a look and see how fast it can be fully loaded. Maybe tomorrow if I have some time...

 

EDIT 3: So discount on Viggen has finished, so it is not an option for me anymore (until the next discount).

Yeah, now the Viggen is 50% more than the Hornet. That does make it a bit hard to justify...

It also seems that viggen requires much less programming and preparations to fire those anti ship missiles, is that correct?

 

One aircraft vs four ships is of course stupid. My scenario usually is one aircraft vs 8-10 ships... :D because in those MP scenarios, they keep pushing on you from air bases and ships. And there is no way you are going to deffend against that, so then usually I take my SU25T and I just keep shooting at ships, but it takes hours to take them down even if I am not intercepted. So naturally I am looking for ways to shoot them down more efficiently. Even if they are only four. I doubt that 4 harpoons will take down 4 ships even with corrected damage models. If I could take down ONE ship per run, that would be so great. Now I have to do 3 uninterrupted runs per ship, and considering that in 30-40% cases I get intercepted, it is more like 5 runs per ship. Sucks, if the distance is 100+km and the aircraft is subsonic.

 

 

Yeah, I hope they will put it on sale again. But I still consider Hornet because now it is clearly unfinished, I may get it for cheap now, and when they finish it, it will be expensive. I hope they will put viggen on trial at some point so that I can check it out.

It also seems that viggen requires much less programming and preparations to fire those anti ship missiles, is that correct?

 

Yes and no, it depends how you do it.

 

For the RB-04E AShM, it is basically a matter of putting a target point over your target and that's basically it. Super simple.

 

For the more complicated RB-15F (ever so slightly more analogous to Harpoon) the bare minimum you have to do is basically the same as the RB-04E - place a target point over the target, the rest of the waypoints will be generated automatically, and the weapon will use preset parameters. Sometimes however it's necessary to manually place it's waypoints, which again, can be done by moving them around using the RADAR and depending on what you're targeting, it's also sometimes necessary to change the parameters.

 

You change the parameters by inputting a sequence of numbers into the computer, the first 2 relate to an address (a function) and the last 4 the parameters (done with binary).

 

 

For instance the address 81 controls the targeting of the missile (for instance a single ship, a group, and out of the group what ships to go for). Just to give you a couple examples:

• 811000 tells the missile to search for a group of targets (called ATP or assumed target point) and pick 1 out of 3 targets closest to the ATP at random.
  
• 811101 tells the missile to search for a group of targets and out of the group, pick one at random.
  

 

The F/A-18C you can probably work out what to do to change parameters - it's intuitive, with the Viggen you've got to consult a look-up table and input values - it's less intuitive, and less user friendly but once you get the hang of it it isn't that hard.

 

With Hornet I'm expecting that with the SEA mode of the Hornet's RADAR, you'll be able to designate targets like the Viggen, just waiting for it to be implemented.

 

I doubt that 4 harpoons will take down 4 ships even with corrected damage models. If I could take down ONE ship per run, that would be so great. Now I have to do 3 uninterrupted runs per ship, and considering that in 30-40% cases I get intercepted, it is more like 5 runs per ship. Sucks, if the distance is 100+km and the aircraft is subsonic.

 

This is really a topic that deserves greater discussion, but the short-version of it is, A.) it depends on the ship, and B.) you can cripple/mission kill a ship without sinking it outright.

 

Yeah, I hope they will put it on sale again. But I still consider Hornet because now it is clearly unfinished, I may get it for cheap now, and when they finish it, it will be expensive.

 

Not sure about price, but as far as I can tell it is the most multi-role aircraft in DCS.

 

The Viggen, while lower tech, one you figure out the computer it is an absolute blast, very fun to fly.

 

Also just for an FYI, the Viggen is also FBW like the Hornet, but it's an early system, more basic and not as obvious as the Hornet.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Northstar98

The Viggen can go supersonic at low level fairly easily, with pretty much any loadout. With draggy stores like the RB-04 I think the top speed would be Mach 1.15ish, going up to 1.3 when you're clean.

Yeah, I hope they will put it on sale again. But I still consider Hornet because now it is clearly unfinished, I may get it for cheap now, and when they finish it, it will be expensive. I hope they will put viggen on trial at some point so that I can check it out.

Which aircraft are you talking about (the "unfinished" one)?

I am lost a little bit and I am watching this thread among others, as i am trying to figure out status of the various modules and whether they are worth buying at all.

 

I am quite sorry that Viggen is out of the trial - I missed its period in the past event.

 

Worth to note is claim that 13-27th may there should be 50% sale on all DCS products on Steam (and modules are transferable to standalone). But it causes me a headache whether it is true. Because all should mean all, including JF-17 and Tomcat and that turns on warning sign in my head.

I did some tests with regards to low level speed.

 

 

Location: Black Sea

 

Temperature: 20 deg C

Height: 100-200m above sea level

 

 

 

Viggen:

Load-out 95% of max. weight

2x RB-04E

8x M71 bombs

Fuel tank

Max speed 1200 km/h, Mach 0.98

 

 

Load-out:

2x RB-04E

2x RB-74

Max speed 1465 km/h, Mach 1.19

 

 

Clean:

1580 km/h, Mach 1.29

 

 

Hornet:

Load-out 96% of max. weight

2x AIM-9M

4x Mk-83

3x Fuel tank

2x AIM-120C

1115 km/h, Mach 0.91

 

 

Load-out:

2x AIM-9M

2x AGM-84D

1180 km/h, Mach 0.97

 

 

Clean:

1280 km/h, Mach 1.05

 

 

Mirage 2000:

Load-out 100%

2x Magic

2x 2000L

1x 1300L

4x Mk83

90% fuel

1132 km/h, Mach 0.93

 

 

Clean:

1463 km/h, Mach 1.21

 

 

So in terms of speed, it's really clear. The Viggen is amazing at low-level flying, even with a realistic anti-ship load she's much faster than a clean Hornet. The Hornet is kind of slow, but it does carry the biggest load. The Mirage is decently fast, but putting even a smallish load hampers performance a lot.

i am trying to figure out status of the various modules and whether they are worth buying at all.

 

 

That's not that difficult. With ED modules, Early Access means it's not finished, but in terms of bugs and in terms of content. Stuff may be missing but will be added sooner or later.

 

 

 

Not-early-access means it's finished, complete, done. As far as I can tell, the ED modules that I fly a lot (Albatros and MiG-15) have been very stable, with little to no changes (for better or worse).

 

 

 

With 3rd party modules, it's a bit more complicated, and it seems every developer has it's own way of dealing with things.

That's not that difficult. With ED modules, Early Access means it's not finished, but in terms of bugs and in terms of content. Stuff may be missing but will be added sooner or later.

 

 

 

Not-early-access means it's finished, complete, done. As far as I can tell, the ED modules that I fly a lot (Albatros and MiG-15) have been very stable, with little to no changes (for better or worse).

 

 

 

With 3rd party modules, it's a bit more complicated, and it seems every developer has it's own way of dealing with things.

 

That is a reasonable definition , but unfortunately , it is really whatever ED says it is on a given day , as Hornet drivers will attest .

Which aircraft are you talking about (the "unfinished" one)?

I am lost a little bit and I am watching this thread among others, as i am trying to figure out status of the various modules and whether they are worth buying at all.

 

I am quite sorry that Viggen is out of the trial - I missed its period in the past event.

 

 

I consider Hornet ( F/A18 ) unfihished because harpoon missiles deal very low damage to the ships. Unfortunately, afaik, Viggen wasn´t part of the past event, it wasn´t on trial, I was waiting for it, so I would notice.

 

 

EDIT: So it seems that it is early access, so there is more unfinished stuff.

Edited April 24, 2020 by chnapo

That's not that difficult. With ED modules, Early Access means it's not finished, but in terms of bugs and in terms of content. Stuff may be missing but will be added sooner or later.

 

Not-early-access means it's finished, complete, done. As far as I can tell, the ED modules that I fly a lot (Albatros and MiG-15) have been very stable, with little to no changes (for better or worse).

 

With 3rd party modules, it's a bit more complicated, and it seems every developer has it's own way of dealing with things.

Yes but old "tubes" are easier to finish than modern flying electronics supermarkets. Looking at your collection: How do you judge Viggen and Mig-19?

That is a reasonable definition , but unfortunately , it is really whatever ED says it is on a given day , as Hornet drivers will attest .

I have just recently bought Hornet - and this is my headache as it is complex aircraft, already released for long time and generally should be close to "final" stage. Thus if it is not, what is (except A-10C maybe)?

I consider Hornet ( F/A18 ) unfihished because harpoon missiles deal very low damage to the ships. Unfortunately, afaik, Viggen wasn´t part of the past event, it wasn´t on trial, I was waiting for it, so I would notice.

If this was the only issue that can be even caused by DMG model of the ships or some bug - that would be the least important issue. Btw. after looking at Growling Sidewinder's videos - AMRAAMS were recently changed it terms of the range, thus as it is part of the armament of the Hornet - it was also unfinished due to this missile. Flight model and onboard systems / sensors / electronics are IMHO more important when judging status finished/unfinished

 

Anyway - did you get closer to the solution of your original question about module purchase? I have 2 from your list (Warthog and Hornet), I love Viggen as a real airplane; same goes for Harrier (but discussion about it are plagued by debates how well or wrong is it) and despite I am not fully in the Viper's funclub - as in few years it will bear our flag - I should think about it.

Thus your buying dilema is close to 100% overlap with mine :)

Yes but old "tubes" are easier to finish than modern flying electronics supermarkets. Looking at your collection: How do you judge Viggen and Mig-19?

 

 

In general, I love the Viggen. The only thing I don't love is that is suffers compressor stalls / flame-outs during high AOA manoeuvering, so even though it's pretty agile, it's really hard to dogfight in it. This problem was apparently solved in the Jagdviggen but not in our version. I can't see any glaring things that are still missing or wrong but I'm not an expert.

 

 

The MiG-19, is a slightly different story. I got it because I love the MiG-15, thinking the 19 is a 15 on steroids, but the MiG-19 is quite a bit more complicated. Personally I find it difficult to get to grips with, similar (maybe a bit easier) to the MiG-21. Also, the MiG-19 is a bit "in-between". The MiG-21 is capable enough to fight modern jets (at a disadvantage and certainly not BVR but still). In the MiG-19 that is more difficult due to lack of speed. The MiG-15 on the other hand belongs more to the WW2 era aircraft and can fight those with quite a big advantage.

 

 

With regards to early access and missing / incomplete features, it would be better to ask in the subforums.

I have had the Viggen for some time and while it is not as capable as the Hornet it is still a joy to fly and operate. So I would recommend to just go ahead and get the Hornet this time around to take advantage of the sale. Then later on when there is another good sale you can get the Viggen so you can experience this great aircraft. That way you can have the right tool for the job depending on what you need out of an aircraft for a particular mission.

Anyway - did you get closer to the solution of your original question about module purchase?

 

 

Yes, I am very close to buying Hornet.

 

 

 

Why I chose Hornet:

 

 

 

1. Warthog is out, it seems to be a nightmare to learn and SU-25T is a very good CAS to fulfill my needs, it is very slow and lacks anti-ship capability. Basically it is better in what SU-25T is already good at, and worse in all other of my missions. I need to fill as many roles with as little purchases as possible.

2. Mirage is out as it is not multi-role.

3. Harrier is out, because it lacks, if I remember correctly the answers, both anti-ship and good SEAD capability. It is also rather slow and doesn't carry many missiles, and its V/STOL doesn't give me any advantage over Hornet in my missions.

4. Viggen is out for now, partially because it lacks SEAD, but mainly because I cannot test it. I also do not see many advantages over Hornet. Let's say I would pick it, if Hornet wasn't available.

5. F-16 is also an interesting one, but the only advantage I see vs Hornet is that it is faster and more agile. It seems to carry same, or less payload and cannot take off from ships.

 

 

Hornet:

 

After initially testing it, I said there is NO way I am buying this. Harpoons currently deal no damage, are pain to set up, everything is pain to set up, fully loaded is barely transsonic with afterburners and I just don't like it.

 

 

But:

- After a couple hours flying it, I found out that if I get familliar with controls, everything can be set up muuuuch quicker, only the first hours were painful. And I think after proper key binding set up, I can be even faster.

- It can be fast, and basically if I load the same amount of payload to other plane, it wouldn't get transsonic anyway, as I really like to load it up. And oh boi, can it be loaded up.

- I really like GPS guided missiles, those JSOW missiles, and it can carry EIGHT of them. Enough to de-populate the entire airfield. Or two.

- After loading it with 8 GPS-guided missiles, it can still carry FOUR Air to Air missiles.

- After loading it up with all this, it can still carry either fuel tank, or bombs.

- Great variety of other weapons that can be loaded onto it.

- Harpoons IRL seem to be very powerful weapons, so I hope they will be in-game as well, when finished. I don't know what everybody says about damage models, I think it is bug of the missile, because other missiles damage ships just fine... ?

- It can take off from ship.

 

Yeah, basically get a Hornet. It may not be as interesting as Viggen or Harrier, but it is a do-it-all. Like when you pick a car, Corvette is a very fast car, Mercedes E-class is comfortable, Toyota Land Cruiser is awesome for the terrain. But if you want to own one car to fill all roles, you don't want either of these, more of something like Subaru Forester XT, which has enough power, can go to terrain and is also comfortable for long range travelling.

Thanks for sharing your conclusion with us. I'm glad you found something to work with!

Yeah, basically get a Hornet. It may not be as interesting as Viggen or Harrier, but it is a do-it-all. Like when you pick a car, Corvette is a very fast car, Mercedes E-class is comfortable, Toyota Land Cruiser is awesome for the terrain. But if you want to own one car to fill all roles, you don't want either of these, more of something like Subaru Forester XT, which has enough power, can go to terrain and is also comfortable for long range travelling.

Thus most likely same conclusions, with the difference that I just recently bought Hornet and already have Warthog and M2000 (I have A-10C for some 8 years now and Mirage for ~1 year), just when I bought Warhog I was not that much interested in jets. Fore several years.

 

Same reason to go for Hornet: Jack of all trades (except STOVL/VTOL), nearly every modern ammunition and reasonable prize, carrier capable. So I will not have to learn several airplanes to be able to fulfill some particular missions.

 

- F-16 is now off my list - who knows how long is it going to take to finish it, Harrier is nice plane, but with A-10 and Hornet it is partially redundant. Maybe in future. Now I can save some money.

- Guy from Heatblur claimed that there will be some chance to once again test Tomcat and Viggen sometimes after this event and there is upcoming sale on Steam in may - who knows. Maybe I will get Viggen if there will be chance.

Hello guys, re-opening this topic as I had now opportunity to test the Viggen. I am very disappointed - it is an amazing airplane, but it can only carry two anti-ship missiles and cannot combine air to ground weapons of different kinds. I like the highly supersonic speeds and the fact that it has radar vs ships, but consistency of damage dealt to ships by RB04 is poor. I also did not find it useful to destroy ground units (I need something that requires little setup). So way too much work for little effect.

I am considering Harrier. Its V/STOL capability allows me to spawn at FARPs near enemy bases, it can carry air to air missiles, air to ground missiles, SEAD (although limited capability) missiles and both SEAD and air to ground missiles can be used vs ships as well. So it is something like a better SU25T. It flies a bit faster (like 650 km/h vs 1000-1100 km/h), it can kill tanks from a bit more distance, its air to air capability is a tiny bit better and it has V/STOL and also can take off from ships, so I don´t have to fly such long distances.

3 hours ago, chnapo said:

Hello guys, re-opening this topic as I had now opportunity to test the Viggen. I am very disappointed - it is an amazing airplane, but it can only carry two anti-ship missiles and cannot combine air to ground weapons of different kinds. I like the highly supersonic speeds and the fact that it has radar vs ships, but consistency of damage dealt to ships by RB04 is poor. I also did not find it useful to destroy ground units (I need something that requires little setup). So way too much work for little effect.

  

 Yeah, that's what the Viggen is all about: Well planned interdiction strikes on pre-planned positions. It's not one of those fancy multirole multimission aircraft that can do everything at once and get called to do adhoc taskings. It's for Cold War aviation enthusiasts who love to sneak through the frontline stay below the radar and strike a depot or command center in enemy territory. It's not everyone's taste.

 

I have to disagree on the RB04 though. It's the most powerful anti ship missile we have in DCS atm. It's so much more powerful than the Harpoon missiles it's not even funny.

14 hours ago, QuiGon said:

  

 Yeah, that's what the Viggen is all about: Well planned interdiction strikes on pre-planned positions. It's not one of those fancy multirole multimission aircraft that can do everything at once and get called to do adhoc taskings. It's for Cold War aviation enthusiasts who love to sneak through the frontline stay below the radar and strike a depot or command center in enemy territory. It's not everyone's taste.

 

I have to disagree on the RB04 though. It's the most powerful anti ship missile we have in DCS atm. It's so much more powerful than the Harpoon missiles it's not even funny.

I had to re test them, I agree that they can be ridiculously powerful, probably depends on where they hit. I test them agains George Washington carrier and sometimes it takes 4-5 salvos (so about 8-10 missiles) to kill one, but in such way that first salvo brings it to 3% damage, then 3 more salvos to 47% damage and the last one kills it. So really depends on where they hit. That is still impressive because that carrier is difficult to sink to say the least. But the Harrier seems to fit my playing style a bit better. Although Mavericks are pain to use when compared to VIKHR (they often lock to literally nothing 10m next to a tank) but I guess that will be fixed at some point. I get to spawn much closer to the enemy so that is awesome.