I think of it this way:
There seems to be two groups in the argument, those who want to fly fighters and find fights, and those who fly bombers/attackers and are hitting the HQ, preventing the fighter guys from finding fights, or at least making it much more difficult.
The thing of it is, there isn't an equal mechanism for the fighter types to hit something, and make finding targets/fun for the bomber guys more difficult. All things being equal, if there was a target building that could be strafed or rocketed by fighters, which removed the HQ from the map, and made the Headquarters unit mobile, as it would be in war - would we not be hearing similar complaints from bombers, saying "we can't find anything to bomb, because the targets aren't on radar anymore, and they are mobile".
Point being, there IS no such equal option for fighter types to take vs the bombers. One of the primary functions to stimulate air combat (what the game used to be about), air contact radar, can be essentially shut off by in game actions (bombers), while there is no option for players to shut off the ground targets on that same radar map, and similarly affect the targeting/fun for the bomber pilots. Air target tracking intel can be affected, but not the intel regarding the ground targets.
That is really the bottom line IMO, it seems like a double standard to those who have voiced complaint about finding a2a fights, that "their" way of playing can be affected by in game play, while the way those doing that affecting play (bombers) similarly cannot.
I do think this will all be addressed in the new version, at least I'm hoping. I haven't complained about the no radar thing, but that's mainly as I don't put much time in, I can understand how those flying 3 or 4 hours a day could get sick of the dar being down, and not really having a way to stop it (no, orbiting waiting for bombers over the HQ isn't what most fighter types would consider "fighting" ).