I suspect the white cylinder in this photo could be an incendiary bomb. I suspect it is of domestic manufacture like the one I show in this other photo.
1 Like
That large one may be the 100 gallon variant
1 Like
Second iteration of the potential loadout option based on some of the feedback from the first one
6 Likes
I usually always add to my suggestions the armament actually used in Chilean service, but I understand that Gaijin ultimately adds the standard armament as well. In the case of your image, the miniguns and 20 mm cannons, as well as the AIM-9Bs, which were tested in the USA, if I’m not mistaken. I hope they soon add this aircraft to the USA aircraft tree during its service in that country so that we have a clearer idea of its BR and armament. Anyway, thank you very much for taking the time to make these images, they are very good :)
1 Like
This would be cool, but what br would it sit at though? I feel like this wouldn’t be easy to place
Without any AAM: 7.3 or 7.7
With AIM-9B’s: 8.3
With Shafrir II’s: 9.3
1 Like
I think that with the Shafrir 2 the maximum that could be reached would be BR 8.7, taking into account that the Israeli Sa’ar of BR 9.0 is the aircraft with the lowest BR that carries them but has better flight performance and better cannons than the Dragonfly.
1 Like
It’s so slow that even 8.7 might be too high lol, and the Shafrir 2, as potent as it is, will still be heavily reliant on the platform that carrier it given the aspect capabilities of it. Its guns also don’t back it up too well, unless we’re talking about fun pods ofc (which also further reduce the flight performance, which reminds me:
@AspandaIV where did you see that it can carry Vulcan gun pods? I’ve only ever seen that dragonfly’s could carry the smaller GPU-2/A gunpod, which is a lightweight 20mm gunpod with a lower firerate (I think 1/4 that of the Vulcan) and 300 rounds.
But yeah 9.0 or higher is just hardly viable for an aircraft like this, but the game also lacks any 18-20G missiles before 9.0 so this would be a first time thing gaijin may be hesitant to add, but the low end flight performance may allow it.
No CCIP, might a battle pass vehicle?
Those are really all around 1.0 too high.
If no missiles it’s comparable to the L-39 or Strikemaster, so 6.3/6.7
AIM-9Bs are extremely unlikely but if that’s the case then 7.7 tops as the A-37 would be inferior to the Sea Hawk.
With Sharir 2s as it should and most likely would be added that’s a roughly 8.3/8.7 vehicle. Sharirs are quite good rear-aspects but the platform isn’t great, there’s only two of them, they’re rear-aspect only, there’s otherwise a very limited air-to-air complement, and the aircraft doesn’t have countermeasures. It definitely wouldn’t be the same BR as the Ayit.
On a somewhat related note wow why is the Saar the same BR as the other Super Mysteres
1 Like
If no missiles it’s comparable to the L-39 or Strikemaster, so 6.3/6.7
Would be reasonable except for the fact that the Dragonfly carries twice the amount of ordinances that the L-39 or the Strikemaster can carry. Not only in terms of quantity but also in weight
AIM-9Bs are extremely unlikely but if that’s the case then 7.7 tops as the A-37 would be inferior to the Sea Hawk.
Terrible analogy, the Sea Hawks are intended to fight other fighters with a secondary Multirole and Ground attack profiles. The A-37 on the other hand is designed around for COIN & Ground attack.
With Sharir 2s as it should and most likely would be added that’s a roughly 8.3/8.7 vehicle. Sharirs are quite good rear-aspects but the platform isn’t great
Shafrir 2 would be way too strong even at 8.7 let alone 8.3 since it’s a slightly better AIM-9D
On a somewhat related note wow why is the Saar the same BR as the other Super Mysteres
Because it function as a sidegrade. It loses the afterburner and the engine is overall weaker but not by a huge margin. In return it does get a way better Ground Attack profile and it get actually useful AAM in the form of the Shafrir II’s
This may come off as harsh, but there’s so many things wrong with what you’ve said above I feel like I need to be, please don’t take any offense to this I’m just being virtual of your flawed views:
That’s honestly bs, Aim-9D is a much better missile man. It may not have a gimble limit or as tight of an initial turning circle, but it has horrible flare resistance and much worse range with slower speeds and acceleration. Pair that with the slow airframe of the dragonfly and its range would go down even further. It’s a worse airframe then the Sa’ar by far and could not reasonably sit at 9.0 or anything higher (like wtf you mean putting it at 9.3 with the Ayit???). The Shafrir 2 is a good missile don’t get me wrong, but it’s only so good as its platform really as it heavily relies on it.
Well that only matters for Ground RB then, so if you’re only talking about GRB and it’s part of a split BR then mention such. In Air RB that really means nothing, and if you were talking about GRB only then I don’t see the reason why you’d bring up the missiles changing its BR.
Again, ground attack won’t matter for Air RB or comparison to the other fighters. It’s also not much better than the Sa’ar in ground attack given I don’t believe it has CCIP either. It’s literally just an obviously worse Sa’ar, in ground and air RB.
Again, only matters for Ground RB, and on top of that you’re comparing it to a fighter. In Air RB with only Aim-9Bs, it wouldn’t be able to be viable at 8.0 given its inferior flight performance and weaponry to the Sea Hawk which is the lowest Aim-9B carrier. The only issue presented with placing it there is the fact there’s plenty of aircraft that wouldn’t be able to do anything to counter it, which is already an issue with the Sea Hawk really, and it wouldn’t really be too bad given the airframe limitations.
Essentially:
In Air RB it should probably sit at 6.3-6.7 without AAMs (maybe 7.0 depending on how the lightweight gunpod performs), ~7.7 with Aim-9Bs (can it even carry them?), and 8.3-8.7 with the Shafrir 2. I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be in those ranges, and the arguments you presented are quite flawed. For Ground RB it’s a different thing ofc, and I’d have to look into the ordinance and capabilities of it, but it’s BRs wouldn’t be too highly effected by AAMs as it would be a mildly better strike master (gaijin has a history of making Ground RB BRs a bit lower than they should be bc of ground capabilities and ignoring air to air capabilities).
here did you see that it can carry Vulcan gun pods? I’ve only ever seen that dragonfly’s could carry the smaller GPU-2/A gunpod, which is a lightweight 20mm gunpod with a lower firerate (I think 1/4 that of the Vulcan) and 300 rounds.
That’s a error on my end, it supposed to be GPU-2/A, it will be eventually be corrected
1 Like
@AspandaIV I found a video of the napalm bombs being dropped on Chilean A-37B Dragonflys. General-purpose bombs and rockets are also visible. I couldn’t identify the model of the napalm bombs because I compared them to American ones, and they don’t look like either. They’re possibly the domestically manufactured ones I mentioned earlier.
3 Likes
Dragonfly would be amazing IMO.
I have to ask for clarification regarding the translation. Are the “flare launcher devices” mounted externally or internally?
If they are external, it would mean the A-37B uses underwing flare dispenser pods for illuminating flares, like the example shown here.
If they are internal, then it would mean a box dispenser is installed inside the fuselage. I was shown a photo of a Colombian Air Force A-37B dispensing a decoy flare, rather than an illuminating flare, from the aft section of the fuselage.
Source: Getty Images
2 Likes
It doesn’t specify, it only says that since it’s a list of several projects that were carried out and others that weren’t, it doesn’t specify which ones were and which ones weren’t.
https://fach.mil.cl/fach/documentos/biblioteca-del-aviador/rojo.pdf
I’m going to leave the updated link since the other one no longer works.
What could be done would be to analyze the photos of the weaponry, since the OMI-SUU-25 Dispenser you showed seems familiar to me.
Isn’t the one in the center the OMI-SUU-25 Dispenser? It looks quite similar to the one you sent.
I have opened that PDF with a working link to get the full context available to me, thanks! I used Google Translate in a section of the several projects. It did specify they needed to fit the Dragonfly with defensive countermeasures that consisted of flares against heat-seeking missiles, chaff to deceive radar-guided missiles, and RWR to notify the crew of enemy radar acquisition.
So, it led me to believe that the Chilean Air Force had fitted the Dragonfly with an actual box dispenser, as the Colombian Air Force did to its Dragonfly in the photo I shared.
Indeed, it appears so!