I didn’t understand you.
Tell you what, get rid of the 9Ms and AGR 20s, and sure. But as it stands, the armament it carries warrants where it is. The nearest competitor at the rating you propose moving it to is Su 25T/39. The Su 25s listed can carry 2 FnF air to ground munitions at best. This compares to the 6 AGMs (or 6 AGMs and 16 GBU 39s if we’re inclined to consider them). Excluding the pylons carrying FnF AGMs, the Su 25 can carry 18 laser guided missiles. In comparison, the best case for the A10 is 42, excluding the pylons carrying AGMs. As should be pretty clear, payload advantage goes to the A10.
On the defensive aspect, the Su 25 can carry 2 R73s and 2 R60s. R73 is substandard without HMD, which the Su 25 does not have. It is further limited by the incredibly lacking agility of the Su 25s listed. This compares to the A10C, which has 4 9Ms that are adequate in most capacities, especially in capacities where a missile diamond does not show (e.g. ground modes). 9M, whilst benefiting from HMD less than 73, still does benefit. HMD can be found on the A10. It also benefits from A10’s notably improved agility. As should be apparent, the favour in payload yet again goes to the A10. However, that advantage is also coupled by an improved defensive capacity. This is prior to considering countermeasure count, where the advantage still lies with the A10 (Su 25 is given standard caliber countermeasures, less than half the A10’s, so there is no advantage in countermeasure type).
Target acquisition also gives advantage to the A10, as it can carry air to ground FnF missiles that have an IR seeker, which su 25/39 does not have access to. It carries a thermal targeting pod, enabling far easier identification of targets. Something not present on the listed Su 25s. These also facilitate the use of the A10C at night, an environment where the Su 25’s efficacy is degraded even further by virtue of limiting it to the mercury targeting pod (which is a joke to attempt to use), and laser guided weapons which require you to continue to lase the target. Both Kh29TE and AGM 65D are able to track an MBT starting at the 7km mark (both maintaining a point mark well out from the tracking distance). The advantage is to the A10.
As you should be able to note, the immediate competitor at 11.3 is significantly worse than the A10 in almost every metric barring speed. At 11.7, it finds a comparable competitor in the Su 25 SM3. This su 25 carries less of an air to ground payload, but becomes comparable in most metrics outside of agility, with much better FnF AGMs. However, the A10 still has the advantage in available pylons to carry armament, HMD, and AAMs (sm3 has the same downsides as the previously listed frogfoots in this capacity). The thermal targeting view is also much narrower than the view provided with the A10s targeting pod, which hinders acquisitions.
If the A10 is to go down which is a dubious proposition on account of the AAMs and it’s capacity to utilise them effectively, then 11.7 is by far the more sensible position when comparing it to competition capability.
What are you talking about? A-10C does not have ultimate weapons, AIM-9M is easily distracted by traps and weak maneuvers, it is not MICA that will catch up with you under any maneuvers. In addition to the fact that A-10C does not have the speed for any air combat, it does not even have FOX-3 and TWS radar. It belongs in 11.0. And do not compare it with Su-25, Su-25 has speed and good missiles.
It’s funny that when it comes to US technology, you immediately need to find a balance and make sure that the technology does not stand out in some indicators, but when it comes to Russia, you just have a Skill Issue. I can’t even imagine that the A-10C would be imbalanced at some BR. It does not have long-range missiles to outperform the SAM. The range of the Mavericks on the A-10C is 5 km, at BR 10.3 the USSR already has a SAM with a range of 10 km.
The a10c can stay 11.3 if it gets airspawn
Just listed why it does not benefit from the missiles remotely as much as you seem to think. It lacks the agility to get the missile onto an air target in the first place, especially the su 25s that the A10C is directly comparable to. The Su 25 that carries the R73 that is not the SM3 will struggle to get a target into the r73s FOV, let alone give it a good launch aspect.
9M launched in a ground game lacks a launch indicator for the foe. That is its advantage. It also does not require closure rate for efficacy as much as an R73, which we would compare it to as found on the Su 25s it is directly comparable to. The 9M is also adequate in most launch aspects, and benefits from an HMD. To a lesser extent than R73, but still benefits. The Su 25 which is its most direct competitor at 11.3 does not have an HMD to utilise r73 effectively.
Having tested the same missiles from the same launch speeds, the range for tracking is >7km. As is the Kh 29TE I directly compared it to, found on the Su 25s that are directly comparable. The A10 can also make these launch ranges, relatively comfortably. It also carries far more than the Kh 29, and far better seekers than the Kh 29 found on the su 25 at 11.3.
Congrats, it out ranges it by 3km at best, if you want to maintain a tracking launch instead of a point launch. If you want to confirm a tracking launch with the Su 25 utilising Kh 29TE, you will still generally be out ranged by SPAA at 10.3.
So by encouraging it not to be a straight upgrade over a competitor nation, and instead encouraging it to stand out in payload weight, that means I do not support it having advantages? Instead of wanting it to completely outclass a competitor, and instead suggesting it be brought in line with a platform that has some advantages whilst it retains some advantages compared, that means I don’t want it to have advantages? I get yanks are insufferable but you’re putting in a special effort here.
Su 25 is the most charitable comparison, and generally the most accurate. Especially su 25t/39. It could be compared to the M2kD-R1. Which is 11.3, carries 2 IRCCM missiles as opposed to 4 on the A10 or 2 with extra r60s on the Su 25, and carries no FnF air to ground payload, having only really speed and agility. The payload capacity of the A10, coupled with the 4 9Ms, is why it is where it is at. The most you could reasonably lower it to without stripping those missiles from it is 11.7 to be on par with the Su 25 SM3.
This Su 25 lacks payload capacity, still lacks the ability to utilise R73s effectively in a defensive role, lacks the spare R60s, and still does not have a thermal acquisition solution on parity with the A10. What it does have is better FnF AGMs, and speed.
Alternatively, we can compare it to the Gr7, which has speed and agility but worse countermeasures, significantly lower payload capacity, a far less pleasant to use thermal acquisition solution, less FnF missiles of equal quality, and a thrust output that causes the possibility of defeating IR missiles to be less than hopeful. It also only has the capacity for 2 9Ms if we are not comfortable sacrificing it’s already pathetic air to ground payload capacity. 4 (equal to the A10C) if we give up air to ground ordnance on the outer pylons. It also does not have an HMD.
11.7 is entirely sound when you consider the payload capacity and efficacy of platforms in the region it sits. The Su 25s are the most directly comparable platform, but there’s still plenty of others to suggest an 11.7 rating.
That’s weird since there are 24 of them, 20 of them with the F-15E.
I can’t even implement AGM-65D on A-10A Late now, because there are new SAMs like OSA and TOR that have a longer launch range than your missiles. But Su-25 has speed, good unguided missiles that cause huge damage.
there is much wrong in this its unbeleivable
keep in mind all you have to do to avoid them is move 20 meters (250lbs) in any direction
1 Like
Dude u havent played f15e once on grb not to mention A10C
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
@bertgame coming into gaslight and claim that CAS isn’t OP.
Custom matches don’t get recorded in stats.
I have over 2 hours of F-15E play, I just refuse to ruin my Soviet, German, USA, etc top lineups with CAS BR’d higher than the tanks.
So if you want me to play CAS above the BR of 12.0, I’ll do it in custom battles.
And if you think my argument that CAS is OP “makes no sense” then you haven’t been playing much, cause CAS has been OP since 2022.
All of which cannot be used effectively outside the 5-10km range. Both heavily rely on it’s initial speed, the A-10C doesn’t have that.
That’s a bit disingenuous because the apkws are only effective against lightly armored vehicles where as all the agms in the su-39 cannot take out a variety of targets.
Target aquisition plays more of an important role when the farther you get. When you’re within 10km, spotting targets doesn’t become that hard. Because the maverick can only be used in the short to medium range, the advantages of the TGP diminish.
I gotta ask, do you think the A-10C is on par with the SM3?
The only “useful” weponry the A-10C has is the aim-9m, glide bombs and mavericks. Out of that, the aim-9m is the only effective one. As mentioned before the glidebombs and mavericks being used <8km makes it vulnerable, even then, it’s slow speed makes it easy to counter.
The Kh-29TE makes getting >13km shots easy and effective. That should be more than enough to take out any spaa at it’s br (even some top tier spaa). It’s used to soften AA defences where then the Kh-25 and vikhrs are used to take out tanks.
2 Likes
at the same BR is f111f which id bring over this anyway
its got a bit worse targeting pod but still got 6 mavs and even can get an agm130 or two if you want to sacrifice your 9ls
The A-10C also has a better RWR (though currently F-111F’s RWR is wrong and underperforming anyway, but who knows when Gaijin will fix that… bug report got passed 7 months ago), a better MAWS, and having 9Ms is definitely a big plus. It would at least be a worthwhile consideration at 11.7.
But I can see 11.3 too for the A-10C considering the Kurnass 2000 is still 11.3 with its honestly insane A2G loadout for the BR. Yeah okay the Kurnass 2k may not have a thermal TGP, but it’s supersonic and for some reason the AGM-65Ds it mounts has 2nd gen thermals with the TGP at least giving a color image at intermediate zoom, and you still have the built-in TISEO for absolute mega zoom, which solve the incredibly bad default zoom of the 65D sight. So I could see the A-10C at 11.3 too, but honestly I think the Kurnass 2k is probably just undertiered though so I don’t want to encourage either to be 11.3 actually.
I just find even with the better RWR and MAWs the best way to survive is to hit the deck and get out of there, and the a10 is just too slow for that
also speed gives you better launch parameters on mavs because their motor is really weak so they need as much initial velocity as you can give them, ive had some low altitude slow launches be short of target around 5km away
unrelated I really hope they add an f4e late for the US with TISEO and everything I could even see it being the same BR as f4j because it should have lookdown shootdown and be imposible to notch or chaff its radar while also having better flightmodel but worse kit and probably no HMD
edit: could also be a decent introduction for ARMs
??
The TISEO can provide angular tracking data to the radar, supplanting spurious returns, though for the most part the APQ-120 would find it most useful for Look-Down, Shoot-Down capability.
1 Like
no do you actually think gaijin will model the tiseo as impossible to notch/chaff the radar when being used???