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???
Could actually be introduced with better kit than the F-4J/F-4S. F-4Es could carry AIM-7Fs and AIM-9L/Ms if the devs wanted to. And frankly should if added, given the A2G load it will carry will have it facing top tier in ground matches.
IRSTS’s already are.
purposefully trying to misunderstand the point here? do you think that gaijin will model the tiseo supplementary in a way where the f-4e’s radar will be impossible to notch/chaff including it’s missiles when being used? yes or no?