It will be similar result at 6km or 14km. Better to fore it at a safer distance.
2 r73 VS 4 aim9m with HMS. Aim9m is much better in ground rb due to lack of markers.
Personally, i think the a10 platform is much better in dealing with jets than the su25 platform
wait is it really 6km? That’s way lower than I expected
Give or take. For a tank sized target, close to 6km. You get more lock range against bigger targets like ships.
Its the same for the other TV missiles with similar optic FOV’s, like the AGM-65B.
no.
IRST can seperate mavericks from glide bombs because of the heat that the it produces. That too, it’s easy to spot them on your radar because mavericks are generally faster.
GBU-39s only work well with high subsonic or supersonic platforms. The A-10 platform is slow making gbu-39s slow and it only gets slower from there. Dodging them becomes extremely easy
Then you fail to understand what makes them extremely good in the first place. It’s speed. The greater the speed, the less time enemies have to react. It can actually be launched >13km and hit targets with effectively. In addition, it can switch from point → track lock once it reaches range (all tv agms do this but the kh-29 does it the best).
They can’t do so consistently. The mavs are extremely slow making them easy to dodge (aka losing los). The Kh-25 are quite fast and are consistent one shot kills since they are HE.
then you don’t understand how to use them. They excel at pop up attacks which causes trouble for spaa that don’t have cannons. As I’ve said before they work the best when no spaa is present which is quite common at this br.
Last time I checked the Osa, strela, type-81, and otomatic are limited to 10km. only two of that can intercept agms but even that it’ll struggle. The Kh-29 lofts pretty high which makes detecting it difficult.
The HQ-17 is the only spaa that can counter it… Only in long ranges. Once you’re within the 2-8km range it’s practically useless.
This is excluding the fact that you will rarely see the HQ-17
Once again, you need to use these systems to understand. You saying
“Kh-29 suffers the same thing all A2G missiles suffers with”
tells me all I need to know where you lack the knowledge in.
n̶o̶t̶ t̶r̶u̶e̶. A̶ t̶r̶a̶c̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ l̶o̶c̶k̶ g̶o̶e̶s̶ u̶p̶ t̶o̶ 1̶2̶k̶m̶ f̶o̶r̶ s̶o̶m̶e̶ T̶V̶ a̶g̶m̶s̶. t̶h̶e̶ A̶G̶M̶-̶6̶5̶D̶’s̶ t̶r̶a̶c̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ l̶o̶c̶k̶ w̶i̶l̶l̶ g̶o̶ u̶p̶ t̶o̶ 2̶0̶k̶m̶ h̶o̶w̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ i̶t̶ w̶i̶l̶l̶ n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ b̶e̶ u̶s̶e̶d̶ a̶t̶ t̶h̶o̶s̶e̶ r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶s̶ b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ o̶f̶ i̶t̶’s̶ f̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ p̶e̶r̶f̶o̶r̶m̶a̶n̶c̶e̶.
That’s the base value, before its modified by the target size.
General rule of thumb for tank sized targets is about half the base value.
You get ~12km against ships, but smaller targets like tanks reduce the range to about 6km.
Yup, you’re right. Did a couple of tests, and you can only get a tracking lock <=6km. I was wrong on that. It can be counteracted by predicting it’s next position for the agm to switch from point to tracking.
It doesn’t even require that, when a majority of the time you are going to be firing it a stationary SPAA in a spawn. You can easily lob them from 12-16km and they will hit because even if the SPAA seems them and starts moving, it will have covered the distance to gain a “track” well beforehand.
Yeah, my tactic has always been
Like I stated, on one of my post, that f15e , from spawning to launching GBU’s take’s 40s to reach target.
And I use 31’s not 39’s preferred, since that 25kg of explosive mass is really not impressive enough to deal pantsir or flakrad if it doesnt take direct hit. And just try to test that bigger GBU’s range on a10C, since that bigger mass also cuts flight time.
Best play is to get on tree line and use terrain as cover, use minimap to make a laser point on enemy spawn and while pulling up behind that cover to lunge those on enemy spawn. Like you pointed, getting altitude in a10C is rare luxury in ground games , since 12.0 faces a lot uptiered games where that bathtub is horrible to use and it shoulld be dropped on 11.7 in ground in my opinion.
Are you talking about GBU-39? They are useless, I tried to use them, but Pantsir destroyed everything that flew, even those that were not flying at it. They are so slow that while they are flying the battle can end.
I specifically spent a fight to do as you said. You can see for yourself the effectiveness of your method.
Watch from 17:30
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/327669287011826877
GBU-39? Those are those incredibly slow bombs with wings that fly straight to the target? You know that even the 2S38 can shoot them down. They are completely useless.
It can stay where it is if it get airspawn
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.
