You are not taking into account both the issue of travel time and warhead size.
GBU-39s will require a direct hit to kill a target in WT, not to mention the flight time to 55km for a SBD would be excruciating.
So for the ability to stay at range, you gain a weapon that requires pinpoint precision to kill a target, but no ability to actually track said target, and an incredibly slow flight time.
This seems like trying to use a shotgun with buckshot as a sniper rifle, I cannot see it being even remotely relevant in GRB against anyone other than incredibly dedicated campers, which, well, if they want to stay in the same place for the entire match that is their issue and there are a myriad of other, better weapons that can already do the same both quicker and with vastly better accuracy , see IR guided missiles.
You are absolutely correct.
but since the JAS39 can carry at least 8 of them (and probably 16 or more, i haven’t double checked) you can target the spawn area with a “shotgun effect” of many sniper bullets. Some of them are bound to either hit something or come close enough to light vehicles to damage or kill them. You are still going to need some luck, yes.
My personal main issue would be the “one-sided-ness” of the engagement. SPAA can’t currently do anything about it so even if it is a “shot in the dark” its a shot in the dark against someone who can’ fire back and you can reload and fire again until you hit (unless stopped by something other than SPAA). This can be done at just 25-30km as well to cut the flight time down.
Some might think this is absolutely fine and view it as balanced and others might not, but i think it will take all of the fun out of playing SPAA either way as your only remaining option is hide and/or semi-constantly move.
Not some luck, a extreme amount of luck, remember the largest GBU-39 warhead is 67kg, the GBU-12 has 87kg and sports a 22 ft kill radius, meaning you will need to impact sub 20 feet to the target with a GBU-39 to get a kill. Even with 16 GBU-39s such a feat against non-stationary targets is infinitesimally small and heavily relies on your enemies engaging in passive play, such is further exacerbated the farther the range you engage from due to the unpowered nature of the GBU-39.
And that this the crux of the issue of all future weapon systems, unless players are sporting literal orbital weapons, aircraft counter weapons will always outrange them. This is why interception is the only option in such situations and SPAAG like the pantsir are already very capable of shooting down bombs like the GBU-39.
To that same end, in effect, the only thing a GBU-39 player would be doing is zoning enemies, forcing them to actually play the game and move, as, unless the player chooses to engage from point blank range, said weapon is woefully ineffective compared to every other guided offering in the game.
The return fire issue is a minor issue when your weapons are so incredibly niche that most of the game your attacks amount to a nuisance more than a tangible threat.
Oh its not balanced, like every other weapon system in the game, this game has abysmal balance, but unlike something like the Pantsir, SDBs aren’t shifting the meta or radically changing the game in the slightest. What it would allow players to do is largely be a ineffective teammate who sits literally back in the main base and roleplays a airborne artillery battery. Yes, you can nuke people who stay in the same place the entire game with impunity, but anyone who takes the time to press W or S for more than 3 seconds is suddenly immune to your attacks.
Now by comparison, in the ARB and SIM I see the GBU-39 being an incredible tool as static AI targets are quite common and on the dev server the existing GBU-38s were amazing to use, allowing for rapid target engagement unlike any other ordinance in the game.
Oh yeah should add that the jeff also already has a better GBU-39 in game, being vastly larger and having a usable kill radius with a similar range sooooooooooooo…
oh absolutely, but way to many SPAA players just sit still in spawn and would be at risk of such a “carpet bombing” so to speak. 67kg is about double the amount of explosive filler that the M/71 dumb bombs currently in game on JAS39 has and those can get some kills on SPAA/light vehicles on like a ~2m miss.
But we ultimately don’t know and will have to see when the current jdams get released how they perform to have some sort of comparison.
I agree.
this is where i think we differ in opinion slightly. but again, we’ll see when jdams get released and how they perform to really have more than hunches to go by :)
Hard agree! it might even make almost all ground AI in ARB disappear within the first 3 minutes of a match on both sides judging by how many ground AI gets destroyed already without jdams.
The radius of destruction for the M/71 is 12 feet 3.6 meters, the closest bomb to the 67kg of the GBU-39 would be the Mark 81, which has a RE of 61.29kg, leading to a radius of destruction of 15 feet or 4.5 meters.
The JF-17 colloquially known as the “Jeff” due to it’s leading letters, has the ability to carry stand off glide bombs on dev.
so tossing in a GBU39 every 6-7m or so in a 4x4 grid making it a “destruction square” of around 26x26m would actually give you a decent probability of a killing blow on SPAA/light vehicle in spawn.
How effective/ worth it to do that it would be is another discussion x) It just sounded fun :P
Thanks for the info :)
holy… well… 325kg explosive mass being GPS guided is scary. It will be really interesting to se how it will play out on release!
This really only matters if AAs stay perfectly still, and I feel that the addition of these types of weapons would encourage more engaging AA gameplay both flying against it and engaging air targets. It could also serve to encourage larger maps to bring AAs more places to hide and further incentivise a less static “throw the bomb at spawn” practice and instead give you actual reason to search the field with thermals with the aid of RWR when AAs are up.
In my opinion, gaijin could add GBU-31(V)1/B on F-16C Block 50 and A-10C. but Gripen C from sweden and italy (hungary) tech tree never armed JDAM in service
Swedish JAS39 Gripen C carry GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II GPS/INS dual-mode (while model)
I want gaijin change new HUD to Sparrowhawk HUD for F-14B before add GBU-31(V)2/B JDAM. and rename F-14B from USA tech tree to F-14B(U) on tech tree & stat card
Swedens JAS39C uses GBU-39 which is GPS guided. I don’t think they ever said “jdam” specifically and have instead called all the variants coming to the game “gps guided bombs”. But you are technically correct that they didn’t use jdam IRL (as far as i’m aware).
Were they ever tested with the EGBU or Paveway IV series? As they are both use GPS/INS + SALH terminal homing so could stand in to some degree for IAMs.
“tested with” is an extremely broad term when it comes to Gripen C. It’s an international oriented version so has been prepared for (an in many cases tested with) a lot of different munitions to show what could be possible for future buyers:
I did go looking for the designations of the EGBU apparently because trademarks exist and the Paveway II and (-III / -IV ) families were produced by different companies [Lockheed Martin vs Texas Instruments (Raytheon)] (Paveway was the crash program to introduce PGMs to SEA during Vietnam, and different efforts were given numerals), and there was complaints about infringement with marketing use of the (now generic term ) Paveway to export clients even though the former didn’t hold the trademark. Since it was established as a second source supplier, and the way the US Technical Data Packages work.
Dual Mode are the GPS/ISN variants Paveway IIs may also be known as the DMLGB, and did not receive new designations, but are listed as variants (e.g. GBU-12F(V)1/B is a 500lb GBU-12 with GPS/INS guidance and optional SALH in the terminal phase ) of their parent kit, like any other meaningful production change. So in effect they are likely to be already included in the graphic.
As far as I can tell the giveaway is the designation of the kit’s guidance unit changing from MAU-xxx/B to WGU-xxx/B.
The Enhanced Paveways’ on the other hand received entirely new designations, so there isn’t really any consistency, though I’d assume the main difference between the kits remains the same as they were, so the -III / -IV should retain their pop-up maneuver during low altitude release, have proportional Control surface response curve ( the -II series uses Bang-Bang to minimize costs) as well as the better glide ratio, though still be somewhat more expensive are more effective by design, but for most targets aren’t strictly worth the added expense.
