Let's Talk About The State Of US

This thread has been a pleasure, but I’ll have to retire for the moment.

At least Lolman has earned his name today. May his cope continue until tomorrow so I may resume.


Sure my guy, believe what you want.

I was not aware that the ground is a enemy vehicle and a tangible target, I can launch the KH-25ML at a range greater than 6 miles because the seeker lacks a maximum tracking range, heck, if we really wanted to drop it from orbit it could in theory track out to 100km due to that value not being defined, would it be effective, lol no its got a 45 second guidance duration which would be the limiting factor.


Stay mad my guy, watching 3 people grasp at straws with no actual tangible arguments is quite funny to me.

Im sorry bro i found the Su-25 with Auto tracking
Ignore the br and name clearly must be a bug its definitely the 10.0 one


Since the laser tracking range on them is 10km maximum, somehow I doubt that.

The guidance range being undefined just means that particular field is undefined. Meaning the game falls back to either a default or hardcoded limit. Which is 10km.

1 Like

He gave you a constructive answer. What are you looking for, an echochamber?


Its a launch system limitation, the hellfire has a similar feature where the targeting system will not like launching past 8km even though it is coded to have guidance out to 12km. You can edge both of them far past their launch limitations by firing within their launch parameters and dragging the missile farther along as the aircraft closes the distance to the designation.

It is far easier to do this with the hellfires due to their 30 second break lock time compared to the 2 second time that the KH-25ML has.

And you still wouldn’t see a target with the Su-25 because it has no zoom, that’s why both you complaining about the 10.0 Su-25 and 20km+ Mavs are absurd. The Kh-25s etc. are just bad weapon choices until the MiG-27K/Su-25T, their carriers have no zoom to pick out targets and you’re incredibly limited to flying almost directly at the target less you lose track of the missile, they’re arguably worse than Bullpups as at least you can maneuver after launching to avoid SPAA fire.

Destroying an ADATS in test flight with a target marker highlighting it is not representative of the Su-25/Su-22 in an actual game

Gave it some testing in the Su-39 and MiG-27K, and launching at 10km, and slowly moving it to the 11km target, the Kh-25ML explodes in midair about 1km before reaching the target. Doesn’t lose tracking, its still tracking the laser point, it just times out.

So no, I don’t think the Kh-25ML will be hitting 100km targets.

edit - if you’re at high altitude and high speed (near supersonic), you can just barely reach the 11km. But that’s pushing it for range.

edit2- out of a dozen or so tests, I haven’t been able to replicate the one 11km hit I got. So there’s a good chance I messed up the timings and launched too late that one time.

1 Like

Once battery runs out missiles explode in game, iirc its been like this forever

And where have I been complaining about the SU-25 being 10.0 or mavs being deployed against the ground at 20km, I stated the former to be present at 10.0 with SLAH ATGMs which have superior flight performance to unpowered LGBs, and the latter is something I never brought up to begin with.

Reminder again that the paveway series of bombs is capped at 3.657km maximum guidance range, beyond that they are dumb, meanwhile the KH-25ML will guide off the rail out to it’s maximum launch range.

Cool then let us toss all of those examples along with the test drive mavrick shots out because we both know that you will never get a kill against anything in an actual match at a range greater than 6 to 8 km with the AGM-65B. But after all, this is between LGBs like the paveway and the likes of the KH-25ML, and even with the limited targeting options on the SU-25, it is very possible to spot and engage targets at ranges like 3 to 4 km without issue, which would put it on par with the guidance parameters of the likes of the paveway which physically cannot track a target beyond 3.657km.

So what the KH-25ML puts on the table is powered flight out to the range that the paveway can guide out to, which allows it to be deployed in more situations where the paveway cannot, and both pieces of ordinance remain within missile SPAAG range.


Got 45 seconds to guide.

I can get just about a extra km out of hellfires if I am high enough and the flight path does not shaft me, rarely actually run out of battery with the hellfires as the flight path AP usually tries to put it into the dirt far before it runs out regardless of altitude due to the weird front attack profile gaijin gave it.

In theory, its a 45 second battery life from the files. Its timing out at about 20 seconds after launch.

So I wonder if there is a hard coded limit somewhere not in the Kh-25ML’s files.

Yes, and it times out about 20 seconds after launch.

Could be as well. My experience with vikhrs is kinda like that, they never tend to go above 10km ever

1 Like

Seems to be about the same 20s timeout for the Kh-29L as well (40s guidance in the files). Probably something in place to stop players from using them outside the 10km limit.

Unless test drive is just weird for some reason.

I’m specifying which Su-25 since there’s several

Everything I can think of that has Paveways has CCIP + Laser for terminal guidance, the effective range of paveways is far further than 3.7km and way more effective with external targeting pods than Kh-25s with crap optics.

How was this lost on you


Yeah the guys an actual cretin to try to claim that guided bombs at that br are inferior to laser guided weapons they’re definitely worse than the complete invulnerability you get from Mavericks but not by much when the A6E can reliably bomb from standoff same as the Super entendard with the only vehicle within that range that can reliably deal with them is the strela


It’s perfectly valid to point out that the US tech tree gets shafted more often than not. It’s supposedly a “Big Three Nation” but gets outshined by Germany and the USSR by a large margin and is often outshone by minor nations.

The US’ top tier MBTs are only noticeably better than the Arietes and Merkavas; its SPAA are the worst in class - tied with Italy, Britain, and Israel; its light tanks are massively overtiered (especially the HSTV-L); and the only noticeably good top tier jet in either air or ground is the F-16C (and hopefully the F-15C), with the F-15A being a major letdown.

The US should get new actually competitive MBTs, an actual top tier SPAA, the HSTV-L should be lowered to 10.3 to be at least somewhat close to its contemporary (the 2S38), and the F-16C and/or F-15A should get a 40km AGM just like the Su-25SM3.

Other nations should also have their issues fixed too - give Italy, Britain, and Israel usable SPAAs, and do whatever armor or mobility fixes on the Arietes, Merkavas, and Challengers - but that doesn’t mean the US shouldn’t also get its glaring issues fixed.


Yep, I agree. (mostly, I dont think the US really got that shafted last year in air, they got really good additions literally every single update)

Im just hoping a bit of a top tier decompression for ground that was hinted at in the last BR changes actually comes. I think a lot of the issues for the US and other nations could be fixed by moving several vehicles up to 12.3 ish.

(its also the only way that some of the aircraft BRs from the Split BRs make any sense)


touched a nerve

Avoiding the question, cool.

And you have a 20 degree cone that the bomb has to arrive in for it to acquire a lock meaning if you are dropping the bomb against anything but a stationary target beyond the acquisition range your target can easily drive out of the range at which it can acquire, and if you are engaging stationary targets you can use normal bombs with CCIP and get the same result but with vastly superior airframes being available.

Take it or leave it, its either a good example of performance or its not, you cant pick and choose.

Unpowered weapon with an actual maximum acquisition range vs a powered weapon with the only limitation being launch parameters it is really not that hard to see what is superior, and ad hominem attacks to cap it all off such a well formed and intelligent argument, bravo!

Hmmm yes, keep thinking this, it will make the lives of SPAAG gunner’s far easier.

The easiest vehicle to deal with the strela is a harrier or other rocket CCIP equipped plane with Zunis or another large caliber rocket because reaction times are a thing, that and I would love to see the A6E try and spend a good cunk of the match trying to climb up above 20000 feet to avoid the strela, like asking a A-10 to just side climb, while I dont think I’ve seen a single Étendard in a match in years at this point, do they even exist?

Edit for the folks below :

Color me not surprised, explains why I’ve flat out not seen one for this long.

Only against stationary strelas that are willingly choosing to just sit idle in their spawn and in that case you can do the same with any unguided bomb and CCIP, or as stated, engage them the safe way by being a terrain hugging rocket F-4C which, if flown right is physically impossible to intercept by missile SPAAG unless they have walls.