Btw, I’m pretty sure that if “just go low” was a sufficient method of defeating modern radar missiles was an actual thing you would be able to read about it in pilot handbooks.
Is it real ? If yes we don’t need to farm for nothing
I’m afraid that dev might be nerf another all-aspect IR short-range Air-to-Air Missile AIM-9Li, AIM-9M, R-73 & new PL-8 if consider in the future.
2 another AIM-7 sparrow late variants gaijin might consider after major update "LA Royale " ?
And now Israel no fighter aircraft with medium-range SARH at rank 8 compare fighter aircraft from other countries and might hope gaijin consider this year
I’m not sure dev could add new lightweight fighter aircraft rank 8 higher 12.0 for USA tech tree before F-16C Q3 or Q4 this year ? but probably wait early 4th gen fighter aircraft under F-4E Block 53 this year
Lol, looks like the M in the AIM-7M stands for (monopulse). So you shouldn’t be able to defeat them by hugging the ground. How about that. Well, this will never get changed anyway.
Literally in the abstract of the Wiki page:
1 Like
already discussed earlier, that is only on steam, very likely a mistake, test link still has r73 as well
So they decided to get rid of the R-73.
Test link don’t work since 30 minutes for the su25
just a mistake on steam
No I’m logged to the wiki, it says the vehicle didn’t exist
Great rebuttal, people should get called out more often when making baseless claims to drive an argument.
1 Like
https://wiki.warthunder.com/special:GameObjectView?object_id=su_25_558arz
like i said works fine on my end, has to be a problem on your end
He didn’t rebuttal anything I said.
Nor did I make any baseless claims.
So you’re obviously baiting.
Did we read the same answer?
Yes.
Every point he addressed he didn’t refute, but added to my points, such as around ground reflections which none of us know for certain what monopulse does.
Or was wrong, in the case of IRCCM on fixed wing aircraft.
Or accused people of strawmanning him when no one did.
Strawmanning is making up a position AND arguing against said position BTW.
He’s posting combative stuff for no real reason.
Pure delusion.
What? IRCCM already exists on the R-27T?
U did.
He might, understandably, just be a bit annoyed.
1 Like
They are still aircraft, and have served as a perfectly acceptable baseline to refine the implementation of IRCCM on while having limited impact in the major modes for the most part, as Heli PVP was pretty hectic for a while. Which is obviously also why the the Stinger and Mistral were ahistorically brought down to the level of the Igla for balancing purposes.
In what sense? the FIM-43 (Redeye) was tested a number of times for use by fixed and rotary wing aircraft, are they common, No. But did they ever reach trials is an entirely different question.
bet you were against Aim-9L when A-10 was announced, otherwise there’s a double standard.
So what was with the attempt at conflating the arguments here then?
You are directly refencing an argument that I didn’t make anywhere about the addition of All-Aspect missiles to an aircraft that isn’t relevant to the thorough line of the discussion.
Not the prospective impact of propagating IRCCM equipt missile variant(s) to aircraft that will see missiles with significantly improved performance as they would otherwise lack a direct counterpart and likely be shorty down tiered, furthering compression.
So yeah I’m seeing an attempted Strawman here.
Because there are no lineups in ARB, but then again ARB isn’t the only mode GRB and AAB do also exist and so should be taken into account when balancing things.
It’s not anywhere close to balanced, and depends heavily on how you construct a lineup and further the matchmaker and map you get will heavily impact you ability to react appropriately to occurrences in the match, and don’t forget that you can uptier lower vehicles to fill out your slots so its not as if the number of options are constrained
Take for example a potential threat scenario of say an Harrier GR.7 with LGB’s, or AH-64D with AGM-114’s
How can the performance differential between the Pantsir and the Type 93 or Type 87 SPAA in said situation be called remotely fair, in a prospective 11.7 lineup they would be needed to fulfill the same role, one nation is much more constrained than the other(s) but should it get some sort of assistance e.g. SP cost reduction to A2A equipt Fighters to help make things more balanced? possibly it would just need to be carefully monitored to keep things fair.
4 Likes
1 through 4- Adds to my points.
5 & 7- Helicopters aren’t fixed win aircraft, and manpads aren’t fixed wing weapon systems.
6- Su-25 is a Soviet aircraft.
8- No one strawmanned you. I’m not arguing against a position I made up, cause I didn’t make up any position & tied it to you to begin with. refer to my response to 5 & 7.
9- no nation is specifically “meta”.
Sweden has the strongest ground lineup, but that doesn’t mean anything cause 11.7 is balanced across all nations.
There, no post addressing all points they made in one paragraph.
1-2- No, they don’t. Helicopters can’t enter air RB & manpads still aren’t R-73s & Aim-9Ms.
3- Which isn’t a strawman, as that’s not making up a position for you.
There was no attempt at “conflating” anything, it was a test of your ideological consistency, which you failed.
4- And all 12.0 aircraft currently are equals to each other.
Dude, this is a thread about next major, not argue over petty stuff thread.
Off-topic rants are honestly an annoyance.
It’s like talking to a wall. Lmao
3 Likes