SU-25SM3 can easily dodge missiles because of its ability to know if the missile is launched towards him or not, i don’t know about the A10C having the same ability but the first one is still superior than the second.
11.0 for ground to not be Pantsir food, and 11.7 for air.
The HMD is a moot point. The 9M does not slave to the HMD on the A-10.
How in the hell do you fail to kill a J-35 with an R-73?
The R73 is gimped massively by it’s terrible acceleration, especially coming off a subsonic airframe. That’s why the magic feels so good and the r73 doesn’t. It can’t close the distance fast enough for the gatewidth to really matter, even launched at 1km it can be easily flared if they are looking and see the launch
the SU25 being so disgustingly over BR is the only thing keeping the top harriers from having the slowest speed in top tier. it should be 11.7 max
The 550s feel better than the R-73 not because of acceleration, but because they pull sharp and crisp turns instead of the lofty turn that the R-73 may pull. The Magic burns for almost exactly half the timespan with less than double the thrust. If you wanted higher acceleration on a shorter booster for the R-73, it would be flopping around in the air with a turn less effective than the AIM-9D.
All in all, the Magic is a far slower missile with less capability. The only gimmick it survives off of is an immense pull off the rail, which only serves its purpose within 2km.
It wouldn’t be half as easily flared if the idiot didn’t fire it at a head-on target
The total delta v is almost entirely irrelevant here because they’re both gatewidth. If the magic is only better inside of 2km (2km is effectively your maximum engagement range with both of these for this reason), then it’s still much better because it will actually track the target instead of being decoyed because it is too slow off the rail.
Anecdotally, when I fire a magic inside of 2km it is almost always a kill, even in side aspect. R73 I do not have anywhere near such reliable performance, even at closer ranges
Having a restricting seeker is irrelevant to its energy. The only reason why the R-73 has lesser propulsion over twice the length is due to it using its motor as its primary source of short-range maneuverability. It in no way makes it not “feel so good”. If the R-73 had the burn time of the Magic with the outright acceleration, it would maneuver about as well as as an Igla.
I never said it was better below 2km, I said it was only usable below 2km due to its horrible motor characteristics.
It won’t be decoyed due to being too slow off the rail? Both have the exact same seeker constrictions and are both as effective as each other in similar aspects. Its time to get to the target is irrelevant, the major factor in that is the launch time and reaction of the defender.
I’d like to waive your anecdotes, seeing your performance record. Honestly… it’s laughable.
Yeah, because the A-10C can carry only bombs…
If you can’t understand how closing the distance faster means the seeker will be more effective, regardless of total energy, then you should probably ponder that. This isn’t about maneuverability of either of the missiles
I think… what hes saying. Is that a missile that is faster off the rails and can close to the target faster. Has less time to be spoofed by a flare. Also less time for target to jink the missile.
I understand it perfectl
The maneuverability of the missiles, and their intent when manufactured, is inherently tied to its maneuverability. You’re comparing a PNG missile to a PID/TVC missile… And then comparing their acceleration…? Their maneuverability is something that must be accounted for in this.
Then you mistook the intent of my original post, I was just saying why the Magic feels more reliable than the R73 in most situations. The R73 is certainly better in some situations, but not the majority in the course of average games. It is a compare/contrast not “this is better than that”
Its acceleration and closing time to the target plays no effective difference when both are launched in the same margins. We’re talking about a 0.17s difference in the time it would take for the missile to hit that target.
Fair enough. though persoanlly looking forward to ASRAAMs speed of the rails. Few things come close to its acceleration :P
The refutations I’m making are on the basis of
and the horrible videos used to exemplify this
I understand the original intent was to dispute the Su-25’s battle ratings, but what they fail to understand is that the R-73 isn’t the only weapon these have. 3 of the 4 vehicles highlighted have the ability to use other missiles against aircraft, some of which are VERY effective (X-39 and X-25) against aircraft, and have gotten me quite a few kills alongside the R-73s. Hell, a solid 1/3 of mine are with X-25MLs and
have been recorded.
That’s great and all, but I didn’t write that. I wrote exactly what I wrote and I don’t think we’re necessarily in disagreement
Well, you didn’t write the original post… So of course you didn’t. What you originally wrote was a comment to me, so I don’t feel you’re in a position to cherry pick what exact argument I’m engaging in.
Exactly, however, inertia does play a role, henceforth a lower speed means less inertia off the rail, meaning it’s taking more time to get to its max speed, which, while minute, could be the time it takes to keep your life.
did all su-25’s get moved up on the dev server?