Please read before commenting, thank you.
There is no such thing as 9-13"A". There is the 9-13, and the 9-13S.
Someone seriously reported this post for abuse?
Yeah I can see that, they mentioned that the SU-25T and SU-39 are being considered to be get the R-73E but at the drop of the update only the SU-25BM would first receive it.
This will most likely be done mainly just to promote the event and to get people grinding or buying stars.
I thought the MiG-29S could carry R-77s, so the Soviet one could while the German one couldn’t
The MiG-29 can carry the R-77 but the variant we got in-game can’t though.
1 Like
Which is basically useless in top tier Ground Realistic. I’ve tried multiple times to use the Ground Radar but it’s either the target is too small to lock or you get blown up for being a idiot and flying high.
1 Like
I think the radar is only designed to work against moving targets, at least thats the case for the radar that hopefully will be added to the Tornados, might be the same for the Su-39
The Harrier GR.7 could be equipped with the ASRAAM as well but they’ll probably either introduce the GR.9 for that specifically or move the GR.7s BR higher.
I think the radar is only designed to work against moving targets, at least thats the case for the radar that hopefully will be added to the Tornados, might be the same for the Su-39
That isn’t the main issue I’ve found whilst flying it at Ground RB, the issue is that when you adjust lock onto the moving targets is 100x the size of the actual target so it’s basically impossible to lock onto someone.
It’s hard to explain you’ll just have to see a video to understand what I mean.
move to higher BR? what the different will that make? When it already 11.7 and see top tier anyway
I mean in the future as the ASRAAM would be just be too disgustingly overpowered to just be added at the current state of War Thunder.
I think Gr9, with Aim-9M is far more of a realistic addition. ASRAAM wont be seen for over a year, maybe 2. Id rather see the Gr7 stick with 9Ls at a lower BR to create seperation between the Gr7 and Gr9. To create a clear progression from 1 to the other and reason to still use both
Ah fair enough, its a new mechanic. Always takes 6+ months to iron out the kinks. PGMs are still tempromental for example
Yeah I also share the same Idea, I was just correcting someone.
Ah fair enough, its a new mechanic. Always takes 6+ months to iron out the kinks. PGMs are still tempromental for example
Yeah I only carry the radar for Simulator or Air RB but usually never Ground RB.
1 Like
Just like the R73! Let’s ignore that for now though as the issue doesn’t exclusively lie with the R73 but every IRCCM missile that could be added, even a very modest one like the flare resistant variant of the 9J. War Thunder’s missiles are too simply moddeled at the moment just for the compexities of adequately tracking with missiles, with some missiles not even able to fly through the air properly when they do track. Flare rejection would be even tougher to effectively and fairly model, nevermind when, in the R73s case, said missile is also at least on par with the most dangerous missile currently in the game for manuverability (SRAAM) while completely excising its two weaknesses that keep it out of actually being usable, the worst range and the worst flare resistance in the game for any missile. Yes, even the dreaded ‘flare hungry’ R60 is only able to tie it.
As such there’s only two paths forward for the R73 or any other IRCCM missile going forward. Either the missile is stupidly overpowered and would shove everything that carries one up to the max BR because flaring simply does not work (think R73 dev v3 for Apex Predators) or it’s completely non functionally and provides no actual advantage over its contemporaries as it simply gets flared away as easily as a everything else, making its addition mostly pointless.
Regardless of which path the Su-25 leads us down though, everyone on the forum is going to complain anyways, so look forward to that.
2 Likes
Getting a overhaul soon 😉
But i shadow your concerns as well. Its either slaps like a truck or does absolutely nothing. Current IR implementation is one or the other
Red Tops fixed any day now!
Edit: To ‘condense’ my point I guess. War Thunder, as of early August in The Year of Our Lord 2023 (praise be the Snail), does not sufficiently model missiles for advanced ones with IRCCM, thrust vectoring, or any other crazy shit to be anything inbetween worthless or meta destroying.
Su-25 and 39 should get their R73s, even though I have my own qualms and axe to grind about those vehicles on principle alone, but that time isn’t quite yet I belive. If CM and missiles jn general get reworked then absolutely add them in a heartbeat. But if they are added as is and they turn out to be on the ‘busted’ end of the spectrum then… well, I hope you don’t mind if I VTOL behind a mountain and lob 9Ms at your ass in a Harrier and see how you’re able to deal with an unavoidable, unflareable missile.
1 Like
What’s even wrong with Red Tops?
They have their limited all-aspect capability, their correct burn time, their correct maneuverability…
The advantage of the R-73 is the much larger volume of space that a defensive pilot would need to scan to see the missile launch, aided by the HMS / IRST the fighter based installations are going to have a massive leg up since they won’t need to ping the RWR or get the nose on target to set up seeker slaving, which few other airframes can match since the counterpart AN/AVG-8B & AIM-95, haven’t turned up even though they could be similarly mounted to the A-7 and the F-14, F-15 & F-16.
The higher G loading / gimbal limits and acceleration vs the R-60 / AIM-9L also helps with off boresight and very short range shots and practically require early and sustained CM dispensing to avoid them since they move fast enough that relying on seeing the missile first won’t guarantee that you can dodge sufficiently well.
The R-73 data might not be accurate anymore, but as far as I know the seeker wasn't changed with the most recent set of datamined values.
The only case where there limited / no performance improvement is if the missile is noticed, which practically comes down to the interactions between both pilots, so isn’t really measurable other than to say it really wouldn’t matter what you are launching past a point, at least with the current mechanical interaction between flares and seekers.
For what it’s worth I prefer air-to-air armaments be buffed back to an effective level for 2 reasons;
-
They’re only really imbalanced outside of a few exceptions because they require the playerbase to understand how to fly defensively, for example, if I am in an F-14 or Mig 29, and I allow a Python 3, Aim 9L, Magic 2, or R-73 to be launched rear aspect on me and didn’t pre-flare or cut burner, I shouldn’t just be able to tap it away like I currently can.
-
It doesn’t feel like unlocking a “better” missile does anything for you in terms of accomplishment when all of them are tuned to be so weak that a single keybind defeats them in most circumstances, unless I’m flying in a straight line against a rear-aspect shot full burner, which I do see people do.
Flares are currently performing as they probably should, and we don’t even have the hotter flares of the 1990s yet.
I don’t believe that a single flare in rear aspect on a hot F-14B can defeat a Python 3
Stupid high drag, limited all aspect is not modeled correctly (basically a increased buff everything else got against afterburning targets), missile is pure pursuit and does not lead…
I know back in September of last year it got changed in such a way that it could no longer even track appropriately and allowed it to lose lock relatively easily.
It’s the culmination of more than 3 years of nerfs, general changes, and bad modeling.