F4C shouldnt see this
I’ve been 500m off an Su-39s tail in an F3 and not been able to lock with 9Ls
Agreed, but the IRCCM isnt the main problem, I would argue having aim9L´s locking you 4-5km away is also pretty bad for the f4c. I would extend your statement to aim9l bc it has similiar capabilities than a r73 has to a flareless target
I got similiar results(pl5b and aim9p), but this close I wont try and lock someone with a missile, side aspect is the best way to get him.
funny, i’ve been able to burn through the IRCM with AIM-9Gs relatively easily, and Magic 1s
2 Likes
this has probably sth to do with their seeker, you feel the different behaviour of the missiles when they see another heatsource(flares, sun and probably even the IRCM(cant test it)…)
Im assuming you mean where the seeker doesnt wobble.
You can still hit even with the wobble. I feel like earlier missiles (aim9b-j) will mostly fail but aim9g/h/l will be able to get through at least half the time.
1 Like
That’s strange, as 90% of the 9Ls launched at my su 39 track through both the IRCM and flares.
That aside, if we’re to send su39 up, we should send A10C up. More air to ground, more air to air, arguably better air to air, a lot more countermeasures. As it stands, relative to its nearest competitor (a10c) it is in a sensible position. It is rarely difficult to kill it, and the main advantages of R73 are defeated by the platform.
I am fond of Su 39, but it really isn’t as stellar as many folk are trying to paint it. If the missiles were on a mig 21 at that BR, fair enough, that has the agility to use them effectively. Su 39 doesn’t.
4 Likes
This makes me want AN/AAQ-8 on F-4C and F-4E even more
i find it harder to dodge R73 easier to dodge the 9L
It just takes them a single braincell and you aren’t killing planes like Su-39 or A-10 with IRs due to massive CM count.
1 Like
2km
Indeed, if Su-39 moves up so should A-10C.
4x 9Ms is definitely better to have than 2x R-73s considering those are mounted on a subsonic HMD-less plane, which kind of defeats their purpose.
Yes, and even then, if you go at 900km/h and fire the R-73 at a target going mach 1 at 2300m, it will hit
Aren’t R-73 really good at low speed?
Thrust vectoring 40 G´s missile, yes they are really good at low speeds
1 Like
still you cant rlly dodge them in a certian area…
I always launch missiles at the wobbling DIRCM seeker and it tracks and kills fine
1 Like
73s are good at low speed on platforms that can utilise them in offbore shots. The frogfoots with r73 are not those platforms. At the speed you’ll generally be going with a frogfoot to reach your target, 73s are okay but easily flared (they aren’t launched at decent enough speeds to close distance rapidly enough to defeat flares in most situations but too fast to really see the low speed benefit). At the slower speeds you’ll be with 73 carrying frogfoots, you’ll lack the agility to get the missile to see the target, so you generally never see the advantage of low speed launches.
On paper, it looks great. Actually trying to use them? They aren’t great on the frogfoots. Not to mention people can just not engage with a su 39 in a profile that they can launch 73s from, and the launch is incredibly obvious so the speed issues, compounded with the clear launch indicators mean it isn’t all that flash.
4 Likes
True. I will try them out on Su-25BM and pay attention to the things you have listed.