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.
You can get kills with the frogfoots, don’t get me wrong, the missiles are better than if it had r60s. But they’re not as flash as they are on other agile platforms. You can still get kills with them, if I’m particularly awake when I’m playing it, I have topscored on a2a only with my su 39. But it isn’t because su 39 is good lol
1 Like
still r73 are a blessing compared to flare60m…
I’m sure a lot of the stuff is offset by the fact that BM is an 11.0 jet. So I think it may not be that different from using R-73 on a top tier since your enemies are more capable there too.
it is different, the lack of speed is noticable and you have a harder time to lead your missile
The BM is the best 73 frogfoot from an a2a standpoint. It does have barely enough agility to use them properly. It is the only one I think could be justified in going up, but the agility issues with the others are really hindering them in using the missiles.
Yeah I guess. Even with lower agility, R-73 is best missile in-game to counteract that imo. Sidewinder not bad either, I enjoyed A-10A late, but R-73 seems far better suited to a slow jet
I would argue the 9M better serves a slower platform on account of the range, lower launch visibility, and the IRCCM serving better than the 73s as 73 benefits more from a faster closure rate whereas 9M holds relatively consistent throughout the approach envelope. Which is part of why I hold that the Su 39 et al should remain below the A10C (which also gets twice the missile count of IRCCM missiles), which is presently where they are situated.
4 Likes
aam3(better aim9m) would probably be better for the su25 due to being smokeles but r73 does it pretty well
the su39 has the IRCM and better engines than the su25bm(su25k engines) so it might be a bit justified for higher br. But I wouldnt buy the su39 bc it looks painful to play
I’ve about 100 air targets downed (rarely try too much for air kills with su 39) and a thousand ground targets destroyed with it, so I’m somewhat familiar with the Su 39, for a2a you’re better off with the BM. If we’re going off air performance, I’d put the rating more or less equal between BM and 39.
A lot of the advantages of 39 just aren’t really that advantageous. The IRCM does get ignored most of the time, the better engines don’t really account for the drag and weight, etc.