Way to miss the point entirely. I’m not saying that you can’t get kills with grom. Just like you can get kills with CCRP. Just that they’ll be unreliable and FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from OP compared to the standard of equipment at TOP TIER.
Jeez i just remembered how gayjin tried to explain why mistrals and stingers didnt pull more than 13Gs cuz russian igla couldnt so they couldnt. B R U H
I found the source with all of 3 minutes worth of google-fu, and actually looking for patents for the Redeye (FIM-43) it really wasn’t that hard to find because it cited the Redeye patent (the FIM-92 was originally known as the Redeye II), as a direct improvement over to the method it used, which is what is described in the MANPADS article.
It’s a bit annoying that its still hasn’t been actioned by now, though.
I’ve actually been thinking about this and im unsure how much of an impact the GBU-39’s will have anymore tbh.
Atm (afaik), the most effective strat for time to ticket effectiveness in sim are napalm bomb runs while retaining a good degree of air to air (so you can protect yourself if intercepted and can help once you’ve dropped bombs).
- The F-15C can carry up to 9 BLU-27B napalm bombs along with 8 AAM’s, enough to kill 4.5 bases and have no impact on its flight performance.
- The F-16C can carry 2-8 BLU-27B with 6-4 AAM’s for a similar effect.
- The Su-27SM can carry 1-8 ZB-500s with 11-4 AAMs (optimal is something like 6x ZB-500 + 8x AAMs for a good mix imo, 4x + 10x gives you the missile count advantage at the cost of 1 base tho which is also very viable imo)
This means all 3 of the planes above can wipe out ~2+ bases per sortie while remaining strong air to air fighters. The F-15E on the other hand has to give up AAM’s for its GBU-39s, and from what I’ve been told, cant carry napalm, which likely makes it inferior in base bombing performance. For the GBU-39’s to make this up, the ticket bleed from battlefield wins would need to be equivalent to at least 6+ bombing bases imo, to account for the opportunity cost of not running an aircraft with superior base striking capabilities along with a better FM, as well as the AAM’s it cant carry while doing so.
As for the Grom-1E’s, they might actually be detrimental to REDFOR teams in sim. Their extreme range and ease of use are likely to lead to bots abusing them excessively, which will fill REDFOR teams with bots, and even if they arent being played by bots, launching from the AF is likely to lead to even more manpower issues for REDFOR, who already suffer from lower player counts at top tier.
If gaijin adds new long range GBAD like the patriot in the trailer eventually though, the Grom-1E’s will suddenly make REDFOR significantly more viable as theyd be the only nation (currently) to have the ability to strike said GBAD systems from beyond their range.
I could be wrong, but werent they modelled as contrast seekers in the past, followed by gaijin absolutely ruining their seekers for “balance” and then pretending they couldnt model them properly at a later date?
I specifically remember testing with friends the launch range of the missiles vs targets on different types of ground, and though it might be a placebo and the seekers “didnt” work as real contrast seekers, they DID seem to work better than they did after they made it possible for them to lock the ground…
They are optimized specifically for taking out static targets, so things like pillboxes, AA / AT emplacements and MG turrets, efficiently in a single pass, much more so than CCIP rockets / bombs, but don’t quite have the stowed kill potential of a gunpod, but are carried in a slightly more efficient form factor vs conventional bombs / 500lb JDAMs since only the AV-8B’s have access to the BRU-70 D-ITER, and the BRU-57 / STAR Rail aren’t a thing or as efficient as the BRU-60 could be.
It’s best not to consider them a direct replacement for anything, but to supplement stowed kills / station efficiency against lightly armored static targets that you might for example find in number at Frontline type objectives, so you don’t have to expend heavier ordnance that is otherwise better suited to being used against armored or mobile targets, especially if fuel tanks are used (even if the CFTs do exist, alternate loadings would help retain BFM performance since they can be dropped).
I get that, my point was more along the lines of the F-15C/F-16C already do a stunning job at ticket victories with napalm, something the F-15E cannot do, so for the GBU-39’s to be worth the sortie, killing a battlefield needs to be worth more than the sum of striking multiple bases in a single sortie, particularly considering the sacrifices in AAM’s that need to be made to carry enough to completely wipe a battlefield in 1 run leading to you being a less effective air to air platform and more easily intercepted.
That being said, there is the argument that someone could do base strikes with F-15C/16C while the F-15E focuses battlefields and convoys, which is fair, seeing as the F-15C/16C are both SO efficient at killing bases that only 1-2 of them are needed per team to wipe all bombing targets per sortie, so the F-15E will allow faster wins through more complete objective gameplay on a team scale.
At the end of the day, objectives in sim remain relatively simplistic, and the efficiency balance in tickets of performing them is very skewed. Killing 3 bases will give you a similar ticket bleed to capturing 1 air point for example, but capturing an air point can take upwards of 10min and require a lot of combat, with no guarantee of completion. They act more as “secondary objectives” when it comes to winning matches imo. Killing air targets is also decent for tickets, but you need to intercept the enemy AI vehicles flying at mach jesus or in erratic patterns, and either use your finite AAM’s to kill them quick, or guns and risk being intercepted/interrupted. Convoys dont tend to be killed often due to their glitchy pathing, strong AA and up until this point, there not being many/any vehicles that could reliably wipe a convoy in a single run. Killing battlefields was also difficult due to the shear number of units, and the fact that winning a battlefield is actively detrimental, as it can push objectives AWAY from your teams airfields and towards theirs.
As such, bombing bases are the most efficient targets and also the ones we have the most details about the impact of on a match, even if anecdotal. If killing a battlefield is the equivalent of only killing 1 base for example, running an F-15E with GBU-39’s would basically be a non-starter, as the opportunity cost to your team would be high.
(That being said, its gonna finally give us a new thing to do sorta, so im definitely still gonna run the F-15E just to strike objectives others dont lol)
You aren’t wrong it’s mentioned in the MiG-27M’s Devblog and it was how they were when originally implemented.
Unlike the seeker of the Maverick missiles, the Kh-29T missile and the KAB-500kr guided bomb are equipped with a TV-correlation seeker, the main feature of which is the difference in the visual image of the captured area and the rest of the background. This means that such seeker will not be able to lock on single ground targets such as a tank, but they will be able to capture any point on the land surface. Thus, the player will be able to strike at the intended locations of the target without visual detection (tanks in the bushes, or at the capture point, covered by an obstacle). However, if the enemy’s tank changes its position, then the drop will be done on an empty spot.)
And in the eventual report on the issue, that the change was a “balancing decision” even though that’s not what the report requested, though was mentioned as an alternate option.
The Brimstone isn’t the first and won’t be the last.
3 Likes
Weird how gaijin has a habit of changing stuff for seemingly random reasons, even if the original form was more accurate and better modelled.
Reminds me of how they always change sounds, and at one point an Abrams crewman told me they got the M1’s sounds PERFECT, they proceeded to change them again the next update and hes never considered them right since. (not gameplay related, but another good example of arbitrary changes for seemingly arbitrary reasons…)
That one time the sound guy cooked along with the bug that made props have the tailspin sound effects made for a perfect update. Made props sound amazing doing fly bys along with all the tanks and jets making actual sounds so you didnt have stealth tech abrams coming up behind you making zero sound…
Next update you could barely hear a t80 50m away.
turbine engines are actually pretty quiet (or so i heard) until they’re near you, he meant more than actual sound itself, not how loud it was. That being said, I do agree that gaijin has on occasion struck gold with sounds, and every single time they’ve ruined said good sounds the next major update.
To get back on topic though, the Brimstone seeker mismodelling is a bad joke imo. Its warhead is smaller than a mavs or hellfire and its not particularly quick either. When you compare it to stuff like the Kh-38’s (of which all variants are beyond busted in the ground attack role) the missile is rather poor for WT. Toss on the SALH-only seeker as per gaijins decision and it makes it effectively pointless as an addition. Mavs have similar range and out damage it while having the vaunted F&F capability, and the Kh-38’s outperform it in every single possible way (range, speed, seeker, warhead, even flight path) except for numbers. MMW seekers could also still be stopped by multispectral smoke and could be significantly limited by modern ground vehicle covers like the Saab Barracuda, but they could simply model them as IIR/TV seekers for balance and that would be a VASTLY better option than just making them SALH. Doesnt even make sense to add them if theyre going to be kept to SALH. PARTICCULARLY since gaijin continues to not model dual-targeting (or more) and buddy-lasing.
Obviously theres the argument of it not being good for the ground vehicles, but they opened pandoras box on that subject with the Kh-38s, and arguably all the way back with the Vikhr, which are to this day STILL the best heli-borne ATGM’s in the game by a WIDE margin.
Stinks of hypocrisy imo.
2 Likes
Someone provided sources to Gaijin that Kh-29Ts uses a contrast seeker,so its fine.
The funny part is Kab-500kr.its definitely a TV-correlation seeker,and it still got the moving target tracking ability.JSOW-C use correlation seeker too, it’s would be funny to see how gaijin deal with it.
I thought JSOW-C used terminal IIR guidance?
Yes,the JSOW-C use aN IR DSMAC-like seeker in terminal phase,it can’t track tank targets.
1 Like
The real problem of maverick now is its flight performance.the drag of missile is too high.For AGM65G even at maximum range, the missile still has a speed of 200 meters per second to ensure penetration,but gaijin think the speed be 0 at max range.There are very detailed information about launch envelope,TOF,terminal velocity/dive angle in harrier tactical manuals,but I can’t write issue about it because the manual is a leaked one.
1 Like
Radar is clearly picking the ordnance, IMO your problem is with your radar screen settings (range 30 scanning only 60deg).
Doesn’t matter, the bombs were launched lower altitude, you can see them pop up in the 2nd image when the tracking radar locks the F-15.
But yeah, it’s clear RCS is being updated constantly as well, and at some point Pantsir’s ability to lock ordnance will be as difficult as everyone else.
For those that haven’t seen it
1 Like
Nothing of value was lost since the grom is a meme, but it’s hilarious that so many people fell for another “mig-25 SUPER FIGHTER!!!1!” situation here.
1 Like
probably gonna get it with USA, but i’m saying germany needs something, and it needs it quick. I’m not saying other nations shouldn’t get it