then the Su34 and Su30SM go with out, if they want a FnF missile that is IIR bring the Su25SM3 I would rather the Su34 and Su30SM have worse A2G loadouts then them having fictional loadouts
2 Likes
The quantity of missiles carried isn’t reflective of actual capability, but tracking down sources that prove these details is difficult, without contemporary stores loading configs. Thus is not really reportable. So it would be very possible for this to be downgraded at some point in the future without notice.
Well, technically speaking the LAU-88A/A Triple rail mounting adapter configuration for the F-16 was withdrawn in early 2000, so is erroneous for the particular configuration that is implemented in game. so it would be limited to 2x LAU-117 (Single rail adapter) per wing (also the outboard wing should only be able to accept the -65E (or -65C) as well), eating into available stations for missiles.
The F-15 (among other airframes) should be forced to Slant-Load the rails pending neighboring stores configuration of the CFT due to emergency jettison constraints. So shouldn’t be able to be loaded to the gills with ordnance.
The F/A-18 has similar issues.
4 Likes
They’re also ignoring the fact that, to bring a higher quantity of ordinance to battle than the Su-30SM for example, the other jets need to sacrifice a significant portion of their air to air ordinance.
- F-15E/I can only carry 1 additional center mounted 2000lbs class munition without having to sacrifice half of its AAM load.
- F-16C/D is already running only 4 AAMs when running 6x 65D’s
- Gripen need to sacrifice all but 2 AAMs, along with all of their BOL pods just to bring 4x mavs, and that leaves it with no ARH to boot.
While technically true the Su-30SM needs to sacrifice a large number of AAM’s to carry the full 6x Kh-38MT’s, its rendered irrelevant by the fact it already carries almost double the AAM load of most other jets in-game, at 14x vs most jets 8x or less (exceptions being other flankers and the EFT, which im not even bothering bringing up in this convo since it does not have standoff OR F&F capabilities unlike everyone else).
Su-30SM carries 6x R-77-1 + 6x Kh-38MT + 2x R-73, which means that at typical CAS loadings, the Su-30SM is flying with the equivalent of all its competitors full air to air loads as well, all while having vastly superior air to ground loads.
This is also ignoring the fact that the time on station to use additional laser guided PGM’s renders their carriage effectively worthless when compared to standoff munitions like Kh-38MT and AASM IR. In the time a player takes to fire off 6 AGM-65D’s and drop 8x GBU-12’s + 1 2000lbs class centerline munition from a fully loaded F-15E, the Su-30SM will either have had time to fire off all 6 of its Kh-38MT and intercepted the F-15E, or likely have RTB’d twice, putting their equivalent strike count somewhere in the same ballpark when considering a similar period of time.
8 Likes
if I remember right the Su30SM shouldnt even have the dual R-77-1 pylons on the belly since that was something on the Su35 not the Su30
1 Like
reminder there is evidence that the EFT should be able to carry an AMRAAM on the inner pylons yet still dont have it
idk if that points ever been made clear tbh.
Afaik (and I could be wrong), there has never been a Su-27 or Su-30SM with double R-77 rails. They were initially added to the Su-27SM to help it out since it had inferior AAM’s, so they wanted to give it more of them to somewhat counteract this issue. Afterwards they seem to have gone “oh boy, the community doesn’t care if we add stuff with no evidence to russian jets!” and just started giving unverified stuff out like candy it seems…
7 Likes
The evidence on that point is so-so, and gaijins point of contention isnt the station, its the jets software. Unless proven the EFT’s stores management software can account for more than 6x ARH, gaijin considers it impossible, so wing root AMRAAM are a pointless addition in their eyes.
1 Like
yet russia gets dual rail pylon R-77s there is no evidence of :/
The quantity of missiles carried isn’t reflective of actual capability, but tracking down sources that prove these details is difficult, without contemporary stores loading configs. Thus is not really reportable. So it would be very possible for this to be downgraded at some point ion the future without notice.
Interesting, I was not aware of this possibility. I was commenting based on the loadouts the planes currently have access to.
Once again, a certain weapon can be the best but it doesn’t really mean the whole package is OP. Just look at Sabra, at 9.7 it had M829A1 equivalent with a 6s reload, which is something that even 10.7s don’t get.
Do I think Sabra is massively OP because of that ? No.
Which would be balanced for 30SM, as I already said it doesn’t need 38MTs to be fine.
It kinda does as that’s how pros/cons work.
That’s like saying subsonic bricks in ARB don’t deserve to get all-aspect missiles before anyone else. What would be the benefit of playing those if they have nothing but drawbacks ?
@MythicPi
Why would any AA remain stationary just so you can snipe them from 40km away ?
Not like they can shoot back at you so they have a reason to stand still.
1 Like
They’re also ignoring the fact that, to bring a higher quantity of ordinance to battle than the Su-30SM for example, the other jets need to sacrifice a significant portion of their air to air ordinance.
That’s something of a tautology, no? Few planes can carry a full load of AAM’s and air to ground weapons at the same time. Most of my CAS loadouts take the maximum number of useful CAS weapons the plane can carry, and then as many AAM’s as can be carried without impinging on that. The sample Su-34 and F-15E loadouts I mentioned earlier were based on the presets I actually use.
This is also ignoring the fact that the time on station to use additional laser guided PGM’s renders their carriage effectively worthless when compared to standoff munitions like Kh-38MT and AASM IR.
You’ll notice I mentioned GBU-31’s and not GBU-24’s, as I agree that LGB’s are not terribly useful at top tier these days (I haven’t even bothered unlocking the GBU-24 on the Rafale yet). GNSS weapons are a different story.
1 Like
You know you could’ve used the search tool and find all (if any) posts from Stona or Smin in this thread ?
It would probably take less time than writing all this and you’ll get first hand information.
Just scrolling down and seeing your posts is painful enough, give him some slack.
Missile is fake and it’s addition is unjust.
First is a fact by lack of evidence from anyone or anything which makes it a fact due to scientific method being applicable to this situation. It’s a hardware discussion, we’re not discussing ideas here, nothing theoretical or philosophical is being brought up. Stop trying to stab an empty bush.
Second is a fact by Gaijin’s own statements, bug report rejection reasons and just plain common sense.
Wanna discuss my stance on common sense? Scroll up and read.
9 Likes
Remove those missiles.
2 Likes
Didn’t expect much from RU main who only fly Russians ofc he gonna protected his skill less fake missile pressing spacebar for few times out side spaa range is all they do after all.
4 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The Su27sm we have ingame should have 2 extra wing pylons instead of the double pylons.
Only the Su27sm3 got the upgraded engine, that we have ingame rn and the Su27sm3 has the 2 extra wing pylons like the su30 or su33 for example.
In the end it wouldn’t make a difference tho if the double pylons are removed and the extra wing pylons are added
1 Like
then report it on the issues site, if the document you are quoting is good enough to not be considered secondary source at best, it will get changed.
because it was deemed to op, you really need those longbows now? or do you want just another way to bully tanks and spaa alike
dont have the f111 but:
i would assume its a irl limitation.
serverside issue, desync and all, if you think its bad code or “fantasy land” instead of a bad servers, go to heli pve around 8.3 and try hit a convoy vehicle, the server loves to desync stuff
then report it on the issues site, if the document you are quoting is good enough to not be considered secondary source at best, it will get changed.
never had that happen to me, weird because i usually play around those br’s nowadays.
because most of them are designed to stop chemical weaponary, and to counter that type of armour you only need tandem charge on a missile for example.
–
also i fail to see what you meant by “do yourself a favor and stop researching how bad some of the models are gimped”. You might have responded to the wrong comment lol, i was responding to a person asking if we cant find a proof of existance/non-existance of the KH-38MT.
and also, remember, its just a game, nothing serious, not a simulator or anything, just a silly game for people who wanna play their favourite vehicle.
(also if you have something to say to me, just dm me, i dont want to talk about off-topic things on this thread)
Spike, Vikhr, Pars: exists…
4 Likes
spike and pars are f&f yes, but pars has like 3.7 kg of explosive and hellfires have around 9 kg, makes them way more lethal against armoured targets, longbows would be way better then spike or pars
and when it comes to vikhr’s, yeah those are op, what can i tell you, do you want more powercreep as a answer to existing powercreep?
also if anybody wants to talk about this to me, just dm me, im done answering off topic stuff here