The smokeless motor is a small advantage and again, you are the one comparing ONLY “A2A” performance here and again, are you saying that A-10C is equal to the Tornado F3 Late because they both have 4x Aim-9M?
Aim-9M are useless with HMD. On the Tornado Gr4 and even the Typhoon I rarely fire at anything other than a direct shot. They are not R-73 or Magic II which are potent in off-boresight.
Again. Typhoon with 18x non-FnF is considered = to 6x FnF. So why isnt 16x Non-FnF considered = to 4x FnF?
Just seems hypocritical.
And using the same argument you have.
The Su-39 has 2x R-73 which are some of the best short range IRCCM missiles in game. Has IRCM that makes it immune to rear-aspect IR Missiles, has access to a very capable radar pod that just got a buff in terms of A2G performance and is very good in A2A. The vikhrs have prox fuse and can be used for A2A combat rather well.
Meanwhile the Harrier T-10 has 4x non-IRCCM missiles, less CMs (with the current BOL nerfs) and only rear-aspect MAWS. Its A2G performance is 4x FnF AGMs with a Gen 1 pod, this is much weaker than the Su-39s payload. And if the HArrier T-10 wants to runs 2x GBUs as well, it only has 2x Aim-9Ls for self defence. Meanwhile Su-39 gets 2x R-60M + 2x R-73 + 16x Vikhrs + 2x Kh-25+ 2x KH-29? (depending on hardpoint conflicts)
In terms of both A2A and A2G performance the Su-39 is superior to the Harrier T-10 and yet is a lower BR
So the A-10C has a superior or equal flight performance to the Tornado F3 Late?
No?
Not a single IR missile can be used against the IRCM unless at extremely close range and you get lucky. Heck not even Aim-9M works against IRCM. (i know i’ve tried)
Such as?
You have yet to justify why the Su-39 is 11.3 and the Harrier T-10 is 11.7 and the A-10C is 12.0 given the fact that the Su-39 has 16x AGMs
especially when the argument for the Typhoon being 13.0 AND being denied Brimstone 2 is because it can provide sustained CAS and would be too OP despite not having FnF. It is also inferior to the Rafale at the moment, especially in a CQB environmnet
Except for the fact that it isn’t… the Mavericks absolutely suck on the A-10 due to it’s low initial speed. Even the glide bombs suck because of how slow they travel. The B+ and the F111-F are better because they can use mavericks to some effect.
So no, the only plus you have is the 4 9ms, hmd, and a maw. If you want to take out planes, then use the F-15A or B+. Both are better because aim9ms paired with a high initial speed makes them deadly.
It should be 11.3 or whatever BR the Su39 is. Hell, even Hunter thought the BRs were accidentally swapped when it was introduced in the live server (GRB: 12.0 | ARB: 11.3)
In the context when we are comparing Su-25T and A-10C 4 9Ms and HMD can give leverage.
20 AGMs in total.
You can take test flight with 16 vikhrs and see how “convenient” they are to use brimestone maybe lack speed and prox fuse but definitely wins in damage and launch angle.
Also skipping that Su-25T doesn’t have IR targeting pod
The Su-39 is a better choice when it comes to CAS and the A-10C is better in CAP. But the Su-39 can deal with other aircraft if need be. Both can be seen as equals with what they bring to the table.
The Su25T is worse than the 39 because it only has the kh29T, not the kh29TE (which have a greater range). I can maybe see it at 11.0 but it’s still a stretch because the kh29T is still usable.
This isn’t directed towards you but the “superior platform” is a weak argument to allow for OP broken systems (A2A, A2G) to be in the game.
Yes, the Eurofighter is a superior platform but how much does that matter in GRB? Dogfights rarely happen. It’s usually whoever catches who off guard that wins. It’s not like the Su30 is incapable of defending itself.
Weak platform usually works when it’s not in top tier. The reason is because the BR can be raised where it faces tougher opponents. But if it’s already in top tier, other than changing the weapon systems itself, what can a BR raise accomplish when it’s already in top tier?
AASM250 is a bomb with rocket engine it’s drasticly slower, has less explosives and could be heavily nerfed.
Only if you locking the ground both of them have same seeker and it should be somewhere between 8-6 km when locking tank in good weather.
I think it’s about dodging the AA missiles Su-30SM has difficulties with that due to weak engine and speed loss which could be less problem in other platforms.
Lock target is 20km in perfect conditions and it will take few minutes to get there from max distance it is a slow thing slower than maverick it’s basically bomb with IR seeker
It’s not second best it bearly could be consider it as AGM with engine that can’t even lift it from ground.
Like how ? Su-30SM can contend only because it have superior weapon and radar in all other aspects Su is inferior in terms of speed gain it worse 2 times
For me it’s the fact that the brochure itself uses rather blurry and faraway photo. Surely if they are really the manufacturer, they can get a closeup shot that doesn’t show the goddamn skies or SU-34 canard.
If it’s “only a bomb with a rocket booster”, then remove IR guidance and limit it only to GPS.
I meant the Su30 was weaker than the typhoon if you ignore the radar, AAMs and AGMs. I got my wording wrong. Still funny watching soviet mains justify a paper weapon though and deny the same for everyone else
