Su-24, Tornado, and especially F-111C/F are the big threats.
But, Su-24 is the slowest among them, and as-well armed as Tornado.
F-111s are the only ones with 3 base loadouts for bombs.
Napalm changes occurred and I can’t address that at this time.
1 Like
As much as I don’t want to be that person, if the 10 can have Ms as the defensive option which can be used with the relatively competent agility of the platform quite well, then it serves that 24 could do with better defensive options as even 73s would be difficult to implement with the platform (unless HMD). The presence of a marginal threat over a nonexistent one is a lot better at keeping people away from the ground attacker.
I think I outlined the logic behind it above, whether or not it convinces you. The speed of su 24 is all well and good, except it doesn’t have the agility to implement r73 shots as effectively as the 10 can utilise 9Ms. Personally, Su 24 should be changed to the later standard and sent up, alongside the A10. If the dev server is anything to go by, one of these paltforms is significantly easier to fly defensively.
1 Like
Hmm weird, because I have videos of me flying a Su27 and other aircraft, pre-flaring an f-16c, continuing to flare, and banking, and still getting hit with aim-9m.
I’ll tell you what, once I get my F-16c, you get in any Russian aircraft, tell me how easy it is to dodge my aim-9m.
Trying to quote my play style only looks bad on you. I never said once I would be engaging A2A willfully. But if I MUST, then I should have a better chance than an r-60 that’ll just miss.
That’s great. But I was flaring, pre flaring even, with no after burners.
Also, the RAF such as other government agencies of the UK have been known to twist the truth, remember that chally that got hit over “800 times” (mostly all light arms, at least 2 were HE rpgs tho)
Again. Su-24M with 4x R-60M vs Tornado WTD61/A200/MFG with 2x Aim-9L at 11.3 I think is equal.
and I dont think the fact the Tornados have Aim-9L at 11.3 is justification for Su-24M to get R-73s.
Max bomb is rarely the best strategy interdictors. I rarely run more than 8 bombs on the Tornado, and quite often only 5. That way I can run fuel tanks. F-111 I have no idea about yet. But I wouldnt be surprised if I rarely run 3x Base kill amount of bombs.
Also I could be wrong, but the F-111C only looks like it has the bomb capacity for about 1.2 base kills I think. 4x 2k bombs I think its 3 per base. Smaller bombs, I think its 10-12 per base. So that is maybe 2 with them
As far as I know, no one in this topic has demanded R-73s for Su-24.
All I’ve done is mock them for wanting a 12.7+ Su-24 in other topics, though it wouldn’t surprise me if I did it here as well.
Our conversation about targeting pods as well as how busy today was could’ve had me forget some details.
750 pound bombs, 7 of them per base, and you get 24 of them while going mach 1.10 minimum.
Oh, they didn’t add the 750s to the C. Sad. C only gets 2 bases.
1 Like
The difference in speed cannot be ignored. Otherwise lets just add IRCCM to everything at that BR. Like the Sea Harrier, Tornado (F3 as well), etc etc.
I do see the A-10C going to 11.7. But Unless the A-10 is suddenly made supersonic, then its loadout is irrelevant when compared to the Su-24. Tornado IDS is the best fit for that and 4x R-60M is about equal to 2x Aim-9L in my opinion.
This is not how the 9M works. I do agree that the 9M is easy to defeat if you know its in the air but you cannot 1 flare a 9M, maybe front aspect because that split second seeker shutoff can make it so that it pulls too late because of the fast closure rate.
1 Like
If the A-10C also has a MAW, that just hurts your argument more. If you can’t positively identify your target, that’s on you. aim-9m is supposed to be a short range missile.
So, I dont believe the source so its wrong logic. Great. THen show me proof R-60Ms shoudlnt also be 1 tapped flared by anything?
I dont need to. I defeat Aim-9Ms all the time in the Sea Harrier FA2. One of the hardest aircraft in game to defeat any incoming missiles in.
1 Like
Literally the original post
1 Like
If you want to bring up the difference in speed then we also need to bring in the greater agility and easier defensive flying of the A10, allowing it to utilise the missiles it carries significantly more effectively than the Su 24. The loadout is only irrelevant if you look at it only accounting for half the factors present.
If we compare directly to Tornadoes, the missiles are lacking and the armament is closer to the latter Tornadoes. Which you will note is the BR I propose moving it to if it were changed to the later standard of 24. However, unless by some act of god this has changed, the performance of Su 24 is significantly behind Tornado in agility which also screws the ability to use the ordnance it carries.
Oh, I was the first responder.
Yeah, topic got a bit different in five hours.
It’s also as slow as a prop. If you want to kill it, gun it or use a radar missile.
what…?
The Abrams does in-fact spall lol.
Speed is a massive importance in fights. The gun pod on the Su-24 is also extremely dangerous.
2 Likes
bro you are actually tweaking what kind of logic is if they get 4 we get 6 ahh logic + a10c is slow so aim9m want get planes that 2km/2.5km way its not like you are f16 or 15 going 1400km to give aim9 some speed get your shit together
1 Like
Why not just give the Su-39 R-77 right? It had them IRL, among many other far more powerful weapons
1 Like
If the “later” Su-24M is more CMs, MAWS and R-73s. Then it should be higher than the Current 11.7 Tornados that lack both MAWS and IRCCM missiles.
Even if the Tornado IDSs at 11.7 get AIm-9M/Aim-9Li respectively and remain at 11.7. If the SU-24 got any more than 2x R-73s it should be a higher BR than the Tornado IDS.
Its impossible to compare at the moment which turns better, the Su-24 or the Tornado as both are “new”
Why? Tornado can utilise the missiles effectively, Su 24 would struggle. I usually respect your positions but on this you seem to be letting dislike for the kit bleed into your assessment of it. 73s are notably less competent ordnance.
1 Like
Sure, then it can move to 13.0 alongside the Sea Harrier FA2. Which is just a Sea harrier FRS1 (11.0) at 13.0
Cause those that actually enjoy these vehicles at lower BRs don’t want to be stuck using them at higher BRs.
Same reason why Su-24 should never get R-73s.
Just cause something can use a missile doesn’t mean it should when other historically accurate options exist.
You can chaff a radar missile at 11.3 with ease…
The USA mains all broke the forums over you not getting spall liners in abrams tanks.
I took a video just today of the abrams LFP not spalling :) would you like it?
I see the USA main agenda is “gun pod is dangerous unga bunga” well, a gun pod that goes up and down isn’t nearly as effective as an Aim-9m.
3 Likes