Which airplanes the game considers strike aircraft and why this rule does not exist

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
1

And so I want to hear your opinion on the question: What is a strike aircraft in game classification and why should it be limited in A2A armament.

A bit of context: Many people told me after the release of the Su-39 that it is a strike aircraft and should not have R-27R or R-73. The reasoning was that the aircraft has great capabilities to destroy ground targets.

Okay. I decided to investigate this issue by accepting this thesis as true. So conditionally speaking all airplanes in the game should be divided into 2 types - A2A and A2G. Is it logical? I think so.

So I started looking:
F-14B airplane, which in the game has the classification of jet fighter:

  1. Suspended container with thermal imager.
  2. smart bombs
  3. medium-range missiles, and some of the best in the game.
  4. Short range missiles
  5. Excellent flight performance.

And it has all of these at the same time. You can have 4 bombs, thermal imager, 2 AIM-9L, 1 phoenix and a cannon with 670 rounds.
I’m sorry, what is that? Why isn’t the airplane labeled as a strike aircraft but has excellent armament against tanks? Why can it at the same time carry the best medium range missiles in the game?
You say 12.0. Let’s say, although at the same time literally at 11.7 there are Harrier and at 11.3 Su-39s, which are dozens of times worse, but play in the same combat.

Now I’m looking at the 11.0 F-4E, its game calls it a jet fighter too:

  1. 4 TV bombs or 2 bombs + 6 mavericks
  2. 4 medium range missiles
  3. 4 short range missiles
  4. 12 zuni on center hang, or unguided bombs.
  5. excellent flight performance

Explain to me why a fighter at 11.0 has TV bombs and yet medium range missiles??? Maybe the F-4E should either lose A2A Weapons or A2G? According to the game classification, it shouldn’t have bombs, it’s a fighter!

The same rule applies to the Mirage 2000-5F. it’s a jet fighter, but with the best aiming station in the game and insane flight characteristics that allow it to dodge SAM missiles in most situations.

Now looking at Mig-27K. It’s also a jet fighter, but for some reason it doesn’t have medium-range missiles.

Now I conclude that the game’s inscription means nothing. On 11.0+ almost all aircraft have anti-tank armament, and some jet fighters perform better than strike aircraft.
I conclude that the current system is idiotic and makes no sense.
Subsonic strike aircraft should fully get armament against jets to defend themselves, because their flight parameters are negligible compared to 4th gen fighters.
Otherwise, let’s clearly divide aircraft into 2 categories: A2A or A2G

2 Likes
2

cant you just let it die, you guys restart the whole topic x times only to keep the discussion active, why start another topic about it, and you are twisting the whole argument again, discussion of the SU 39 main problem was giving it BVR missles and many demanding to give it R 27 ERs, they maybe can get R 73s big maybe, but currently they dont, just let it freaking die , this topic is chewed out like nothing else

4

I wouldn’t mind if at least the F-4E lost either bombs or missiles.

Because it’s at 11.0 and better than many Tornadoes and Harriers at 11.3-11.7.

5

The whole reasoning is easy, they are designated like they are in real life and for their main purpose, the main purpose of the fighters is a2a, it just is that they can carry a2g as well, and the whole you still dont get it in your head that the main reason the su 39 doesnt get the missles is a BALANCING decision, it is good as it is with all its features for its main job

6

F-4E balanced? It has everything the tornado has on 11.3, but it’s better on 11.0.

7

never said it is balanced, i said the SU 39 is balanced, if you have a balance problem with the F-4E bring it up on the next br changes

8

Congratulations, but there’s no Su-39 in my life. It is a multitasking aircraft based on the strike aircraft.

Similarly for the Harrier, Su-39, A-7. They too “just might take the A2A armament in addition to the A2G”

Well yeah, on 12.0 we have the F-14B that can do everything at once. Absolutely a balancing act.

With all due respect you have 2000 fights and literally minimal games on 11.3+.

That said, you main germany and have nothing else, so it’s unlikely you understand whether the su-39 is in balasna or not.
Harrier Gr 7, being a much more comfortable airplane no one needs and has something like 500 games per month (thunderskill Doesn’t take into account everyone, but it is on average 5-10 times less than the average airplane)

9

i wont further say anything in your deranged thread, everything is already said in one of the other threads, you are only trying to keep the matter about the SU 39 alive and force your opinion on everyone else. I am just a broken record here repeating everything already said because you dont get it into your head, read through the other threads again and you will see the explanation for everyone already discussed

10

The topic applies to all strike aircraft and jet fighter.
It can be Su-39, Su-25T, A-10S (in the future), Harrier gr 7 or Mig-27k which being a jet fighter has no medium range missiles.

So here we are not talking about Su-39, but in general about the balance of classes of aircraft, where strike aircraft are senselessly limited in A2A armament, while jet fighter (some) have everything at once.

11

They had no explanation. Everyone referred to the stupid “strike aircraft” inscription in the game, but somehow ignored that this inscription means nothing in relation to weapons.

That’s what I’m proving in this thread

12

Gaijin’s rules are better than your proposal.
Your proposal is unrealistic.

1 Like
13

So what are the Gajin rules? I haven’t figured it out yet. Some fighters don’t have A2G armament, others suddenly do.

It’s more accurate to say there are no rules at all right now. The same airplane has different classes in different nations. The Mig-23MF in Germany and the Mig-27 in the USSR, for example.

14

Use IRL classification when applicable. There has always been rules regarding this. No same aircraft shares different classifications.
Mig-23MF & Mig-27 are different aircraft.

15

Now USA, china & Italy tech tree lack attack aircraft toptier with early modern Air-to-Ground armament and targeting pod at 11.7, 12.0 & 12.3 equivalent Harrier GR.7

16

You literally understand nothing about the issue. I was mistaken, I meant Mig-23BN.

It is in the game strike aircraft, although in life all Mig-27s are fighter-bombers.

And Mig-27BN is much less specialized for ground attacks.

Again I ask - where do you take the classification from in life? From what book?
I have already mentioned that the Su-39 is defined as a multitasking aircraft.

At the same time wikipedia says that f-14 is a two-seat jet deck fighter-interceptor. Question, then where does it get its bombs?

17

The U.S. could get the A-10C. And judging by logic, it will end up at 11.0-11.3.

However, as long as the F-14B and the Harrier\su-39 are in the same battle, both should have a chance to shoot each other down. In the current situation, the Harrier or Su-39 will get the Phoenix at 20 kilometers.

1 Like
18

Strike aircraft are the aircraft whose first intended roles were striking ground targets.
And fighters are the aircraft whose first intended roles were fighting other aircraft.

It’s straight forward.

19

Yes, I do. All sources say that the Kopye-25, which is a modified radar from the MiG-21-93 is supplied largely for the sake of destroying air targets.
Otherwise there would be no point in putting such a radar.

image
image2370×365 131 KB

20

The F-4E and F-14B are what class by your logic?

21

Not the primary role thus not a fighter.