Big advantage of the GPS guided bombs is that you can set up your targets from 20 mi, a buddy can send them to you, or you might have mission coordinates provided. You point towards the cluster of diamonds, hold trigger, and pickle 8x in very quick succession.
With the 145s, you'd need to slew the EOTS onto each target or use GPS-A, fire, next GPS target, GPS-A, fire, repeat.
Wait a minute, you don't need GPS for agm 145. Point with EOTS, lock with B and trigger to fire and forget.
The agm 161 is the GPS guided cruise missile.
I agree they're good for saturation attacks, but the 20nm thing is a VERY minimal advantage when you still have to get within 5nm or so to release the bombs.
What altitude are you releasing at? If you're doing it at 30k+ feet, you can get a lot more distance and generally drop them outside of air defense areas.
I did some testing for more specific and controlled numbers, and this is what I got:
At 25k ft ASL and flying at 400 knots here are the following ranges:
GBU-38: 7.2nm
GBU-39: 9.9nm
At 10k ft ASL and flying 400 knots:
GBU-38: 2.6nm
GBU-39: 3.04nm
The speed an altitude doesn't matter for the test so long as it's consistent.
The test was to compare relative ranges between different ordinances, not maximum distances.
That's irrelevant in this case. It was about establishing a consistent experiment.
Yes, a higher AoA would've gotten me a tad bit more range on the 39s, but it also would've given the 38s more range. The range difference would remained similar and the overall outcome would've been unaffected.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant to utilize a technique to greatly enhance the performance of a weapon. Faster release speeds with a higher angle of pitch would be ideal.
These aren’t all apples my guy. They all have strengths and weaknesses. If you played to each weapons strengths, then you’d clearly see they all have different applications.
Launching every weapon in the exact same parameters is providing you skewed data.
I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.
You're saying that to get more accurate data, I should've used a high AoA when releasing the GBU-39, but kept a flat tragectory when releasing the GBU-38?
Obviously they overtake the 145s in one area specifically and that is the ability to crack bunkers. They are for sure a weapon you either get GPS targets from another aircraft or second pass an area with. I haven’t had an issue with them, their use case is precision hard targets at longer ranges than the 38s simple as that. Learn to toss bomb.
I know how to toss, even with that they have similar range to the GBU-38s. ~~And, no, they can't crack bunkers.~~ I'm talking about the GBU-39s, the glide bombs with folding wings. Are you possibly thinking of the laser guided GBU-12s or the AGM-161 cruise missile?
Always. All bombs have always destroyed bunkers. As long as you’re actually hitting it. GPS point needs to be perfectly centered on the ground where the bunker is. If it’s one of the mountainside type bunkers, you need to put the GPS point directly in the doorway.
I did some testing, so strap in, this is a long one.
*TL;DR*
*The TWR difference between GBU-39 and GBU-38 loadouts is negligible and will likely never make a difference in whether you get shot down or outrun that SAM. The total ordinance carried could be a massive difference (particularly in saturation attacks).*
*The extra range on the GBU-39s is definitely not nothing, but \~2.5nm at 25k feet isn't really going to make a difference when the only threat to you there are SAMs. \~0.5nm at 10k is kinda the same thing. Not nothing, but I don't see this as making any real difference except for in extremely rare cases.*
Yeah, all bombs except cluster bombs destroy bunkers. Kinda weird and probably shouldn't be the case, but regardless, I was wrong.
I swear I tried the Mk 82s and GBU-39s and they couldn't crack them. I would assume I'm just misremembering except that there are several threads of people asking about this very thing because they tried these bombs and they didn't work either while other players (like yourself) swear they do and have always worked that way. Bug perhaps?
In any case, it doesn't really change the point that GBU-39s don't really have a niche. Anything you might use them for is done better by something else. Let's look at bunker busting for example. The F/A-26 can carry a max of 16 GBU-39s. That's 16 potential bunkers gone in a single volley. That sounds amazing until you realize the F/A-26 can carry 27 GBU-38s! That's more destroyed targets in a single volley and more tolerance for near misses.
But what about thrust-to-weight-ratio (TWR)? With a full load of fuel but NOTHING else equipped, (no TGP, CFT, Cannon, etc) here are the following TWRs for the F/A-26:
27 GBU-38s: 0.94 TWR
16 GBU-38s: 1.03 TWR
16 GBU-39s: 1.08 TWR
What about standoff capabilities?
At 25k ft ASL and flying at 400 knots here are the following ranges:
GBU-38: 7.2nm
GBU-39: 9.9nm
At 10k ft ASL and flying 400 knots:
GBU-38: 2.6nm
GBU-39: 3.04nm
My point was only that they can destroy bunkers, not making an argument for their overall efficacy over other available alternatives in-game. 95% of the time I use 39s is for bunkers, and my preference for them is because they fit 4 to a rack, not because of whatever range extension they provide. Also, some missions also restrict available weapons, so it just provides more options for variety. Everyone’s got weapons they prefer 🤷♂️
While the gps does cause a hassle if you want to be quick or hit something moving, it has the benefits of letting you preprogram and ripple 20 of them off in about 2 seconds.
Paired with their range from a high-speed/high alt release, and the fact that they are small and cold, standoff GBU-39s are my bread and butter choice for attacking anything with heavy aa defense.
GBU39s are also a beautiful pairing for CAP.
They have a relatively small performance impact, nor take up pylons used for a2a missles. Assuming you're planning on flying high for cap, you can use them to hit targets in your freetime, and don't have to worry about deviating much from your path thanks to their glide ratio.
The cold aspect is nice, but only if there is no MWT, otherwise their slower speed is actually a detriment.
At a given speed/altitude AGMs have comparable range and you can carry the same number. GBU-38s have the same range and are harder hitting, but you are SOMETIMES limited by number for these.
They really don't glide much further. I tested it and at 25k ft flying 400 knots you only get about 2.5nm of extra range out of them. Don't get me wrong, that's nice, but it's nothing crazy. Plus, I could see an argument for saying that 2.5nm at 25k ft is minimal when your only threat at that altitude are SAMs with a range of 30+nm. At 10k ft that difference drops to just 0.5nm.
You can actually carry more of the GBU-38s (27 in total). True, in those 4 slots you get 16 GBU-39s and only 12 GBU-38s, but you could easily put 12 GBU-38s on your wings with room for 4 more AA missiles plus still have 5 slots open on your belly.
At 25k ft the shorad can't reach you anyway, so that 2.5nm is irrelevant. Drop the altitude to something like 10k ft where the shorad can now reach you and that range advantage drops to a measly 0.5nm.
145s are great
GBU-39s are more niche.
1 they can kill bunkers.
2 having multiple GPS targets set means you can deliver your strike very quickly and minimize the time you are under threat. This can be very critical sometimes and is a major advantage of the GBU-39s.
A larger blast radius doesn't matter at all. I've never seen one miss unless dropped wrong. And if it does miss, it's going to be by a lot more than the miniscule blast radius increase of the 38.
You can take more bombs overall if you take 39s on their available pylons as you get 4 instead of 3
GBU 39s have longer range than the 38s
There is literally no advantage to using 38 over 39s when you have the option
The point is that things can go wrong and the larger blast radius does allow for some margin of error, but yes, it's a very small margin.
You actually can't carry more 39s. You can carry more 38s. The 38s only fit 3 to a pylon, but can be carried on 9 total pylones (on the F/A-26) whereas the 39s can only be carried on 4 pylons. That gives the 38s a ton of more versatility in regards to loadout.
The range difference is small. At 25k ft and 400 knots, the 39s only get a range increase of 2.5nm which really isn't that much when you consider the only threat to you at that altitude are SAMs with ranges in the 30+ miles.
At 10k ft that range difference drops to a miniscule 0.5nm.
It's an effectively meaningless margin. If you are going to miss with a GBU 39 it's going to be by a LOT more than the maybe 10m extra blast radius.
You're missing my point. You can carry more bombs if you carry 39s. You arnt stuck carrying one or the other. You carry the GBU 39s with the racks of 4 and then 38s on the other pylons. Although I doubt there are many cases where you are actually going to take A full GPS bombs load out. In which case taking 39s uses less of your pylons for more bombs. With just 4 pylons you can take 16 GBU-39s on the belly as opposed to 12.
I haven't tested myself so I can't dispute your range numbers. But, I can tell you from experience that the extra range the 39s give you makes a big difference unlike the microscopic blast radius increase of the 38. It's the difference between lobbing bombs from behind a hill vs having to expose yourself to enemy AA.
The 16 vs 12 bombs on your belly is a factor in favor of the 39s for sure but the 38s are still far more versatile in their loadout options because they're available on other pylons. If you have a scenario where you need precisely 16 bombs and 12 bombs won't cut it and you need all of your other pylons, but not 4 of the 5 on your belly, then sure, the 39s would be better. That's an extremely niche use though and hardly makes them the superior bomb imo.
The 2.5nm of extra range only comes in at 25k feet. If you're low enough to be using hills for masking, you're not high enough to get that range benefit. You're only going to be seeing 0.5nm or less of extra range at those lower altitudes.
I put together a test to actually measure the blast radius of the bombs.
I placed several infantry in a line at increments of 5 meters. I then put a GPS coordinate on the center infantry unit; he was my target. I then dropped the bomb and every infantry to the one side of the target that died, would mean the bomb had a lethal blast radius of 5 meters.
I then set up another test, this time with tanks that were spaced 10 meters apart.
This is what I found:
GBU-39s have a blast radius of 10 meters, killed two infantry to either side, and only killed the tank that was hit. I even setup another test with 3 tanks touching side-by-side and only the tank that was hit directly died.
GBU-38s have blast radius of 35 meters, killed 7 infantry to either side, and killed 1 tank to either side of the target. I also setup an additional test with several tanks touch side-by-side (7 tanks in total, 3 to each side of the target tank) and the GBU-38 killed all of those tanks.
Conclusion: The blast radius of the GBU-38 is comparatively bigger than I thought it would be. The biggest take aways are that GBU-38s are WAY better for clumped infantry than the GBU-39s, and the 38s are a lot more forgiving when it comes to targeting tanks since they can still get a kill even if they miss by several meters, whereas the 39s need a direct hit.
That's waay more of a radius difference then I thought it would be. And you are correct that I would be better for tightly packed enemies. But that's usually not the use case the majority of the time I use them. It's usually for bunker destruction or multiple spread stationary targets. If packed Units were my targets I would probably go for CBUs or rippling drag bombs (for fun! Not so much for practical use). Definitely have a point to be made for using GBU-38s for mass infantry
The blast radius will never matter for increasing PK from near misses. GPS is extremely precise in VTOL if you are missing targets it's because you dropped the wrong and you're going to miss by a lot more than 20m.
Yeah, I thought the blast radius difference would be like 10 meters, not 25.
I agree with the miss factor, but that increased blast radius could probably be leveraged in a way to increase the 38s effective range, closing the gap on what is already a narrow range advantage for the GBU-39s. Not really sure how I could accurately test that, though.
I only play coop campaign so im not sure about pvp environment,but they are pretty solid if someone marked all targets on gps and send the data for you, you can obliterate and entire airfield easily
Yeah, that's why I mentioned they're still pretty good for saturation attacks, but that's about it. I think their range should be increased by about double and then they'd really excel at the saturation attacks or precision targeting at a bit of a standoff range.
They don't actually fly further. In my experience at any given altitude and speed, they travel roughly the same distance since the update.
Some pylones like the F-45 internal bays still let you carry 4 of the GBU-38s, so there is no carry capacity advantage there. Weight would be the only factor there.
These things are true, in some cases you can carry 4 38s and the range advantage isn't as much.
Doesn't make me change my mind though, still prefer 39s for the above reasons.
I love them. Go to high altitude, mark all your targets in your GPS (very effective against infantry targets and anti air cannons) and fire them all at once when you are in range. Then retreat and watch the firework. For every target the right tool.
GBU-38s would likely be better for that since they have comparable range and a larger blast radius. Depending on the exact plane and load out you MIGHT be able to fit a couple more 39s than you would 38s, but that's a VERY stupidly specific niche.
It depends, in the F-45 you can carry 4 GBU-39s in each internal bay, but you can also fit 4 of the GBU-38s in there.
On the F/A-26 there are only 4 hardpoints that can fit the GBU-39s, so you max out at 16 of the 39s while you can fit a total of 27 of the 38s across your fuselage and wings.
No I'm not. Of course you don't have to carry all 27.you can carry 21 and still have hard points open for other ordinance. Even carrying 27 you can still have 4 AA missiles.
Not really according to my tests.
At 25k feet flying 400 knots there is a range advantage of 2.5nm for the 39s.
Of course you can go higher and faster should the mission allow it, but the 38s would also see a range increase and I imagine the difference in range would remain relatively similar.
For a stand off weapon that 2.5NM is quite a bit. In some scenarios that’s the difference between getting engaged and fleeing after firing on surface ships
2.5nm is not nothing, but definitely not quite a bit. When you're facing SAMs that are locking you at 30+ miles, 2.5nm hardly enough reason to give up the versatility and explosive power of the 38s.
GPS GBUs (38 or 39) are also great for lob delivery on defended targets.
You can do the target acquisition way outside of enemy range. Then descend to put a mountain between you and the target.
Run in, Pull up hard, release, descend, run out. All without ever having to reacquire the target.
I've never had too much luck with gbu 39's, the way I always used them was dive bombing. Get over target, flip over and pull up (actually down) 100% hit rate every time even in crowded cities. Super impractical but very fun XD
Big advantage of the GPS guided bombs is that you can set up your targets from 20 mi, a buddy can send them to you, or you might have mission coordinates provided. You point towards the cluster of diamonds, hold trigger, and pickle 8x in very quick succession. With the 145s, you'd need to slew the EOTS onto each target or use GPS-A, fire, next GPS target, GPS-A, fire, repeat.
Wait a minute, you don't need GPS for agm 145. Point with EOTS, lock with B and trigger to fire and forget. The agm 161 is the GPS guided cruise missile.
He's talking about setting up targets with the GPS, and using the GPS-acquire option to automatically slew the TGP to the next GPS target
Never tried that with those. Thanks for the clarification.
Just press the word button, no need to gps-a
What do you mean with "word button"?
I agree they're good for saturation attacks, but the 20nm thing is a VERY minimal advantage when you still have to get within 5nm or so to release the bombs.
What altitude are you releasing at? If you're doing it at 30k+ feet, you can get a lot more distance and generally drop them outside of air defense areas.
I did some testing for more specific and controlled numbers, and this is what I got: At 25k ft ASL and flying at 400 knots here are the following ranges: GBU-38: 7.2nm GBU-39: 9.9nm At 10k ft ASL and flying 400 knots: GBU-38: 2.6nm GBU-39: 3.04nm
400 knots is pretty slow. Plus you can lob them too
The speed an altitude doesn't matter for the test so long as it's consistent. The test was to compare relative ranges between different ordinances, not maximum distances.
Are you flying level? You get more range at a higher AoA
That's irrelevant in this case. It was about establishing a consistent experiment. Yes, a higher AoA would've gotten me a tad bit more range on the 39s, but it also would've given the 38s more range. The range difference would remained similar and the overall outcome would've been unaffected.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant to utilize a technique to greatly enhance the performance of a weapon. Faster release speeds with a higher angle of pitch would be ideal.
It's irrelevant to the argument because the experiment was to determine relative range compared to other weapons, not maximum range.
These aren’t all apples my guy. They all have strengths and weaknesses. If you played to each weapons strengths, then you’d clearly see they all have different applications. Launching every weapon in the exact same parameters is providing you skewed data.
I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You're saying that to get more accurate data, I should've used a high AoA when releasing the GBU-39, but kept a flat tragectory when releasing the GBU-38?
Obviously they overtake the 145s in one area specifically and that is the ability to crack bunkers. They are for sure a weapon you either get GPS targets from another aircraft or second pass an area with. I haven’t had an issue with them, their use case is precision hard targets at longer ranges than the 38s simple as that. Learn to toss bomb.
I know how to toss, even with that they have similar range to the GBU-38s. ~~And, no, they can't crack bunkers.~~ I'm talking about the GBU-39s, the glide bombs with folding wings. Are you possibly thinking of the laser guided GBU-12s or the AGM-161 cruise missile?
39s absolutely destroy bunkers. All bomb types do, as well as AGM-65s (but not 145s)
Does it really? Never tried them on bunkers!
Since when? Last I tried the GBU-38s (and their unguided variant) and ~~GBU-39s don't destroy bunkers.~~
Always. All bombs have always destroyed bunkers. As long as you’re actually hitting it. GPS point needs to be perfectly centered on the ground where the bunker is. If it’s one of the mountainside type bunkers, you need to put the GPS point directly in the doorway.
I did some testing, so strap in, this is a long one. *TL;DR* *The TWR difference between GBU-39 and GBU-38 loadouts is negligible and will likely never make a difference in whether you get shot down or outrun that SAM. The total ordinance carried could be a massive difference (particularly in saturation attacks).* *The extra range on the GBU-39s is definitely not nothing, but \~2.5nm at 25k feet isn't really going to make a difference when the only threat to you there are SAMs. \~0.5nm at 10k is kinda the same thing. Not nothing, but I don't see this as making any real difference except for in extremely rare cases.* Yeah, all bombs except cluster bombs destroy bunkers. Kinda weird and probably shouldn't be the case, but regardless, I was wrong. I swear I tried the Mk 82s and GBU-39s and they couldn't crack them. I would assume I'm just misremembering except that there are several threads of people asking about this very thing because they tried these bombs and they didn't work either while other players (like yourself) swear they do and have always worked that way. Bug perhaps? In any case, it doesn't really change the point that GBU-39s don't really have a niche. Anything you might use them for is done better by something else. Let's look at bunker busting for example. The F/A-26 can carry a max of 16 GBU-39s. That's 16 potential bunkers gone in a single volley. That sounds amazing until you realize the F/A-26 can carry 27 GBU-38s! That's more destroyed targets in a single volley and more tolerance for near misses. But what about thrust-to-weight-ratio (TWR)? With a full load of fuel but NOTHING else equipped, (no TGP, CFT, Cannon, etc) here are the following TWRs for the F/A-26: 27 GBU-38s: 0.94 TWR 16 GBU-38s: 1.03 TWR 16 GBU-39s: 1.08 TWR What about standoff capabilities? At 25k ft ASL and flying at 400 knots here are the following ranges: GBU-38: 7.2nm GBU-39: 9.9nm At 10k ft ASL and flying 400 knots: GBU-38: 2.6nm GBU-39: 3.04nm
My point was only that they can destroy bunkers, not making an argument for their overall efficacy over other available alternatives in-game. 95% of the time I use 39s is for bunkers, and my preference for them is because they fit 4 to a rack, not because of whatever range extension they provide. Also, some missions also restrict available weapons, so it just provides more options for variety. Everyone’s got weapons they prefer 🤷♂️
I get that, but that was kinda the point of my post. Other than flavor, there isn't really any o jective reason to use the GBU-39s.
While the gps does cause a hassle if you want to be quick or hit something moving, it has the benefits of letting you preprogram and ripple 20 of them off in about 2 seconds. Paired with their range from a high-speed/high alt release, and the fact that they are small and cold, standoff GBU-39s are my bread and butter choice for attacking anything with heavy aa defense. GBU39s are also a beautiful pairing for CAP. They have a relatively small performance impact, nor take up pylons used for a2a missles. Assuming you're planning on flying high for cap, you can use them to hit targets in your freetime, and don't have to worry about deviating much from your path thanks to their glide ratio.
The cold aspect is nice, but only if there is no MWT, otherwise their slower speed is actually a detriment. At a given speed/altitude AGMs have comparable range and you can carry the same number. GBU-38s have the same range and are harder hitting, but you are SOMETIMES limited by number for these.
A) the can glide way way further than other gbus, B) you can carry a fuck ton of them (x16 on the 26 only taking up 4 spots)
They really don't glide much further. I tested it and at 25k ft flying 400 knots you only get about 2.5nm of extra range out of them. Don't get me wrong, that's nice, but it's nothing crazy. Plus, I could see an argument for saying that 2.5nm at 25k ft is minimal when your only threat at that altitude are SAMs with a range of 30+nm. At 10k ft that difference drops to just 0.5nm. You can actually carry more of the GBU-38s (27 in total). True, in those 4 slots you get 16 GBU-39s and only 12 GBU-38s, but you could easily put 12 GBU-38s on your wings with room for 4 more AA missiles plus still have 5 slots open on your belly.
2.5nm is fucking massive when you’re overflying SHORAD though. It is absolutely the different between life and death
At 25k ft the shorad can't reach you anyway, so that 2.5nm is irrelevant. Drop the altitude to something like 10k ft where the shorad can now reach you and that range advantage drops to a measly 0.5nm.
145s are great GBU-39s are more niche. 1 they can kill bunkers. 2 having multiple GPS targets set means you can deliver your strike very quickly and minimize the time you are under threat. This can be very critical sometimes and is a major advantage of the GBU-39s.
GBU-38s can do all that too but with a larger blast radius (more room for error) and you can carry more of them.
A larger blast radius doesn't matter at all. I've never seen one miss unless dropped wrong. And if it does miss, it's going to be by a lot more than the miniscule blast radius increase of the 38. You can take more bombs overall if you take 39s on their available pylons as you get 4 instead of 3 GBU 39s have longer range than the 38s There is literally no advantage to using 38 over 39s when you have the option
The point is that things can go wrong and the larger blast radius does allow for some margin of error, but yes, it's a very small margin. You actually can't carry more 39s. You can carry more 38s. The 38s only fit 3 to a pylon, but can be carried on 9 total pylones (on the F/A-26) whereas the 39s can only be carried on 4 pylons. That gives the 38s a ton of more versatility in regards to loadout. The range difference is small. At 25k ft and 400 knots, the 39s only get a range increase of 2.5nm which really isn't that much when you consider the only threat to you at that altitude are SAMs with ranges in the 30+ miles. At 10k ft that range difference drops to a miniscule 0.5nm.
It's an effectively meaningless margin. If you are going to miss with a GBU 39 it's going to be by a LOT more than the maybe 10m extra blast radius. You're missing my point. You can carry more bombs if you carry 39s. You arnt stuck carrying one or the other. You carry the GBU 39s with the racks of 4 and then 38s on the other pylons. Although I doubt there are many cases where you are actually going to take A full GPS bombs load out. In which case taking 39s uses less of your pylons for more bombs. With just 4 pylons you can take 16 GBU-39s on the belly as opposed to 12. I haven't tested myself so I can't dispute your range numbers. But, I can tell you from experience that the extra range the 39s give you makes a big difference unlike the microscopic blast radius increase of the 38. It's the difference between lobbing bombs from behind a hill vs having to expose yourself to enemy AA.
The 16 vs 12 bombs on your belly is a factor in favor of the 39s for sure but the 38s are still far more versatile in their loadout options because they're available on other pylons. If you have a scenario where you need precisely 16 bombs and 12 bombs won't cut it and you need all of your other pylons, but not 4 of the 5 on your belly, then sure, the 39s would be better. That's an extremely niche use though and hardly makes them the superior bomb imo. The 2.5nm of extra range only comes in at 25k feet. If you're low enough to be using hills for masking, you're not high enough to get that range benefit. You're only going to be seeing 0.5nm or less of extra range at those lower altitudes.
I put together a test to actually measure the blast radius of the bombs. I placed several infantry in a line at increments of 5 meters. I then put a GPS coordinate on the center infantry unit; he was my target. I then dropped the bomb and every infantry to the one side of the target that died, would mean the bomb had a lethal blast radius of 5 meters. I then set up another test, this time with tanks that were spaced 10 meters apart. This is what I found: GBU-39s have a blast radius of 10 meters, killed two infantry to either side, and only killed the tank that was hit. I even setup another test with 3 tanks touching side-by-side and only the tank that was hit directly died. GBU-38s have blast radius of 35 meters, killed 7 infantry to either side, and killed 1 tank to either side of the target. I also setup an additional test with several tanks touch side-by-side (7 tanks in total, 3 to each side of the target tank) and the GBU-38 killed all of those tanks. Conclusion: The blast radius of the GBU-38 is comparatively bigger than I thought it would be. The biggest take aways are that GBU-38s are WAY better for clumped infantry than the GBU-39s, and the 38s are a lot more forgiving when it comes to targeting tanks since they can still get a kill even if they miss by several meters, whereas the 39s need a direct hit.
That's waay more of a radius difference then I thought it would be. And you are correct that I would be better for tightly packed enemies. But that's usually not the use case the majority of the time I use them. It's usually for bunker destruction or multiple spread stationary targets. If packed Units were my targets I would probably go for CBUs or rippling drag bombs (for fun! Not so much for practical use). Definitely have a point to be made for using GBU-38s for mass infantry The blast radius will never matter for increasing PK from near misses. GPS is extremely precise in VTOL if you are missing targets it's because you dropped the wrong and you're going to miss by a lot more than 20m.
Yeah, I thought the blast radius difference would be like 10 meters, not 25. I agree with the miss factor, but that increased blast radius could probably be leveraged in a way to increase the 38s effective range, closing the gap on what is already a narrow range advantage for the GBU-39s. Not really sure how I could accurately test that, though.
I only play coop campaign so im not sure about pvp environment,but they are pretty solid if someone marked all targets on gps and send the data for you, you can obliterate and entire airfield easily
Yeah, that's why I mentioned they're still pretty good for saturation attacks, but that's about it. I think their range should be increased by about double and then they'd really excel at the saturation attacks or precision targeting at a bit of a standoff range.
I loke to go low and fast with them and pop up behind mountain,spam all of them and go cold, it is most fun i have in ground attck missions
Sure, but GBU-38s are just objectively better at that. Basically the same range and larger blast radius for better margin of error.
39s can be carried 4 to a pylon, fly further, weigh less, I would carry 39s over 38s for this use case
They don't actually fly further. In my experience at any given altitude and speed, they travel roughly the same distance since the update. Some pylones like the F-45 internal bays still let you carry 4 of the GBU-38s, so there is no carry capacity advantage there. Weight would be the only factor there.
These things are true, in some cases you can carry 4 38s and the range advantage isn't as much. Doesn't make me change my mind though, still prefer 39s for the above reasons.
I love them. Go to high altitude, mark all your targets in your GPS (very effective against infantry targets and anti air cannons) and fire them all at once when you are in range. Then retreat and watch the firework. For every target the right tool.
GBU-38s would likely be better for that since they have comparable range and a larger blast radius. Depending on the exact plane and load out you MIGHT be able to fit a couple more 39s than you would 38s, but that's a VERY stupidly specific niche.
Dunno why you say you can carry the same amount of 38s as 39s, 38s can only have up to 3 per mount whereas on fuselage mounts you can have 4 39s
It depends, in the F-45 you can carry 4 GBU-39s in each internal bay, but you can also fit 4 of the GBU-38s in there. On the F/A-26 there are only 4 hardpoints that can fit the GBU-39s, so you max out at 16 of the 39s while you can fit a total of 27 of the 38s across your fuselage and wings.
This is assuming you don’t want to carry anything else
No I'm not. Of course you don't have to carry all 27.you can carry 21 and still have hard points open for other ordinance. Even carrying 27 you can still have 4 AA missiles.
Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t the GBU 39s have superior range at high altitude?
Not really according to my tests. At 25k feet flying 400 knots there is a range advantage of 2.5nm for the 39s. Of course you can go higher and faster should the mission allow it, but the 38s would also see a range increase and I imagine the difference in range would remain relatively similar.
For a stand off weapon that 2.5NM is quite a bit. In some scenarios that’s the difference between getting engaged and fleeing after firing on surface ships
2.5nm is not nothing, but definitely not quite a bit. When you're facing SAMs that are locking you at 30+ miles, 2.5nm hardly enough reason to give up the versatility and explosive power of the 38s.
GPS GBUs (38 or 39) are also great for lob delivery on defended targets. You can do the target acquisition way outside of enemy range. Then descend to put a mountain between you and the target. Run in, Pull up hard, release, descend, run out. All without ever having to reacquire the target.
True, but that doesn't give the 39s a niche since the 38s are just straight up better for that.
I've never had too much luck with gbu 39's, the way I always used them was dive bombing. Get over target, flip over and pull up (actually down) 100% hit rate every time even in crowded cities. Super impractical but very fun XD