I would like to raise several concerns regarding aircraft Battle Rating placement in Ground Realistic Battles.
This is not an argument about national preferences or historical vehicle introduction dates. The purpose is to discuss the actual effectiveness of aircraft in the Ground RB environment, taking into account their CAS capabilities, air-to-air armament, survivability, available countermeasures and the opposition they encounter.
I believe that several current BR decisions deserve another review.
- Su-39 — R-27ER at 12.0 in Ground RB
The November 11 update significantly expanded the capabilities of the Su-39.
According to the official changelog:
- Its base Ground RB BR was reduced from 12.0 to 11.7.
- Equipping R-27R/ER or R-27T/ET increases its Ground RB BR to 12.0.
- Equipping R-77 increases its Ground RB BR to 13.0.
- Anti-radiation missile configurations increase it to 12.0 in Ground RB.
- The maximum number of R-73 missiles was increased to four.
- The maximum number of KAB-500Kr bombs was increased to six.
- The Mercury targeting pod was replaced with the Khod thermal imaging system.
The addition of R-27ER and R-27ET is particularly important.
These missiles significantly improve the aircraft’s ability to engage enemy aircraft, including those attempting to intercept friendly CAS aircraft or helicopters.
It is important to acknowledge that the Su-39 is still a relatively slow and heavy aircraft. It cannot be considered equivalent to a dedicated air-superiority fighter in terms of flight performance.
However, this limitation does not eliminate the advantages provided by its new air-to-air weapons.
The aircraft retains its primary ground-attack role while gaining substantially improved self-defence and interception capabilities.
My proposal: Increase the Ground RB BR of the R-27R/ER and R-27T/ET configurations from 12.0 to 12.3.
I would also appreciate clarification regarding the criteria used to determine the difference between its various weapon configurations.
- AJS37 (Early) — reconsidering its 11.7 Ground RB BR
I believe the current 11.7 Ground RB BR of the premium AJS37 (Early) deserves reconsideration.
The aircraft was previously positioned at 10.7, but its BR was subsequently increased to 11.7.
I acknowledge that the AJS37 is a fast aircraft, and its speed is a meaningful advantage when approaching or leaving the battlefield.
However, its overall combat capabilities should be considered rather than evaluating it solely on the basis of its maximum payload.
A useful comparison is the regular researchable AJ37:
- The researchable AJ37 can carry two AGM-65 Mavericks at 10.7.
- The premium AJS37 (Early) can carry four AGM-65 Mavericks.
This difference in payload is meaningful and should be reflected in the Battle Rating.
However, I believe that a 1.0 BR increase over the researchable version is disproportionate.
My proposal is to place the premium AJS37 (Early) at 11.0 in Ground RB.
This would preserve a one-step BR difference between the two aircraft, reflecting the premium version’s increased number of guided weapons without placing it in a matchmaking environment dominated by substantially more advanced aircraft.
The AJS37 also has significant limitations:
- No internal cannon.
- Limited air-to-air combat capabilities.
- No radar-guided air-to-air missiles.
- Limited defensive capabilities compared with modern aircraft at higher BRs.
- Its available countermeasure configuration should be considered when assessing survivability.
At 11.7, the aircraft can encounter dedicated air-superiority fighters such as the Su-27 and Su-33.
Although the AJS37 is not intended to compete with these aircraft in air combat, its ability to successfully perform its ground-attack role is directly affected by the air threats it encounters.
Four Mavericks should justify a higher BR than the two-Maverick configuration, but I do not believe this automatically justifies a full 1.0 BR increase.
I therefore suggest reviewing the AJS37 (Early) and considering 11.0 as a more proportionate Ground RB BR.
- F-4E Phantom II — 12.0 in Ground RB
The F-4E Phantom II currently has a Ground RB BR of 12.0, despite having an Air RB BR of 11.3.
The aircraft has access to several guided ground-attack weapons, including AGM-65B Mavericks, GBU-8 bombs, AGM-62A Walleye bombs and AGM-45B Shrike anti-radiation missiles.
It also has AIM-7E-2 and AIM-9J air-to-air missiles, an internal 20 mm cannon and countermeasures.
I acknowledge that this is a substantial selection of weapons, and I am not suggesting that the aircraft is incapable of performing CAS.
However, the effectiveness of these weapons must be evaluated in the context of the opponents it encounters.
In particular:
- Shrike missiles are specialised anti-radiation weapons and are not universal anti-ground weapons.
- The effectiveness of its guided weapons depends heavily on target acquisition and the circumstances of the attack.
- Its ability to survive in an environment populated by modern SAM systems and advanced fighter aircraft should be considered.
- Its overall effectiveness should be compared with other aircraft at the same Ground RB BR, rather than judged solely by its theoretical maximum payload.
My proposal: Review the F-4E’s current Ground RB BR of 12.0 and consider reducing it to 11.7 if its actual combat performance supports that adjustment.
4. The problem with evaluating CAS aircraft
I believe the central issue is that aircraft balance in Ground RB cannot be evaluated solely by counting the number of guided missiles or bombs available.
Several additional factors should be considered:
- Time required to reach an effective attack position.
- Effective weapon range and practical launch conditions.
- Target acquisition capabilities, including thermal imaging.
- The ability to operate against modern long-range SAM systems.
- Air-to-air self-defence capabilities.
- Countermeasure capacity and survivability.
- The number of effective attacks an aircraft can realistically perform before being destroyed.
Two aircraft with similar numbers of guided weapons can have completely different battlefield effectiveness.
A dedicated strike aircraft with limited defensive capabilities should not automatically receive the same rating as a multirole aircraft capable of both effective CAS and defending itself against enemy aviation.
I would also encourage Gaijin to use actual Ground RB statistics when evaluating these vehicles, including successful ground attacks per sortie, average survival time, aircraft losses and air-to-air effectiveness.
5. A request regarding previously purchased premium aircraft
There is another issue that deserves attention.
The AJS37 (Early) is a premium aircraft. Players who purchased it before the October 29 BR adjustment did so when its Ground RB BR was 10.7.
Its subsequent increase to 11.7 represents a substantial change in the matchmaking environment in which the aircraft operates.
Players purchasing premium vehicles reasonably expect the vehicle to remain usable in its intended role, even though balance adjustments are always possible.
If Gaijin considers the current BR appropriate and is unwilling to reconsider it, I would suggest introducing a one-time refund or exchange option for players who purchased the AJS37 (Early) before the BR increase.
This could be a time-limited option, with reimbursement through the original payment method where possible, or equivalent Golden Eagles.
I understand that balance changes are part of an evolving game. However, substantial changes to a premium vehicle’s matchmaking environment should also take the expectations of existing owners into account.
Conclusion
I am not asking Gaijin to favour any particular nation or to make every aircraft equally effective.
I am asking for a consistent approach to aircraft balancing in Ground Realistic Battles.
The Su-39’s new air-to-air capabilities, the AJS37 (Early)'s current matchmaking position and the F-4E’s Ground RB rating are three examples that deserve a closer look.
Please consider these proposals using actual Ground RB performance data and provide an explanation of the reasoning behind the current Battle Ratings.
Thank you for your time.