As an ASB main, a frequent flyer of the Harrier Gr7 in SB with TIALD pod, I can somewhat concur that imaging pods can be quite potent in ASB. Potentially more effective than radar for locating and ID’ing targets. Though rarely does SB get a second thought when it comes to aircraft additions, though thankfully ASB BR can be tweaked accordingly if it becomes an issue.
1 Like
I’m sorry what is an attack aircraft?
I’m not quite sure how that sounds correct in English. I always thought it was correct. Attack aircraft is what the game calls Su-25, A-10, Harrier, etc.
I meant what aircraft are you referring to as an attack aircraft
My understanding is that these are aircraft that are focused on hitting ground targets.
However, it is important to realize that I am not the one who believes that strike aircraft that get into the same fight as f-14 type aircraft should be severely limited in armament.
I was referring to this line:
Lol, well then you could introduce the F-14B without the phoenix. It would still be a good airplane. But for some reason they gave it medium range missiles even though it’s an attack aircraft.
I meant that this airplane has smart bombs, so it is an attack aircraft by its capabilities. At the same time, contrary to logic, it also has excellent A2A armament and can have everything at once.
Its one of definition
The F-14B is a Fighter/Interceptor first, that can carry guided bombs second (I consider it the first “multi-role” jet in game)
The Su-39 is an Attack/strike aircraft first, that can carry a wider array of AAMs. (I dont really consider it “True” mutli-role. rather its just a more modern strike aircraft)
The Su-39 has radar for guiding the Kh-31, Kh-35 and R-27, R-77 missiles.
This is literally all of its differences from the Su-25T. Now there is an airplane in the game that doesn’t have a single difference from the other, although it’s actually a different machine.
It was given radar and 0 missiles that it aims. Maybe issue someone a targeting container with no bombs?
Back to what you said:
Yes, the Su-39 is more of a strike aircraft (however it was conceived as a wide range mission aircraft. For participation in anti-terrorist operations, etc).
By definition from its technical specification, it should be able to defend itself against enemy aircraft (Su-25 and Su-25t have no such capability). That is the difference. It is a cheap multi-purpose airplane.
Yes, the F-14B is a multi-role airplane, but the Mig-27K is also a multi-role airplane, but it doesn’t have the R-23.
Just because the F-14B is multi-purpose doesn’t justify that it destroys the logic of dividing airplanes into classes. Starting from 11.0-11.3 many airplanes are already multi-purpose, so I see no reason why subsonic airplanes shouldn’t have A2A as long as the F-4E has medium range missiles at 11.0
And the Su-39 is a strike aircraft in the first place, and it can carry the R-27 in the second place.
It will still not be equal to other aircraft in A2A, as it is slow and clumsy. And it can only take 2 R-27 missiles, sacrificing A2G.
At the same time f-14 can take 6 medium range missiles.
the reason is easy you just ingore it all the time, su 39 is a premium, all others you mention are not, giving a premium striker just is not the plan cause of balancing reason, the single fact that it is a premium limits it, the highest allowed premium aviation br currently is 11.3 any further addition of stronger missles like the r 27er you would want would push the br higher to 11.7 at least.
Premiums arent supposed to be p2w versions, thats why it doesnt get upgrades and you cant compare premiums to tech tree vehicles
omg. I never once wrote about the R-27ER, which is WAY stronger than the R-27R. I’m all in favor of balancing.
What the hell does it matter if an airplane is in the tech tree or if it’s premium?
Su-39 should be on 10.7 at the moment, there is nothing to do higher than that.
Obviously, if only Su-39 gets R-27R, then Su-25T will go to 10.7 and Su-39 will stay at 11.3, because it’s logical.
Next, the Su-25TM which is the Su-39 will be introduced into the game, it will be a full copy of it in tech tree.
The p2w is a 2a4 leopard for 60 dollars, which is the best 10.3 tank and available for instant purchase. The Su-39 is not the best airplane in either A2G or A2A.
You have to remember the Su-39 is a 2008 ish jet. Its contempory should be the Ef Typhoon and F-15. Its going to have limitations in game because it quite literally is more modern than most, to give it its true capabilities would make it a very potent aircraft. There is a reason why several jets have had artificial limitations applied to them. Take the Harrier Gr7 and its targetting pod, its a far far earlier generation than we ‘should’ have
Its for guiding these onto the target first
what? 1995
There is no year balance in the game, you are delusional.
If you’re going to argue that way, I’ll remind you that the Su-27 appeared 1981.
Do people even have a brain when they compare subsonic attack aircraft and class 4 aircraft by year not realizing that they have a huge difference in price and purpose.
I’m aware of that. My point is that adding an airplane with radar and no missiles is like adding an aiming container and no bombs
Going by:
“The Russian Air Force has received 8 aircraft as of 2008” - Sukhoi Su-25 - Wikipedia Could be wrong, but never been corrected, not hte most reliable source, but only source i’ve actually found
Sigh
And the Harrier Gr7 SHOULD have Aim-9M or ASRAAM to full-fill its “mutli-role” capabilities, but its at 11.7 with only 9Ls. But it only has 9Ls because of balance.
Do I understand correctly that the 2006 subsonic A-10C will compete su-30 and su-34 on the same combat rating?
Are you even aware that subsonic aircraft are obviously supposed to be much lower in combat rating than 4++ fighters?
That’s wrong. What is meant is that there were only 8 airplanes as of 2008. But they started making them in 1995.
That’s literally anywhere. The Su-39 made its first flight in 1991. The A-10C came 15 years later.
I don’t know the exact characteristics of these missiles, but if they are similar to those of the 11.7-12.0 aircraft, he can get them.
What kind of balance are we talking about if the Harrier is a crooked bucket that flies badly, and the F-14B stands 0.3 higher with a full set of characteristics to destroy everything on the map.
I want to break my face when people say late subsonic Su-25s should play against F-15s.
Are you idiots? These planes differ in price by dozens of times.
In life, these planes do not fight each other.
A-10 and Su-25 take off when the sky is safe. They can destroy anti-aircraft installations, but not aircraft. The Su-39 was supposed to protect itself, but this does not mean that this is its main purpose.
If you think that the Su-39 should play against the F-14, then the A-10S will play against the Su-34, which will launch a missile from 140 kilometers, because the years of production correspond.
2 Likes
At the end of the day, you cannot expect your premium jet to be god at everything. I know you paid for it, but its going to have limitations applied to it.
I want a Torando Gr1 with ECM and Accurate CMs.
I want a Harrier Gr7 with decent AAMs
I want a Torando F3 with AMRAAM and ASRAAM
But we are going to have to wait a while for any of that.
Su-39 is a powerhouse in GRB, seems to do very well in ASB and just struggles in ARB. More than anything else due to compression, there are many many jets that should never face off against the like of the F-14 but do. But as much as you hate fighting the F-14 in the Su-39, I hate fighting the Su-39 in a harrier or jaguar.