Su-39, "Khod/Kinzhal" Thermal Imaging/Radar Container

Those. while multi-role planes that break the balance 2 is ok, but when there are many - not ok.

In my opinion, just the opposite. The more the same technique, the more everything is on an equal footing.

The F-14B is the latest, Top tier jet and the first of what i’d consider “True” mutlirole jets. But at the moment, between BR compression and lack of any higher jets, its stuck at 12.0. Im guessing we’ll see it go up to 12.3, maybe even 12.7 as and when more jets are added. I equally expect to see Mig-29 go up to 12.3 at the same time.

Su-39 though is “signficantly” (at least in WT standards) lower than the F-14B, and likely wont face a BR increase. If anything, as more BRs are added and things are spread out more, will likely see a “buff”. Yeah, I agree, every nation should have access to equal capabilities. but I’d like to point out, that at the moment, its nations like GB that are lacking in the air department. Additions like the Tornado Gr4 or Harrier Gr9 are definetly needed.

It turns out it was not necessary to add it now, while the BR is compressed? However, in this case, no one was accurate.

1 Like

It always, always happens. I remember the viggen slapping hard at 11.0 before there was an 11.3 for it to be in. Ufnrotunately there is no solution to it, without adding A LOT of aircraft all at once.

Is it? It seems to me that the SU-39 (11.3) is twice as far from the su-25(10.0) as from the f-14b (12.0).

That is, the game believes that the f-14 is twice as close in performance to the su-39 than the su-39 to the su-25.

I already wrote that 4 BR steps for the worst sight in the game and 2 TV rockets is absurd.

See how big the difference is between f-5e and f-14b or f-16adf in 4 steps BR or f-8e and f-14b in 5 steps br.

there, all parameters are improved several times, and the choice of weapons is expanded many times over.

The difference in BR between the su-25t and su-25 should be much less than between the su-25t and f-14b

Can I point out that the Tornado Gr1, Tornado F3 and Phantom FGR2 are all at 11.3. These 3 aircraft are all wildly different in performance. BR doesnt really state much about the aircraft, only its perforamnce

Below the Tornado Gr1 (11.3) the next closest strike aircraft is the Jaguar Gr1A (10.3.) So thats 3 stops lower and it only has 2x Laser guided bombs. Harrier Gr7 (11.7) is actually higher, despite being sub-sonic and only really being there because of AGMs. Thats only 1 step below F-14B.

But remember, I think the F-14B is stuck at 12. and will move up, if it does, when it can, then it will be equi-distant.

just 3 steps br tornado compared to jaguar gets

  1. improvement of flight parameters. rate of climb is twice as good
  2. new all-aspect rockets
  3. the appearance of TV bombs in the amount of 4 pieces (TV weapons are the best, because you shot and forgot)

This is much more than the Su-25t gets in 4 steps.

In fact, the su-25t is just getting 2 TV missiles and an aiming station. The IRCM is a small bonus, given its rating and the presence of radar-guided missiles.

In general, it is clearly seen that there are few improvements.

OK. I’m tired of arguing. I’m waiting for you to try the su-25t yourself

Never gunna happen. I dont play soviets. I think they are too P2W, even in TT.

Besides, Im british, I want to play Britain. I just dont want to get completely destroyed like we are currently in most theatres.

I offered you a regular su-25t, not a premium one.

In that case, I will say that your right to comment on the balance of any other threads is severely limited.

You are completely biased because of those words and literally have no interest in anyone but you having strong tanks or planes.

no this and that have nothing to do with each other, when i look at the SU 39 i only think about the balance,i am able to defferiantiate the 2 things, otherwise most people wouldnt be allowed to say anything about russian balance because most propably dont support the current situation or do you?

You literally write above that you won’t play for the USSR because of your views. If you fundamentally don’t play on a certain nation (I for example played quite a lot on Germany, on Sweden. I will continue to do so when the experience is increased because I don’t have 10 hours a day to grind), then your opinion is clearly not objective.

I think people shouldn’t try to put their views in the game, whatever they may be. I don’t like russian bias with Z-V stickers etc, just like I don’t like the stance that sssr\rf tech should suffer just because they are bad

yes but i can still differentiate it my own believes are mine but i can still think about the balance of the game

they dont need to suffer they just need to get balanced like everything else, i said multiple times already i support as example the addition of the thermal pod, but you seem to ignore the points when i agree to sth completly, would i see major problems in other nations i would discuss about them as well in favour or against it, like the fact of missing spaa for israel, japan, italy, or that french get a light premium but no tech tree equivalent, am i not allowed to say anything about it just because i dont play them?

thats true, they need 11.3-11.7 SPAA, I would also like to see SPAA USSR 10.0-10.3 cause BR gap is too big.
9.0 → 10.7

I think the first thing to do is to talk about the problems you are personally familiar with. Players on these nations will create topics themselves.

But there is a difference between supporting global and simple issues (like the lack of SPAA, because everyone should have it) and arguing about the strength of a particular airplane in the balance of the game.

Please give it a rest. Its not happening. Confirmed by the devs. I may never have flown an Su25T or Su-39 but i can compare it to the performance to similar subsonics and i have experience fighting against them.

The same way youve commented on the abilties of the tornado ids variants despite having never flown it.

I also have common sense to analyse a situation from multiple angles.

As I said, the key aspects of a strike aircraft, expressed in the presence of an aiming container with good zoom, pointing angles and thermal imaging are missing from the Su-25T.
Besides, there is only one 11.3+ subsonic strike aircraft in the game - the Harrier. It is difficult to compare it to this case.

I was comparing common sense parameters such as speed, maneuverability, sighting devices.

When I hear that su-25t’s strength is 20 missiles, I laugh, because you will never be able to realize them, you will be humiliated after 1-3 launches in 95% of cases.

That’s essentially why it makes no difference to have 4 missiles or 20. I’m trying to grind a MiG-27K, but it takes too much experience.
I’ll be glad to get it, though it, in turn, is also very disadvantageous compared to all other strike planes by its inability to take at least P-60M without sacrificing A2Gs

The same way i laugh at anyone who thinks raw speed is a good defence or that the tornado is “manoeuvrable”

It allows you to create angular velocity so that an anti-aircraft missile can’t swerve to the aircraft.

It’s the best defense there is

You don’t have 11.7 SPAA, so I don’t think you’re familiar with which targets cause problems.

An F-16 or Mirage at high speed is invulnerable to SPAA, especially because they can fly past the target, creating prohibitive overload for the missile

Fact, most of the Ground community is calling for nerfs to CAS / Buffs to SPAA. So this sounds like the Su-39 is performing “as it should”

Fact, Smin has already stated that its performance in GRB is fine. So clearly its not as bad as you say it is.

Fact, they have said its not getting additional loadout options for the foreseeable future