Yeah but even then, I am pretty sure you give up either amraams or twin 9ms for BOL pods, which ruins the plane entirely. You also have to give up your gun for missiles. Also terrible RWR too. Probably the only modern fox 3 slinger that can be 12.7. Also, it doesnt even get the harrier 2 flight model, it gets the original FM of the frs 1 im pretty sure.
Has a top tier RWR these days, was fixed at long last in decemeber.
Yeah, its a Harrier 1, but all Harriers are underperforming a lot and the Harrier 1 airframes should be more like the Harrier 2s and then the 2s should be even better still
The loadout limitations are an issue, but between fixing BOL, other buffs and general harrier fixes, it will probably always be an underdog, but a fun one. But yes, in its current state, 12.7 might be better for it
13.0 with everything would still be less miserable than it is now at 11.7 with 2 r73. 12.0 is a giant blackhole becuase there is an absolute army of f4s.
At least 13.0 you see downtiers because of the f4s, it would be fine in downtiers and pure misery in uptiers, still at least it has a chance to be good, right now it is just a dedicated GRB plane that thankfully you dont have to mod out in ARB.
Perhaps, just in experience with the Harrier Gr7 and FA2 that are comprably very strong aircraft, something like the Su-39 looks even worse when you do get an uptier.
So I do think the first step is buffs to keep it at or near 11.7 that round it out better. (Such as R-27R) Plus, Gaijin is never moving the Su-39 up dramatically, It was hard enough to get them to drop the Harrier Gr1 from 10.0 to 9.7 and now we are fighting to get SRAAM modeled properly. I seriously doubt they have any incentive to move it up to 12.7 at this time. Especialyl as you have the whole “I paid for X and now I have Y” situation.
The only hope would be for a “Su-39 (Late)” for the TT I think.
Written up responses to this argument previously for a different frogfoot but statement still holds:
On account of the IRCCM of 9M vs 73, A10C can utilise it’s AAMs far more effectively than frogfoots can utilise R73s. 4 x R73 on a frogfoot would still be worse off than A10 with its 9Ms. The primary limitation of 9M being it’s rate of closure is still a problem, but the IRCCM still functions throughout the approach, whereas 73’s IRCCM relies on rate of closure to be effective. Which is effectively as poor as a 9M from an A10 when accounting for the fact the frogfoot lacks HMD and must bleed most of its speed to get the nose on target. So the missile IRCCM is very poor when launched from a frogfoot. If just lobbing it at a blind muppet, it evens out a bit, but so would throwing a super sonic brick.
That aside;
I’ve done alright for myself (with the caveat that I usually am screwing around with it) with the Su 25 SM3 with the limited air to air armament at 11.7. A properly armed su 39 would be quite comfortable at the rating. I do focus primarily on ground attack, so I’d wager folk better at air to air than I would fare better. But the aircraft itself would sit relatively comfortably at the rating.
3 Likes
not sure if this was ever sent here but here it is anyway
3 Likes
At the very least the snail should allow us to use 4 r73s.Cycling through the r60m is annoying in a dog fight.
No, there is no head-mounted display, but there is another unique feature: using a joystick, the pilot could control the missile’s guidance system, while the Shkval looked exactly where the missile was looking.
In other words, it is essentially a head-mounted display at the Shkval’s operating angles.
1 Like
That is not a unique function. The Tornado also has that functionality, and doesn’t in-game.
2 Likes
Could you provide any sources? It might be possible to suggest adding it.
I meant “unique” as in “rare.” At least, I’ve never heard of such a feature on Western aircraft.
The MiG-23, MiG-29, Su-27, Su-25T, and Su-39 definitely had it.
It was posted in the tornado thread when it was new, and the report already exists to my knowledge.
I’m not going through thousands of posts to find what is already available.
Which means diddly-squat.
Its called Pilot Hand control. I know it exists on at least the Tornados and F-14s
It has been reported:
1 Like
do you have sources abour PHC on F-14?
1 Like
this is radar control, not missile seeker
SEAM uses the Radar training angle to corelate the Seeker of a Sidewinder / MRM. It’s effectively the same thing for many aircraft.
Effectively but not quite, AWG-12B was modified to support this;
Please add what OP said to the SU39 and raise it to 13.0 so that we don’t see these ever again lmao.
R-77 would be perfect match for the Su-39, a close range missile for a close range plane.
fox 3 missile in 12.0? really?
1 Like