Hey, thanks for your support. I hope one day su39 will get the recognition it deserves.
On the current Battle Rating (BR) of 11.3, it is noticeable that every plane, except for the Su-39, possesses good radar missiles and maneuverability. In order to bring the Su-39 into balance with other aircraft, it would be beneficial for Gaijin to consider adding a missile such as the R-27, which is found on the MiG-29. This addition would compensate for the Su-39’s subsonic speed.
While the tests were conducted on supersonic jets, such as MIG29, there haven’t been any tests specifically performed on subsonic aircraft like the Su-39.
they can but they dont want
sure if u need anything just dm
Of course not but the ER is an incredibly strong missile regardless of aircraft capabilities, and the MiG-29 isnt as good at ground strike as the Su-39 either.
I think at least Su-39 sell better in gaijin market
So the best way is add Su-25TM in tech tree under Su-25T at rank VIII because copypaste of Su-39 but Air-to-Air Missile full option, and take ARM Kh-58E & Kh-31P
Su39 can’t have any of this things:
- thin air
- altitude
- high speed
Any missile mounted on Su-39 would use its own potential energy, instead of using those 1.2.3.
F16 is a versatile fighter/attacker, by having a combination of these it does not mean that it would be better as a fighter but it just can perform multiple roles.
1 Like
The imparted deltaV of the R-27ER is 33% higher than its next competitor, the AIM-7F/M and almost 50% higher than the SuperTEMP, while the closing speed of 2 ~M1.0 jets is ~600m/s. Even at low altitude and fired from transonic speeds, the pK% of the R-27ER is EXTREMLY high within 10km. The Su-39 being subsonic is largely irrelevant to this missile, as its almost always fired sub 10km anyways, where the time to target is so low that the subsonic speed of the Su-39 would be barely noticeable to the missile performance.
You clearly have a poor understanding, or are just pretending to be willfully ignorant of just how powerful this would make the Su-39, PARTICULARLY since it can carry so much ordinance and is borderline immune to IR missiles with its CM suite.
Providing any of the missiles you suggested because it “could” carry them would be a horrible balance decision and would make the strongest mixed attacker aircraft in-game be a premium.
4 Likes
I ALSO forgot to add that the R-27ER imparts that deltaV much quicker than the AIM-7F/M (9 seconds vs 16.5 seconds) meaning that its even BETTER at sub 10km head-on shots, which is one of the reasons why this missile is so oppressive.
I knnow that R27ER is op, that would make su39 as a flying truck with 2x good missiles (like A10 early).
1 Like
The AIM-9L isn’t that good in comparison.
All-Aspect seeker comparison
Rear-Aspect comparison
The thing to note here us that the volumes are computed using Spherical Sectors, so a larger gimbal is much more valuable than extended lock on range, which is especially important in a dogfight. It Also doesn’t take kinematic performance, the missile actually being able to complete the intercept, and the increased lock on range against an A/B target.
The A-10’s issue is that while it gets a questionably better self defense load, the kinematics of the aircraft are far worse, and as such often cannot escape expected threats and so must fight where an Su-25 can or at least has a much better chance of being able to extend away, the IRCM and large Flare / Countermeasure count also helps.
A better comparison would be made with A-7K at this point which obviously shows up the issues with the -9L and the A-7 in general considering that even with the All-Aspect missiles its not a common sight and only sits at 11.0.
2 Likes
I don’t really see a issue with the implementation of R-27’s in-game, there shouldn’t be an excuse for a vehicle suffering this badly to get handicapped.
I have to strongly disagree and this is simply because you can’t give one aircraft everything and ignore the other, and this is especially bad when they’re IDENTICAL aircrafts.
And what would you want to be added to fix the horrendous performance of the SU-39? I don’t see the SU-39 getting the R-73E and simply because they aren’t ready, the R-77 is obviously a no-go and the R-27ER is really the only main option left.
Yet again I’ll repeat what multiple people have told you, the SU-39 is a horrible platform without a doubt and wouldn’t manage to gain the altitude needed to get the optimal range of the R-27ER. Highest battle rating I see this thing in with the R-27ER is 11.7 and it’s not like you’re going to use the R-27ER for CAS or anything?
2 Likes
You don’t NEED optimal range. Almost nobody BVR’s with the R-27ER because in that role its simply outclassed by the AIM-54 which is currently ubiquitous at top tier. Its used sub 10km, usually close to the deck, EXACTLY in the situations the Su-39 finds itself vs enemy air threats. The fact it can’t reach “optimal” ranges because its fired from a Su-39 is irrelevant.
The aircraft is already a potent ground attacker, it doesn’t need to ALSO be equipped with the best air to air missiles in-game. It would be bad for balance and it would be bad in the context that this is a purchasable premium as well.
2 Likes
To add to that, there’s like 2(?) 11.3 aircrafts currently with AIM-7F’s? Everything else at that BR has even worse missiles for head-on, mainly AIM-7-E2’s, which would get OBLITERATED by R-27ER’s. nvm a downtier vs jets that don’t even have all aspect missiles, or that have things like AIM-7D and AIM-9E’s
1 Like
11.7 would be the absolute minimum they could put the R-27ER at, and even then it doesn’t take into account the fact that that Su-39 is otherwise a fantastic strike aircraft.
3 Likes
Lets do some basic math to help make the point. in the absence of jumping in game and testing this
as per the following topic on the old Forum
and the relevant excerpt is reproduced below for posterity
Missile AIM-7F R-24R R-27R R-27ER ΣΔV, m/sec 950 735 720 1190 Weight, kg 231 244 253 350 Power-to-weight ratio, kg*p/kg 84 63 62 94 Guidance time, sec 75 45 60 60 Front aspect launch range (Vl=Vt=1M), km 43 33 35 44 Front aspect launch range (Vl=Vt=2M, N+10 km), km 94 48 74 85 Maximal transversal acceleration, G 25 25 30 30 Сomparison chart of the parameters of R-24R, R-27R, R-27ER and AIM7F missiles
As can be seen above the AIM-7F covers 43 km in 75 seconds, which gives an average speed of 573m/s this doesn’t account for the motor & drag at all so understates the actual performance significantly as missiles are able to glide a long way. and so would take approximately 17.4 seconds to cover the supposed 10km
The R-27 covers 35km in 60 seconds which gives an average speed of 583m/s taking 17.1 seconds to go 10 km.
And the R-27ER covers 43km in 60 seconds and travels with an average speed of 716m/s results in it taking only 13.9 seconds to cover 10km
Looking at the datamines for the burn times for the motors.
The Motor for the AIM-7F burns for a total of 15.5 seconds of it’s 75 second life (~20%)
The R-27’s motor burns for 6 seconds of the 60 seconds it guides.(10%)
and the R-27ER burns for 9 seconds total or 15% of its time of flight