Su-39: R77,R27,R73

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
300

I would much rather have a strike aircraft okay in GRB and inferior in ARB than have it either:

  • Useless in GRB and very good in ARB (With e.g. R-27ER and increase in BR)
  • Okay in GRB but absolutely OP in ARB (With e.g. R-73 but no change in BR)

Just because it can carry those more advanced missiles IRL doesn’t mean it needs them at this moment. As long as BRs aren’t split between ARB and GRB, then I would rather see the Su-39 exist as it does at the moment. Not every plane has to be the best at it’s BR, even premium ones. Strike aircraft really should prioritise their strike abilities over being very good for air battles against fighters.

1 Like
303

The only issue is that Gaijin released it as a premium, its premium bonuses are almost redundant in ground realistic battles. This is my opinion the Su-25T and Su-39 should be given a BR reduction so it’s not being put onto EC maps constantly or given a better defensive armament so it can defend itself properly against 12.0 aircraft. Like come on two R-60M at 11.3? No way people are defending that.

304

After some vomiting and crying from people about R27R/ER, I stopped reading it anymore.
Why are you guys scared? After all, the radar is not some kind of high end so it will be easy to break the connection or notch.
If this is even a problem for you then fly low ground…
If that doesn’t do anything then it’s unlikely anything will help you anymore.
Currently on 11.3 BR is Mirage2000D-R1, which is the best cas in the game and somehow no one is crying?
Strange?
More like double standards

2 Likes
305

Because the counterpart providing said capability (e.g. AV-8B+ / Harrier GR.9A, w/ AIM-120 & ASRAAMs / AIM-9M / -9X, etc.) to other trees(US/UK/ITA) is probably going to sit at a much higher BR than you would envision the Su-39 being useful at.

Consider comparing the Su-39 to its attacker counterparts within its BR bracket

What can an A-7D / -7E, Jaguar, Su-17 / -22, Q-5, etc. with 2x Rear Aspect missiles and ~60CM’s do against R-60M’s?

Let alone deal with the potential the R-73, -27, -27ER, -77 you would be proposing. don’t forget about the inbuilt IRCM either which renders the Sidewinder’s better seeker / kinematics near useless anyway and with a radar there is no evading detection either?

That only works against SARH’s and requires sufficient time to dive / notch which the prospective missiles will not provide reliably in a short range engagement, and all the Su-39 would need to then do is not fire and close for Fox-2’s, due to the energy the target has now wasted.

1 Like
306

Very Well said, the issue is not in how top tier jets will counter these weapons, its how lower tier jets. Or even how other CAS jets in GRB will counter them.

Either that or this jet will have to increase up 12+ to be balanced in ARB, would that not destroy its ability to do anything in GRB?

307

First of all, of course you dont think the R-27ER is a problem, you’re a hardcore Russian main that can barely make the MiG-29 work despite it having been/being the most meta jet in-game. With that in mind, your credibility with regards to missile balancing ain’t exactly high…

As for the Mirage 2000D-R1, ironically enough, it only has 2x Magic 2’s for air defence, which have similar range to R-60M’s but better flare resistance and slightly better max G’s. It also carries substantially less ordinance, has a substantially worse CM suite, doesn’t have a built in gun, and most importantly SITS IN THE TECH TREE AND CAN THEREFORE MORE EASILY BE ADJUSTED UP IF NEEDED.

This isn’t a double standard, its a very reasonable balancing decision considering the capabilities of both aircrafts, as well as the balancing restrictions of rank 7 premiums due to gaijins (admittedly borderline lie) that they “don’t sell top tier premiums”.

The R-27ER/73/77’s would be broken in general on any aircraft, as the 73’s would be the best IR missiles ingame by a longshot, while the R-27ER is already the best radar missile by a country mile, and the R-77 would be MUCH better than anything currently in-game, and gaijins already said they dont want to add medium range Fox 3’s until they’re ready to add them to all nations at the same time, so its a no-go right off the bat.

This is literally just a huge thread of soviet mains malding about an idiotic request to improve the air to air capabilities of a strike aircraft which would, as others have already pointed out, likely just be negative for the aircraft in its intended role, as forcing its BR up by giving it broken AAM’s to make it “good” in air RB would just lead to it being comparatively worse in GFRB, while other more reasonable players continuously try to point out that there are so many good reasons for gaijin to have limited its ordinance for the sake of balancing (which is common in WT and in no way unique to the Su-39).

1 Like
308

can flare 2 times and r60’s go to sun

1 Like
309

Twice as much flare resistance as the 9L, that just takes 1 flare

1 Like
310

And as with all missiles you still need to see them coming to defeat them (for relevant aircraft), and R-60’s have the kinematic advantage over Sidewinders at shorter ranges as they have higher G loading and better acceleration.

And anyway the higher performance Su-25SM3 (it has been mentioned that the Su-39 / Su-25T won’t be the last that will be added, and I doubt that they meant the IL-40 / -102) may even comes with DIRCM, and a MAWS. so you can ignore missiles completely and provides yet another chance to acquire better A2A missiles.

Sure it won’t have an as complete ordnance list but it still provides another chance to have a separate BR, and anyway at that point the Su-24 would probably be the better choice for Air RB, the same way the F-105 / F-111 would be a better pick than the A-7 or A-10.

1 Like
311

The SU-39 may not be the most “modern” SU-25 era wise but without a doubt is the most potent. The more modern SU-25SM lacks all the air capabilities of the SU-39 whilst having similar ground capabilities, so no the SU-39 will remain the best but not the most modern.

312

Not rly. SM family lack some ground missiles.
Vikhrs etc…

313

OH NO, they lack the vikhers the propably most unfair weapon in the game for a long time, anyway it still has more then enough other armament options

314

I think ultimately, withwise of the Su-39. Is that it either needs to be balanced for ARB or balanced for GRB. It cannot be balanced for both (at the moment)

I think Gaijin made the right choice is balancing it for GRB. Though it is clear that it needs minor buffs withwise to ARB, but it cannot get all that it is suppose to yet/ever because the imbalance would be extreme and it would likely seriously harm its capabilities within GRB.

315

It can and it’s very simple. Add the R-73 which would boost the A2A capabilities and you can’t use the R-73 for CAS can you?

316

sigh

R-73s could be very… effective, with range and IRCCM greater than that of any other IR missile in game. They would potentially be 2 maybe even 3 times stronger than any other IR missile in game right now, maybe even stronger. Especially with the Aim-9L nerfs. With several jets in and around 11.3 also lacking their proper CM compliment at the moment or their own IRCM/ECM systems, they could be perticuarly strong.

And you are right, you can’t use IR missiles in CAS. But you can also use IR missiles to shoot down other jets or Helis in GRB (and with the far smaller arena size and the fact people may be more distracted) R-73s could be devastating with their long range. Thus potentially requiring a BR Increase to balance it. Likewise should an AAM addition prove too strong in ARB, then it would also potentially require a BR increase.

Increasing its BR would affect it in both ARB AND GRB and thus within GRB force it to fight against not only stronger SPAA/Jets, but also reducing the effectiveness of its ground attack weapons as it would have to face stronger tanks. In essence nerfing it in GRB.

I think the ONLY course of action, that would not be… hasty… would be:

Step 1) Give it another few weeks. There are ALWAYS bugs and issues with new jets and it may be that bug fixes and other minor buffs “might” help more than anything else. I’ve also found that it can often take time to figure out the best approach for new jets. They ALWAYS seem weaker when first added, whilst everyone is still learning how best to employ it

Step 2) Increase R-60M count from 2 to 4. (This does seem to me to be more of an issue of a missing loadout option rather that of a balancing issue anyway, and could very well be fixed very soon regardless of its performance)

Step 3) Give it basic Fox 1 missiles, such as the R-27R

Step 4) Give it R-27T to further enhance its IR capabilties

Step 5) Consider a BR drop of 0.3

and only when all those other steps have been tried, and if it is still actually needed (which after those changes, I seriosuly doubt)

Step 6) explore adding R-73s

If nothing else. Adding a new missile to the game is far harder than adding a pre-existing missile to an aircraft. Besides, until NATO jets see the likes of the Aim-9M, I dont think the game is ready or balanced for R-73s. and before either missile is added. i think we need to see far wider deployment of IRCM and other ECM systems to various jets and a total overhaul of how the game handles CMs. Currently the version we have forces compromises that can seriously hinder the CM count on MANY jets. Such as the Tornado Gr1, which currently only has half the accurate number of flares that it should

(R-77 and more advanced Fox-1 such R-27ER should be completely off the table for now)

Myself, and the others who are… for a lack of a better word… against Su-39 AAM buffs are not outright rejecting the fact that the Su-39 is underpowered within ARB (though a few of us do question if that is not how it should be for a ground attacker, at least to a degree) . But rather exhibit caution about jumping immediately to big buffs, and instead suggesting more incremental buffs. As the Su-39 has got by all accounts a good ground attack loadout, and I do strongly believe it was added as an option for GRB players (that do appear to make up a larger percentage of the player base these days) so its loadout is designed for that role. Limting its AAM power, does help limit its BR and thus benefit it in GRB.

Its an unfortunate situation for those wanting to use it in ARB (there are many aircraft at all BRs that struggle in ARB, due to a BR balance for GRB or lack-luster loadout options), and I sympathise, but for everyone who has experienced fighting against Mig-29s or Yak-141s, we have developed… apprehension surrounding the idea of another soviet jet being armed with missiles that are way too strong/modern for the current state of the game and are without equal. Leaving most, if not all other nations, struggling.

This is all especially important to consider as this involves a premium jet and thus often gets advantages beyond that of just economy buffs to its peers, and usually a slightly low BR. And of course, most importantly of all, can be purchased and used by anyone. If it was in the tech tree, I’d still want caution, but it would cause a little less fear.

Patience and Moderation is all we ask for.

(Minor edit for clarification. any and all additions need sufficient time to test and see what affect it has had, the time difference between each step could be as much as several months.)

2 Likes
317

Honestly it doesn’t matter if this thaing goes up in BR currently in either air or ground it constantly sees uptiers anyways. Personally I’d offer it go to 11.7 and then receive R-27’s as to help it in air RB, and it’s prefromance in ground RB will remain unchanged as it’s already seeing almost exclusive uptiers too 11.7. I mean I use it in my 11.7 Russian lineup in Ground RB and I find it more fun than the mig 27K simply because I’m forced to fly low and actually use my brain but I’m rewarded with the potential to get a lot more kills.

Keep in minde at 11.3 we already see some pretty good radar guided missles, I find a lot of people sleep on the Mig-23MLA with two R-24R’s as at close range if you launch with a good radar lock, even chaffing won’t save you as the missle can use radar illumination to guide itself onto target.

I would personally argue that between the fact that the Su-39 almost always see uptiers and that fact that it still has poor flight prefromance even in a downtier, atleast giving it two R-27R’s shouldn’t make it crazy.

Also I just remembered that the F-4J is at 11.3 with better flight prefromance, and the ability to spam 6 Sparrows at you with a PD radar and HMD so is 2 R-27R’s really that big of an upset at that point?

2 Likes
318

Yes, because the F-4J is a Fighter(Interceptor), not an attacker (that would be the F-4E) and as such would be expected to have a reasonable chance up against other fighters around its BR.

If it would help, the F-4J also gives up maneuverability(slats), Sidewinders and guided A2G ordnance for the privilege of being able to take 6x Sparrows, and a lighter gun pod(it should still have access to the SUU-23/A).

The Su-39 on the other hand is an Attacker so its issues relate to its comparatively poor kinematic performance. Giving it better A2A ordnance won’t solve, so all it would end up doing is giving it a leg up against other Strike aircraft which aren’t the cause of the issue in the first place. Sure it might fix the efficiency or K/D metrics, but would only further compression.

And if things were truly as bad as this thread claims, missing ordnance would likely have turned up by now.

319

I understand the F-4J is a fighter and that the main purpose of the Su-39 is for ground attack, also the F-4E is a fighter first, not sure why your calling it an attacker, tho it can certainly do multi role. But the main point is that the Su-39 fights at the same BR as the F-4J and planes comparable, yet didn’t stand a chance in air to air, so giving it better air to air missles will help give it a fighting chance in air RB and won’t have any significant effect on it’s performance in ground RB, and yes it will still suffer in flight prefromance but having good weapons can really help overcome that or atleast make it more bearable, look at the A-10 for an example. A simple balancing decision, cus you know…this is a video game…also it’s been like a few weeks since the Su-39 has been out, the devs aren’t always known for their instant responses to stuff, especially when alot of people are sensitive too premiums getting buffed…

320

Your acting like better missles would only help me against other strike planes? Like my R-27R wouldn’t also kill a fighter if he decided to be dumb and fly at me well above the ground? I’m confused cus your point here dosnt make any since. Yeah obviously the Su-39 has poor flight prefromance, hints one of the reasons it suffers in air RB, but it also has very limiting missles, with two R-60M’S that have a limited range of engagement, and are very suspectable to flairs. Giving me radar guided missles with some range means I could actually reach out and touch ANY jet, and suddenly people would actually have to respect my front range a bit and couldn’t just ignore me so long as I’m outside of 2Km, and while this would still be far from allowing the Su-39 to suddenly take over the BR range as some death start it would greatly help make the plane both interesting and a bit more competitive.

321

Worth noting that the R-73’s on the dev server(both versions) were stronger than they should of been in terms of falirs resistance, as the first version of the R-73 should be more like a more maneuverable and longer range aim 9L. And ontop of that your only getting two assuming we just stick too R-73’s for the Su-39/Su-25T which means I’m gonna really have to hold my two R-73’s for the perfect shot in any match to even have a chance at goin far with them. Honestly the Su-25K with it’s two R-60M’S would still be more oppressive since it gets to fight jets with no countermeasures.