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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
War Thunder likes to implement equipment for “realism” or “historical accuracy” and a example of this is anti-ship missiles on the Marine IDS. You could say the same for many things like anti-ship missiles but the case of the SU-39 is objectively much worse.
It appears as like you haven’t played a single game in the SU-39 as it’s currently unplayable in air realistic and some would say “well it’s a ground attacker” and it is indeed one, but it’s not a normal ground attacker you’d imagine.
The SU-39 was made with the idea of diversity yet this is currently lacked in War Thunder, the simplest way to implement this is by adding the R-27ER or the R-73E (which isn’t ready) and the main reason this wouldn’t be busted is the obvious fact that the SU-39 itself is a horrible platform unlike the MiG-29 or F-14B.
And lets say the R-27ER is indeed to overpowered to be added to the SU-39, then what will be added to fill in the void? We aren’t going to get the R-73 or R-77, it can’t get moved down because of its CAS potential and it can’t stay the same because it’s horrible vehicle currently as a whole then what can fix this vehicle?
Gaijin likes to RESTRICT equipment for game balance even more! Hence why the Su-39 DIDN’T get these weapons. You seriously think gaijin didn’t give it these weapons because they didn’t know it could use them?
The Kormoran 1’s on the IDS were added as a gimmick on an event vehicle, and nobody even uses them because not only are they utterly worthless in anything but sim and custom battles, but even in the modes you can use them, they dont kill ships because theyre poorly modelled. Not a super great argument for “realism” there. The IDS also operated AGM-88 HARM’s and THOSE aren’t in-game either… Weird, its almost like weapons as integrated for balancing purposes more than just pure “realism”…
A bunch of NATO fighters in-game are missing like 90% of the ordinance, both anti air and anti ground, that they used IRL. All for the sake of balance (or maybe in some cases cuz Gaijin ran out of modification slots lol)
There is no “void” on the Su-39, its a premium ground attacker, and does that job in WT just fine. CAS jets always get weird BR’s because of their FM and strike potential, that’ll stay the same until gamemode dependant BR’s are implemented.
And the major difference between those NATO vehicles missing “90% of their weapons” and the SU-39 is that the SU-39 is dog sh** whilst those things like the Mirage 2000D is actually somewhat competent.
Lets compare my experience with the Harrier GR.7 and Tornado GR.1 to the SU-39. I’ve found myself dominating in air realistic in the Harrier GR.7 (a Strike Aircraft like the SU-39) but that’s clearly not a issue isn’t it? What about the Tornado GR.1 in air? It’s meh I won’t lie but I’ve had a MUCH MUCH better experience in that than in the SU-39.
Do you know why I’ve been having these issues in the SU-39 compared to the Harrier GR.7 or the Tornado GR.1? The Harrier GR.7 lacks speed but has good manoeuvrability and good missiles, the Tornado GR.1 has lacks manoeuvrability but has good speed and good missiles. And lastly the SU-39 has bad speed, bad missiles can’t turn for sh**.
I’d also like to mention some people unlike me don’t have ground toptier and purchase the SU-39 for grinding the air technology tree but simply can’t because their favourite jet can’t even play its own game mode.
It gets R-60M , that literaly are the best russian IR short range missles, dont complain about those. If you would have wanted an aircraft to grind the air tree there is the Mig-23Ml , a fighter designed for air combat, the main purpose of the SU-39 in war thunder is Air to Ground, you cant have everything.
On top of it it gets IR missle protection, that already can save you a lot of trouble since people will be forced to use cannons if they dont have radar missles, which plenty of aircraft dont have good ones.
In its current state the Su-39 and Su-25T is absolutely terrible in air RB, and I believe the best way to solve this issue is too lower the BR of the Su-25T and keep the Su-39 at the same BR but give it access too R-27’s so it can actually compete against jets in air RB.
A lot of people seem to insist that the jet needs to remain useless for some reason which is really strange to me. I want all jets in war thunder to have a good place in the game and the meta and it’s sad to me to see so many people want to scorn and punish other players simply for trying to enjoy an aircraft that they don’t have or have no interest in.
When we ask for better missiles for the Tornado IDS (like AIM-9L/i or Iris-T), to beef up the poor performance in Air RB (always gets uptiered to 12.0 and is lost there)…well what do you think will happen? Answer: Most of the community immeately writes that its a Strike Aircraft and any missiles are just meant to be self defense…so no. Its fine etc…
Yeee…thats what I tell you now: Su-35 is a strike aircraft with CAS ordnance options above all other currently existing jets. So no…there is no reason to improve its air to air performance. Its an ingame strike aircraft and its air to air missiles shouldn’t be more as an option for self defense.
Find a way to play the Strike role. Hit npc’s. Don’'t try to make an intereptor out of these Suchois. Plz stop using Air RB as an excuse how bad they might be. These planes are meant to be used in Ground Forces and their BR is probably mainly set according to the damage the might inflict there.
So wait, are you making this argument cus you actually believe it, or are you just saying this because your jaded and want people to suffer like you have suffered in the Tornado? If it’s the latter you should really take that mindset somewhere else as it has no business when trying to suggest how to balance the game, as it’s unproductive and illogical, as your basically just saying two wrongs make a right.
How about something better. How about we actually strive to make planes playable in both game modes, irrespective of there IRL role, because this is a video game and where here to have some fun, and it’s not like it’s impossible either.
Pls try and be a voice of reason rather than a bitter voice
I think you forgot that most jets at 12.0 actually have other missiles to accompany their trash R-60M’s? The R-60M goes kaboom once someone flares unlike the AIM-9L or Pythons, the missile has the shortest range of all 12.0 IR missiles, it may turn hard but looses all of its energy and the SU-39 only has 2 of them instead of 4.
It’s honestly stupid how people write off the SU-39 because it’s a “Strike Aircraft” even though it was made with the idea of diversity and compatibility like I’ve said for like the 10th time.
The ignorance is crazy, you say “add X to buff this vehicle” and they just throw the “well it’s a Strike Aircraft, the missiles are for self defence”.
Indeed, not that being a strike aircraft should be reason to be a terrible jet anyways as this is war thunder and there’s a certain degree of expectation that my airplane should always be somewhat competent and capable at getting air kills in air battles, especially if it’s a premium that I might buy to grind my air tree. Simple saying “it’s a strike fighter” means nothing in war thunder as we don’t force vehicles to play to their specific role IRL.
