@x_Shini Hey, can we focus on the main issue here? It’s getting out off topic as usually.
Flakrakrad is a versatile vehicle that can deal with both light tanks and helicopters. I use it frequently to counter these threats, especially the helicopters that spawn at the start of the game. I wonder why the developers allow that. I often see Pantsyr players who use it aggressively like a light tank.
Right now its too soon to provide any meaningful statement on its performance. The aircraft is indeed doing satisfactory in ground RB. Naturally attackers are going to be weaker in some cases in Aviation modes.
If / when we have some more news on the topic, we will for sure share it.
@x_Shini_ I am aware that SPAAs/SAMs primarily serve as anti-air, and planes do have a role in GRB. However, if your main intention is to play as a plane, it would be more appropriate to play in the own mode.
A10 & Su25K. They have the same capability as the Su-39 in air-to-air combat, but the Su-39 has a higher battle rating of 1.3.
IRCCM does matter, you can always show your behind to avoid IR missle which are 70% of all missles and vikhers can be used head on as well. But that doesnt even matter balanced around GRB , air to air combat does not matter
But i am gonna stop now answering you, it doesnt do anything
@x_Shini_ IRCCM. It’s a system that helps missiles avoid being fooled by flares or other decoys. It’s not a sci-fi shield that can stop everything. It only works from behind and it’s not guaranteed to defeat every missile. It isn’t something of great importance, much like the R27.
But not the same A2G weapons. Thus the difference in BR. Harrier Gr7 and Sea Harrier Frs1 are near identical in A2A but have a difference of 1.0 BR
At least there is some data regarding sales and performance, so it’s only a matter of time before the Su-39 becomes a worthwhile addition to ARB.
Kurnass is a beast of a machine. It can deliver bombs and rockets to any target, making it the best choice for close air support on 11.3 (BR).
The Su-39, with a battle rating of 11.3, demonstrates its capabilities as a proficient close air support aircraft. Nevertheless, when compared to the Su-25K at its designated battle rating, the Su-39 currently falls short in terms of effectiveness in ARB
That was not my take-away from Smins post. My interpretarion was that it was indeed added for its role as an attacker and their first and foremost priority will be its performance within that role over that of ARB. I forsee an increase in R-60 count as that appears to me more as a loadout bug rather than a matter of balance. But beyond that, youll need to wait a while. Dont expect the su-39 to ever do “well” with arb without a lot of skill and effort. Nor would i expect the Tornado Gr1 to ever be good in a dogfight, despite having AAM
@x_Shini_
“Right now its too soon to provide any meaningful statement on its performance”.
It means that they have not enought information of performance
“Naturally attackers are going to be weaker in some cases in Aviation modes.”
The Su-39 attacker aircraft, lacking afterburners, was unable to eliminate its primary weakness. Consequently, even with the addition of R27 missiles, it would still be comparatively weaker as a fighter jet when compared to the MiG-23.
And vastly superior to any and all other attackers/bombers, as none have BVR currently
Appreciate your response. My only concern is that in air RB it more or less has the same fighting capabilities as a regular Su-25(with the exception of the IRCM that helps against Fox 2’s) but now encounters jets with far superior flight prefromance. Obviously it is very capable as a ground attacker, which is why alot of us feel it would be better for it to receive better air to air options as to allow it to stay at its current BR. Regardless I hope to hear further clarifications about the situation from the devs if possible.
While there are no dedicated attackers to my knowledge that have BVR capabilities, we do have several multi role fighters that can bring some decent or even very nice guided air to ground ordinance, while also having the option to bring BVR missles into air RB, sometimes even bringing both air to ground and BVR missles in the same loadout. All the Su-39 would do is simply act as a very sluggish fighter jet if give some of its BVR loadouts.
From all the research I’ve done on the Su-39, it could only ever mount 2 R-60’s/R-73’s and never had the option to mount more of these missles. Maybeeee it also possessed the possibility to mount R-27T’s on the same pylons as where it would mount the radar guided variants but that remains unclear to me, and wouldn’t surprise me if it couldn’t since the Su-27 is much the same with many of its pylons only working for the R-27R’s. In this sense if we wanted to buff its air to air capabilities it would either have to be giving it R-73’s or giving it at the very least R-27R’S, so long as we are trying to maintain historical accuracy here.
The Devs do seem to be aware of the potential missles this plane carried, now it’s just a matter of how they view the prefromance of the Su-39 in air RB and if they think it’s acceptable or not.
i don’t think R-73s are an option. Though not for anything specifically to do with the Su-39. But rather WT in general. The lack of wide spread IRCM/ECM/MAWS, combined with the poor state of CMs that I believe are currently being worked on will very much be needed before we see the next gen of IR missiles. That includes the Aim-9M.
Whilst its debated whether or not the Su-39 could actually use it fully, but the R-73 is off Bore-sight capable, and that inherrent ability means the missile is very nimble, at least initially. If my understanding is right. The missile would be akin to an SRAAM in agility. But with an effective range of maybe 10-15km and pretty decent IRCCM. That kind of weapon system would be very effective at the moment with the lack of proper defences on many jets.
R-27Rs, maybe… my only concern is giving a Ground attacker, BVRs within the context of GRB. That could be a rather deadly combo within that theatre. How good they’d be in ARB is questionable, but my main concern in that area is the Su-39 OUTSIDE of ARB and the imbalance that could cause.
as for historical accuracy. I think there aren’'t any historically accurate options that wouldnt be game breaking for all. At least for now. So maybe some A-historical weapons systems might be required. Like many british/german jets being armed with Aim-9L instead Aim-9L/i. It was a balancing decision
Not quite sure why you concerned about the Su-39 carrying R-27’s into ground RB, as i doubt that would be very game changing since half the time I’m gonna be too busy trying to focus on ground targets and not get shot down by SpAA to even notice enemy planes in my area, plus it means in having to sacrifice two pylons of air to ground weapons to instead bring two radar guided missles. Also it’s not like we don’t have people trying that already with multi role fighters and straight up fighter jets, so it really wouldn’t be anything new.
I thought even you agreed that two R-27R’s wouldn’t be ground breaking? I mean there good radar missles although there far from being as fast and long range as the R-27ER and I only get two of them while on a bus of a plane.
Dont forget this a premium jet armed with some of the best AGMs in game. Few if any Top tier CAS jets can actually do both, for the most part it might be unguided weapons or laser guided bombs, and not necessarily AGMs.
I dont know, I really don’t. My biggest concern is that the other guy I doubt would be content with anything less than R-73s and R-77s. “give an inch and they will take a mile”
R-27Rs could change nothing at all, or it could ruin the experience for everyone with BVR spamming Su-39s. Its such a grey unkown area. But for now, I dont think anything should be added. Just wait and see. Bug fixes and other changes might help more than anything else and i’d rather see the Su-39 get a BR drop than risk it becoming OP with the wrong missiles. Caution is needed here. It is a very slippery slope when adding more advanced missiles, especially on a premium