Is that “everyone” just your wallet crying cuz u wasted 70 bucks?
Lmfao, this topic is so crazily deranged it’s getting unreal.
@Bonrath When I have the opportunity to bring the Su-39 in Ground Realistic Battles (GRB), it provides a lot of fun. However, in Air Realistic Battles (ARB), it becomes unplayable, which is an issue for me. The Su-25TM is an upgraded version of the Su-25 attack aircraft, which can carry advanced air-to-air missiles such as the R77, R27, and R73. These missiles enhance the Su-25TM’s capability to engage aerial targets and defend itself from enemy fighters.
Capability of the Su-39
Su-25TM (Su-39) attack aircraft in the parking lot of the LII airfield, 2001 On the suspension of X-58E anti-radar missiles, X-29T air-to-surface missiles, blocks of 8 ATGM “Flurry”, air-to-air missiles R-77 and R-73. Under the fuselage is a container with the Dagger radar. Next to the plane are REP MSP-140 containers. Photo by S.G. Moroz To replace the long-worn carriers of the Il-28 targets, which provided anti-aircraft gunners training throughout the Union, some of the attack aircraft were equipped with special devices for towing and dropping objects simulating an enemy aircraft. Such aircraft were called Su-25BM, they retained all the basic functions. Since they were equipped with P-195 engines, the installation of additional equipment did not affect the flight data.
Источник контента: https://naukatehnika.com/lomat-ne-stroit-vozvrashhenie-shturmovika.html
naukatehnika.com
Designation of the Su-39
“The purchase of new equipment for the Air Force of Russia and other CIS countries ceased, but there were export orders for the Su-25, they were especially interested in the Su-25TM, which was presented to potential buyers first as the Su-25TK, and then as a fundamentally new Su-34 and then Su-39. However, it was not possible to quickly establish the production of the aircraft in Ulan-Ude, time was lost and it did not work out to make money on the Su25TM as well as on the Su-27 …”
Content source: https://naukatehnika.com/lomat-ne-stroit-vozvrashhenie-shturmovika.html
naukatehnika.com
The Su-39 is continuation of the Su-25TM
it probably doesn’t need a seperate mode, but to have a few alterations made to the Maps to make things less static
e.g. airspawn with the starting altitude based on the airframe’s class & climb rate so energy is roughly equivalent and the shortest path to objectives is obfuscated, and less predictable. Spawns being broken up into cells of aircraft [3~6 or so based on the map / mode] spread across some section of the perimeter / multiple points on the map) and use more of the playable area.
The recent addition of the [Air Conquest] mode shows that there is someone thinking about these issues, in a similar way to how some AAB specific maps are laid out, resembling EC maps in scale, and the occasional gimmick.
Air Conquest details
as detailed in the La Royale changelog
- Air AB:
- Two missions of the new type, Air Conquest, have been added on two locations: Israel and Smolensk. Mission rules:
- There are three capture zones in the mission: a small central air zone and two airfield zones on the sides of the central zone
- There is ground support in the mission as in the “assault” missions and the models and placing of the ground vehicles depend on the battle rank.
- There are bases for bombing in the mission which spawn 15 seconds after being destroyed.
- Player aircraft respawns are not as high as in Assault missions and the number of respawns has been reduced.
- Bomber respawns are higher than respawns for fighters and closer to the centre of the mission (in normal assault missions bomber respawns are further from the centre of the mission than fighters).
The 39 was supposed to act as sort of an interdictor, never as a standalone air defence attacker however.
Plus, the massive dev bias by giving a premium plane more capabilities than the tech tree models smells so bad right now. First the F-4J/S crap and then this. I seriously hope they plan to work on that crap, otherwise the premium buyers might get “overwhelmed” lmfao
KEK.
Devs try not to compensate how bad the soviet/russian tech is IRL challenge impossible
1 Like
A possible improvement for the game is to reward players who escort attackers or bombers with some extra points. This would encourage more teamwork and strategic gameplay, as well as balance the difficulty of different roles.
The Su-39 is a ground-attack aircraft that would normally operate with MIG-29 fighters as escorts. In a dire situation, the Su-39 might assist the MIG-29s in air combat.
as much as I agree with you, as the Tornado Gr1 is my main aircraft currently. the IRIS-T is probably too good for now. I suspect we’ll see Aim-9Ms or Aim-9L/i rolled out first and then in the future maybe see that upgrade. Though more likely it will be an option for German Typhoons and not retro-actively added onto the Tornados. The same way we’ve not seen Aim-9Ls added to the FGR2 even though it historically carried them
Precisely. The solution to the Su-39 A2A problem, does not lie with giving it AAMs that outclass everything in the game. The solution is to improve ARB gamemode or add a better suited A2A gamemode for attackers like the Su-39.
There has long been calls for an RB EC mode for air. That would be a perfect solution for those like yourself
The Su-39 is a modern aircraft(1997) that can use the R27, R77 and R73 missiles. Without these weapons, it would be similar to its predecessor, which had less capabilities.
Capability of the Su-39
“Su-25TM (Su-39) attack aircraft in the parking lot of the LII airfield, 2001 On the suspension of X-58E anti-radar missiles, X-29T air-to-surface missiles, blocks of 8 ATGM “Flurry”, air-to-air missiles R-77 and R-73. Under the fuselage is a container with the Dagger radar. Next to the plane are REP MSP-140 containers. Photo by S.G. Moroz To replace the long-worn carriers of the Il-28 targets, which provided anti-aircraft gunners training throughout the Union, some of the attack aircraft were equipped with special devices for towing and dropping objects simulating an enemy aircraft. Such aircraft were called Su-25BM, they retained all the basic functions. Since they were equipped with P-195 engines, the installation of additional equipment did not affect the flight data.”
Источник контента: https://naukatehnika.com/lomat-ne-stroit-vozvrashhenie-shturmovika.html
naukatehnika.com
Designation of the Su-39
“The purchase of new equipment for the Air Force of Russia and other CIS countries ceased, but there were export orders for the Su-25, they were especially interested in the Su-25TM, which was presented to potential buyers first as the Su-25TK, and then as a fundamentally new Su-34 and then Su-39. However, it was not possible to quickly establish the production of the aircraft in Ulan-Ude, time was lost and it did not work out to make money on the Su25TM as well as on the Su-27 …”
Content source: https://naukatehnika.com/lomat-ne-stroit-vozvrashhenie-shturmovika.html
naukatehnika.com
The Su-39 is continuation of the Su-25TM
Historical prececdent is a poor reason for these weapons to be added to the aircraft. I could site DOZENs of example of aircraft missing critical equipment or loadout options within game that have not yet been added for a number of reasons that adversly affects its performance within game. Tornado Gr1 alone has at least 4 maybe more.
The decision to add or not add any additional AAMs to the Su-39 can only be reasoned on the grounds of balance and gameplay. It has already been stated by the devs that the Su-39 is designed for GRB and is performing well within that regard and that anyone flying it in ARB should not expect an easy time. It will always “underperform” within that gamemode.
@Morvran The Su-39 has same air-to-air loadout as the Su-25K, which is assigned a Battle Rating (BR) of 10.0.
and the harrier gr7 at 11.7 has the same air to air loadout as the Sea harrier FRS1 at 10.7? Does that mean the Gr7 should get Aim-9M and/or ASRAAM? It historically carried them?
I AM NOT DISPUTING THAT IT COULD CARRY THEM.
I am disputing whether it should within WT. Any argument for the Su-39 to be outiftted with anything more than R-60M must be made within the context of the game. I.E the Su-39s ARB/GRB balance and performance.
1 Like
The Su-39 has a higher BR because it carries Vikhrs for GRB. You are being deliberately obtuse by only talking about A2A loadouts of attackers.
Vikhir missiles are not overpowered because they use laser guidance.
If the R-27R missile were to be installed on the Su-39 instead of theVikhr, it would perform optimally in air-to-air combat scenarios.
Both the Sea Harrier FRS1 and the Harrier GR7 are balanced at their own BR. The Sea Harrier FRS1 has four AIM-9L missiles at 10.7, while the Harrier GR7 has four AIM-9L missiles and many flares. The Harrier GR7 has a higher BR because of its air-ground armaments which are more awesome then Su-39, it is a more capable aircraft than the Su-39, which has worse missiles like the R60M and only two of them. I know the R60M is worse because I use both the AIM-9L and the R60M.
- Kurnass 11.3 BR: x6 Python 3, x6 AGM-65D, x2 laser-guided bombs
- Harrier GR7 11.7: x4AIM9L, x4 AGM65D, x2 laser guide bombs, thermal pod, x4 AIM9L, more flares
- Su39 11.3: x2R60M, x2 Ch29T or kab 500, x16 vikhr, x2 kh-25L, ERCCM
@Morvran At the 10.0 BR (Battle Rating), there are aircraft that face significant trade-offs between speed and maneuverability, as well as speed and missile quality. This poses a challenge for the Su-39, as it shares the same missiles as the Su-25K at the 10.0 BR, which sacrifices missiles for inferior speed.
1 Like
You are comparing them and showing that that the SU 39 does have the strongest A2G set up and isnt of need of better a2a missles to complement it
Yes, which is the exact same reason for the Su-39 being a higher BR than the base Su-25.
@tangerine_flugel The primary reason the Su-39 is often considered an exceptional Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft is due to its arsenal of x16 Vikhr missiles.
One of the drawbacks of using Vikhr missiles is that they are not fire-and-forget, meaning that the aircraft has to maintain a lock on the target until the missile hits. This exposes the aircraft to enemy fire and increases the risk of being shot down. Furthermore, Vikhr missiles have a relatively low explosive yield compared to AGM-65 Mavericks, which have a 90% kill ratio against main battle tanks. This means that sometimes a single Vikhr missile is not enough to destroy a tank, and the aircraft has to make multiple runs to ensure a kill. This also increases the exposure time and reduces the effectiveness of the Vikhr missile system.
1 Like
Adding R27 missiles to the Su-39 would not bring it close to being a competitor for the MiG-23. However, thanks to the inclusion of these missiles, the Su-39 would be capable of effectively engaging targets in an (ARB) scenario, such as bombing bases or bunkers.
@tangerine_flugel Su25k & Su-39 with same air-air armament and its fine for you?
Now who is obsessed with their main nation?
2 Likes