well like you have problem with SU-39 I don’t see the different
really? with more ground loadout large amount of CM and IRCM (thing that you said it useless but it’s not)
X16 Vikhr VS maximum of 6GBU or X4 maverick (or mix with 4mav and 2GBU it just 6 in total)
and you said it unfair. Funny enough you said it my problem that don’t utilize them effectively, but you also don’t utilize your beloved SU-39 effectively as well
oh, Vikhr lack fire and forget well you know what benefit. of laser guided ATGM do have and fire and forget don’t? the ability to change the Target mid-flight so basically it more accurate than fire and forget type and if you know what you’re doing you can aim at tank weak spot for more damage even score a kill in one or two shot.
and here the problem you don’t know your plane and understanding weapon system so you can’t have fun and enjoy because you don’t understand what it supposed to do what it not supposed to do you trying so hard to play around it weakness and demand better
GR7 has a higher rating than Su-39 (11.7 vs 11.3) because of its superior performance, which the developers have acknowledged. GR7 is a better choice than Su-39 in most situations.
GR7 has enough flares for entire match, flares are more effective than IRCCM
GR7 has better acceleration and max speed, better survivability than Su-39
GR7 has more than two AIM9L missiles, which are much better than R60M missiles
My expertise includes AGM65B and Vikhr missiles. I favor Fire & Forget over manual guidance. It lowers my risk of enemy fire. The U.S.A military shares my view. They are updating their Apache helicopters with Fire & Forget missiles. The optimal missile is the one that minimizes your vulnerability. The AGM-65 has a more powerful explosive payload.
GRB best payload for GR7 and Su-39:
Su-39:
Attack targets with Ch-29T or Kab 500 x2
Vikhr missiles x16
Use Kh 25ML x2
R60M x2
GR7:
AGM65D with thermal vision x4
Thermal pod
Laser bomb x2
Unguided bomb x1
AIM9L x2
GR7 and Su-39 are two aircraft with different strengths and weaknesses. While the Su-39 may have more missiles, they are considered less effective compared to the AGM65D missiles equipped on the GR7. This makes the Su-39 more vulnerable in combat situations.
However, the GR7 compensates for its smaller missile count by being more agile and maneuverable. It is based on a fighter design, which allows it to perform exceptionally well in air-to-air combat. In down-tier scenarios, the GR7 can act as a fighter, engaging enemy aircraft effectively and gaining air superiority.
Moreover, even in up-tier situations, the GR7 can hold its own against other planes. Its agility and advanced missile systems give it an advantage, enabling it to outmaneuver adversaries and successfully engage them in combat.
By utilizing its superior maneuverability and accurate AGM65D missiles, the GR7 increases its survivability and lethality. This combination of agility, advanced weaponry, and versatility makes the GR7 a formidable aircraft, ensuring its effectiveness in various combat scenarios.
Are you seriously going to compare four Mavericks with 16 vikhrs?
The analogue in this scenario would be brimstone missiles. Unfortunately, like most western tech, it’s far superior to Russian tech, so it’s not allowed in the game until the Russians have something comparable. Hence why the Kamov helicopters are busted OP with broken damage models, yet we still don’t have the Apache Echo series.
A possible scenario is this: You are flying a Su39 with Vikhr missiles and you encounter enemy SPAAs or SAMs. You have to keep your laser on the target until the missile hits, which exposes you to more danger. Meanwhile, a GR7 with AGM65D missiles can fire and forget, and scan for other threats while the missile guides itself.
Do you have the GR.7, and have you personally tried doing this? It is not even remotely as simple as you suggest. Then there is the other side of the story which you are ignoring - yes 65D are fire and forget, but they can also lock onto dead tanks and cannot be corrected. The vikhr can be guided in manually to kill SPAA that are trying to hide between buildings/dead tanks. It’s not like you have to save every shot when you have 16 of them to spam out.
I use the AGM-65B missile with non-thermal vision, and it works great for me in the A-10, F-4, and F-16 aircraft. I was able to successfully hit a moving Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) site using the AGM-65B missile from a range of 15/20 kilometers while flying the F-16 at an altitude of 10 kilometers.
The existing implementation of the Maverick in game has left them with so many out standing issues[you can find a non-exhaustive explanation here]. which distorts their actual effectiveness and the existing Electro-Optical variants (the -65A & -B, and further likely impact the AGM-62 and GBU-8) would be far worse than they are;
Against a generic tactical sized target (a T-62) under optimal conditions would only be able to lock on at a slant range of 3~6km due to constraints with the required minimum apparent target size. which is part of why they were replaced by the -65D ASAP.
And practically everything is wrong about the HEAT warhead;
Its penetration is significantly less than it should (is currently 830mm, should be 1300 ~1500mm RHAe), and other non tandem HEAT missiles like the AGM-114B are overperforming significantly using accepted formula (the same source was used to decrease NATO’s 90~120mm HEAT penetration due to the standoff probe not being optimal, even though it would be if the additional spacing created by the presence of ERA was accounted for)
it has limited overpressure (e.g. Light vehicles taking limited damage for unknown reasons), even though it has a comparative TNTe to that of a 250lb class bomb, and has a pyrophoric (aluminum) liner.
The AGM-65D’s seeker is not set up right to account for the Aspect ratio of the screen & display (so should be adjusted or masked to provide an accurate resolution ) so on most displays it is horrifically warped and stretched which limits usefulness of the seeker itself, on top of the fact that it uses a scanning array so doesn’t even of the correct thermal generation (it should at least qualify for the 2nd gen overlay (720p) since the display is approximately 576i, not 480p ) but we’re getting into the weeds.
Unlike the Harrier II which are limited to 2.75" (70mm) HEAT rockets, which require absolute precision (even though 5" Zuni’s and various HE warheads that should be an option, mysteriously aren’t).
If you really, really need to kill something quickly the Su-25 family has CCIP and a selection of large caliber HE rockets(trade throw weight or area coverage with the S-25 or S-13) which will let you F&F with a much greater chance of actually killing something due to having a HE, not a HEAT warhead so will kill SPAA at an extend range just fine. Sure it’s not as if the range is similar to the guided systems but as the capability exists it can be planned around, or if F&F ordnance is used to open up the airspace use the greater number of individual launches to kill a larger number of opponents.
The AGM65 is a powerful weapon that can cause great damage in real-life combat scenarios. In War Thunder, however, it is not as effective as it should be. I am a user of this weapon, but I still fear what it could do if it had realistic performance in the game.
Instead of employing high-explosive (HE) missiles, I prefer utilizing the Ch-29T or Kab-500
The 9M would be a strong missle, and while I’m not an expert, it’s still not unflairable from either long range or side and front aspect. In the same way that the first version of the R-73 shouldn’t be some unbeatable missle(on the dev server it was over preforming and was nerfed in the files)
My concern with the R-73 is that, out of necessity for an off-bore sight capable missile is that they would be able to pull perticularly high G, at least initially. This high G would allow for hits comparable to what imagine we see on the SRAAM, but rather than being limited to 0.8km and rear-aspect. It will be 10km? maybe even more, and all aspect. Even with the Su-39 not being able to fully use it for off-bore sight, those assumptions about its specs are quite scary. We can also assume that it will have greater IRCCM than current missiles in game, and whilst not impossible to defeat, I’d suspect they will be harder than current IR missiles are.
Im not overly against the Su-39 recieving R-73s in the future. But the game is not ready for them yet, and probably wont be for a while. We need CM overhaul as many jets have significantly less flares than they should and further deployment of IRCM and even MAWS and ECM on jets first, before we see either R-73 or 9M
These points are based upon a limited knowledge base of the R-73, and I fully admit that I could be wrong on some points
I think my personal opinion is that the Su-39 definitely should not get R-27ERs as a bandaid fix to improve its efficiency. The R-27 is a more reasonable thing to be asking for, but I’m not entirely sure how to feel about R-73s. On one hand, people were extremely concerned because when they were added on the dev server, they were extremely potent because of their superb performance combined with the HMD of the MiG-29. However, the R-73 will still be very powerful even without the HMD. Maybe once it’s seen how the missile performs on top tier platforms (whenever it is implemented) it will be more apparent whether or not it would be a good idea to add it to the Su-39 or if it would just cause it to go up in br.
Just had a round of AAB where I had to deal with the Su-39 / Su-25T with a 10.0 US lineup [F-5A / F-8E, the AIM-9C’s at least retained their effectiveness] (AAB uses -1 ~ +1.3 BR brackets for certain setups), I can’t imagine it would be easy having to additionally deal with R-73 / R-27’s, it would make things so much more difficult, at least people don’t often know how to use the AIM-7 & R-23 / -24.
I mean, I’m not familiar with AAB, but if for some reason a plane with meh flight prefromance and two R-27’s was too much to Handel then I could go up in BR for arcade battles…
we already established it would badly effect AAB, GRB, SIM maybe GAB (dont know enough about it), you would risk ruining every other game mode just to give it a chance in ARB, at that point it just might be easier and smarter to leave it alone