I guess
you didn’t have a point. If strike aircraft aren’t allowed to be viable in ARB, and fighters aren’t allowed to be good in GRB, then we can start by removing AAMs from all the NATO strike aircraft, and all the A2G weapons from the NATO fighters. Until then, they should add R-27s to the SU-39, since the rule for the past 10 years in WT is if it had it IRL it can get them in game.
yeah that’s the issue right now. R-27s would at least let it defend itself. There are far, far better planes in ARB at 11.3 so it wouldn’t be a balance issue, it would stay 11.3 and be fine. And it wouldn’t make it any stronger in GRB since you’d never bring R-27s over the Vikhrs, so I really don’t see the problem.
It has r73s though
You see the aim9l and r27 are not same type of missile the r27 is much longer range thats why its got r73s im not saying remove AAM from the su39 and strike aircraft ain’t viable in arb due to the design
Yes. Lets just make the Su25 series even more obnoxious to face, not only does it anhilate entire ground teams, and resist up to 7 AAMs/MANPADs, lets also let it fully sweep the skies…Warthunder wasnt even ready for this plane without it carrying AAMs like this.
Its a premium. It can’t move up to even 11.7 currently and R-27ER would 100% require a minimum of 12.0 due to how strong they are. Gaijin shot themselves in the foot by making the Su-39 a Premium.
The most I could maybe see for the Su-39 is R-27T, but I just dont think it needs it and it did just get R-73s, IRCCM missiles at a BR in which it might not even encounter CMs
(also, a LOT of aircraft are currently missing their “historically accurate” AAMs. Its a balancing decision by Gaijin. For Britain strike aircraft alone: Jaguars should have Aim-9L and both the Tornado Gr1 and the Harrier Gr7 should have “de-chirped” Aim-9Ls and Aim-9Ms respectively which double their lock on range)
1 Like
That too
But I can though, what’s stopping them? You keep saying it’s premium and that’s the reason which didn’t stop them in the past iirc.
That highest br vehicles can’t be premiums
They won’t even consider giving the Chally DS L26 shells (which is what it historically carried), even with us asking for it to move up to 10.3 as a result and it took months and months of fighting to get the Harrier Gr1 moved down from 10.0. When it comes to premium BRs, they take a long time to change. Plus I already think 11.3 premiums for any nation was a giant mistake so soon. Top tier kinda sucks as a result of the premium spam. Really dont want to be throwing Premium 12s into the mix currently
the F-16C can carry a thermal pod, GBUs, AIM-7Fs, AIM-7Ms, a helmet mounted sight, all on the most manoeuvrable fighter in game. A subsonic frogfoot with some R-27s and a weak radar pod seems pretty mild in comparison, no?
How often are you even dying to SU-39s in matches anyway? I’ve literally never seen one in a battle.
R-27ER isn’t apart of its load out, only R-60M, R-73, R-27R and R-77
Definitely wouldn’t be top BR especially with R-27R, goodness it would be launching from subsonic speeds and low altitudes most the time.
Purely R-27Rs “Might” be okay, but Its not gunna magically transform the Su-39 into a god-tier aircraft in ARB, but I’d still see some potential for a BR increase now you have R-73s as well. Especially combined with other buffs people are asking for, like Thermal T-Pod and/or better AGMs. It would rapidly be on par to aircraft like the Harrier Gr7 which annoyingly can’t move down to 11.3 now its got the Aim-9Ms (would have prefered BR reduction than the 9Ms)
R-77s, not a chance, that would be 12.3/7 I reckon, regardless of the the platform.
If the Su-39 is struggling in ARB currently when occasionally fighting 12s. Imagine how much it would struggle when it always sees 12s
One is a multi role light fighter the other is dedicated ground attack my point is it not really need in arb you r getting smoked any cause your in a ground attacker and grb ground capabilities are more useful
R77 it would definitely have to move up
Personally, R-77 would also be pretty meh, from what I understand that missile requires the launch aircraft to be super sonic and at high altitude to be any good, especially because of the drag fins, I’m sure @MiG_23M knows a lot more about that than I do, but I wouldn’t exclude it just yet. But the BR would increase from what it is now for sure. I’m certainly curious myself.
My default thinking is that modern ARH = 12.3+ (So Aim-120, R-77, MICA, PL-12, etc)
Sea Harrier FA2 for example is basically a Sea Harrier FRS1 (which is currently 10.7) armed with 9Ms and Aim-120Bs (also slightly better engine and a very good radar, but basic flighly performance would be the same) . I’d still expect that to be at least 12.3.
The R-77 has superior Kinematics to the AIM-120A even launched from subsonic.
The seeker is worse.
But at the end of the day, Every buff you ask for is a BR increase. It might not actually result in the BR increase by a full stop, but they do all add up. Everytime you ask for an A2A buff, it could result in essentially an A2G nerf as its BR increases.
Tornado Gr1 (and other IDS) are only 11.3 because they have 2x Aim-9L. If we could get rid of those/Trade them for 9Gs (or lower), the Tornado Gr1 would probably only be 10.7 ish I reckon. That would be a massive buff for its primary role.
Likewise the Jagaur Gr1A would really benefit from Aim-9L (which was the far more common AAM for it) as the 9Gs are fairly useless on the platform, but It wouldnt remain at 10.3 and it would be totally DOA/pointless at a higher BR for its primary role
Ground attack/Strike aircraft will never do well in ARB, because their BR/performance will always different to how they perform in GRB. It sucks massively. But it is unavoidable. What they really need to do is seperate ARB and GRB BRs. That way an aircraft like the Su-39 can have an GRB BR of 11.3 but an ARB BR of say 10.3/7