For me, who bought in pre-sale, I always played and fell with high br when the f14 and company were below what was put in the recent changes, and giving him the r27 or r77 will solve his problem of defending himself, if you look at the su25sm3 which is at 12.3 the difference is the r73 and the kh38, the 39 being able to have the missiles could easily defend itself, the 39 is at 11.7 most of the time it falls at 12.7, so example, out of 10 matches 8 or 6 drops in high br, that’s a rate of 60%, and in 12.7 you literally only enter to die because your missiles are short range and fakkur and aim-54 and aim7 they devour you like a wild animal, why get close if I can kill the 39 from afar is what an aircraft player with long/medium missiles thinks and you can’t do anything because you don’t even have long/medium missiles, it was supposed to be because you were created to be multi , a multicas that’s the purpose and when you don’t even do that it’s sad.
To be fair, the Su-25SM3 being 12.3 is a bit odd, it’s straight up worse than the Su-25T and Su-39 outside of the Kh-38 and thermals in the targeting camera, but these only matter in GFRB. Both the Su-25T and Su-39 gets the Vikhrs that at least have a proxy fuse, and garbage as the R-60s are, having them still beat losing the pylons to ECM pods that are not in the game. You also don’t get the IRCM on the SM3.
I hope the SM3 was an oversight of the BR splits rather than Gaijin unironically considering that the Kh-38 is a credible A2A weapon, and that eventually, maybe, when they feel like adding them, the ECM pods will be such a massive improvement to the plane.
I’d be absolutely down to see the top tier Su-25s receive some Fox-1 or even Fox-3 cause while it certainly wouldn’t make them good at A2A, it also wouldn’t make them worse.
The SU-39, SU-25BM and possibly the SU-25T are also capable of carrying a ECM pod on the outter most pylons which wouldn’t make the SU-25SM3 any more special than the others.
I’d be absolutely down to see the top tier Su-25s receive some Fox-1 or even Fox-3
Only the SU-39 would be capable of such an addition and that’s why I’ve been advocating for it for so long.
I doubt the SU-25SM3 ever even fitted the R-27EP let alone the R-27ER or R-77-1.
Methinks the most reasonable way to go about it would be to keep the premium Su-39 untouched, and add a full option one in the TT to provide that capacity without kneecaping novices that will buy the thing. While I get Gaijin’s reasoning behind premium attackers, I don’t think it works too well within the current iteration of ARB and they end up being traps that require a lot of experience in order to be palatable.
I also don’t expect the SM3 to carry anything more than R-73 either, it’s just that I’m quite bummed that it’s a straight up downgrade from the Su-25T as far as ARB goes. You’re 2.3 BRs above the regular old Su-25, and the S-13 is still going to be the best option for destroying ground targets. It’s a shame that it can’t at least mount the Vikhrs.
Worse case scenario we get the Su-25TM or a copy and paste Su-39 in the tech tree with all the weapons it could use, maybe including the thermal imager.
It’s important in Air Sim too, try spotting a column of T-72s at dusk in a forest without a thermal imager lol
The SU-25TM wouldn’t be carrying the Kopyo pod as far as I know, there has been a large amount of digging in this thread and only 2 of the SU-25TMs upgraded with the new FCS were equipped with the radar (that obviously being the SU-39).
Su-39 is just “export” name for Su-25TM. Only T-8TM-4 (Su-25TM-4, that was showed on expos as Su-39, with hull number “white 21”) was used for Kopyo.
Probs doesnt help that on some map, convoys clip through the ground due to low poly roads and poor maping by gaijin. If you thought finding a T-72 at dusk in a forest without thermals was hard, try finding half of a T-72’s turret under the same conditions xD
The ground radar modes coming on some aircrafts are likely to help sim ground attack players a decent bit, though afaik gaijin still doesn’t have a control for slaving the targeting optics to the radars current target, which is… annoying.
As for the question of improved missiles on the Su-39, im a bit torn on the issue. I used to be against the Su-39 getting stuff like the R-27’s and R-77, mainly because itd be annoying to deal with for GFRB players, but I am also of the mindset that BR should be used to balance, not munition loadouts. Giving it its historical missiles and bumping it up a bit in BR is imo the preferable option.
The T8TM-4 was the only SU-25TM and later SU-39 to receive the SUO-39P FCS upgrade to help incorporation of the Kopyo radar pod.
Whenever I get on PC I’ll go further in-depth into the topic for you
Whatever you post won’t be official documetation, it will be promotional materials at best, officially it’s Su-25TM and nothing else. Nobody renamed Su-25TM-4 to Su-39.
So are we going to ignore the fact the new upgraded FCS named the SUO-39P follows the name formatting of the SU-39? Yet again, I’ll go further in-depth into the topic whenever I get on PC (currently at the repair store near me).
found another suggestion about R-77 for Su-39. Had not seen it before unfortunately. Lots of “same problem” clicks here, you can click again to let it be known that many are waiting for it:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZVQw6XfaEFiE
In general maybe the lack of P-77 for Su-39 is that Su-25T in tech tree can’t get them with it. However, a “Su-25TM” modification could be added that would give access to kopie-25 and R-77.
Or introduce Su-25TM separately in tech tree and make Su-39 its equivalent
It didn’t make name be changed to Su-39 from Su-25TM-4.
How the name Su-39 appeared.!
The act on the completion of state tests of the Su-25T was signed in September 1993. It recommended that the attack aircraft be put into service, and also pointed out the expediency of assigning it a new index as a next-generation combat vehicle. In early 1994, an order was issued by General Designer M.P. Simonov to assign the Su-39 index to a specialized anti-tank attack aircraft.
That is, Sukhoi Design Bureau has already requested a new index for the Su-25T.
Spoiler
Cool, but U-UAZ doesn’t think so, whatever Simonov assigned, it was assigned only for promotions.
With all due respect to U-UAZ, we still do not have a factory that gives indexes to aircraft, the Su-27K / Su-27M and Su-27IB are vivid examples of this, and adoption often takes place formally retroactively…
We are interested in the first Su-39 presented at MAKS-95 tail number 10 (T-8TM-1 converted from T-8M -1), Su-25T tail number 09 was also presented there…
And now pay attention to the chronology…
The anti-tank Su-25T was upgraded to the more multipurpose Su-25TM. the first car of the new modification was the T-8M-10 in 1996 (board No. 10 blue). The standard version of the Su-25T modified for mass production made its first flight, was tested at the GLITZ in Akhtubinsk and was adopted under the name Su-39.The Su-25TM has been deployed at the Ulan-Ude plant since the end of 1991.
The first batch of Su-25T produced in Tbilisi was transferred to Russia in 1994. In 1996, 6 T-8M aircraft produced by the Tbilisi Aircraft Factory were transferred after modifications to the Lipetsk Center for Combat Use of the Russian Air Force for military tests.
It is not known what improvements there are, but the possible presence of a Spear and R-77 missiles are not the main features of the Su-39 index…These Lipetsk Su-25ts are often referred to as Su-39…
Spoiler
In general, an option is possible both with the T-64A tanks of the latest modifications of 1983 and the T-80UA/BA-tanks were adopted, but were not mass-produced…
It is also possible to finalize the bulletins …
- Su-39 tail number 83_LIPETSK 2005 (produced as Su-25T serial number 01-013)…
That somebody refered to Su-25TM as Su-39 doesn’t change the fact that only documentated official index is Su-25TM
I vote we start calling it the Su-39TM :P
I disagree-the index is assigned when adopting (if officially), in other cases according to the Documentation of the Chief Designer…Factory documents These factory documents are not used in Air Force Documents…Only in the Maintenance Documents.but there you need a Product form…
Betridinov has a discrepancy-he claims that both “09” /“10” are Su-25TM in different configuration…
Spoiler
