Idk the ice at 13.0 with 4 aim 120 and 9ms kinda blows it out of the water, isnt there like a harrier at 12.7 with aim120?
The ICE and F3 are largely forced down due to compression but probably should be 13.3. F3 would be easy to fix and get back up, Fix BOL and add at least 1x Phimat pod and it would be a strong 13.3. With room to go up higher with Aim-120C5s and maybe even ASRAAM. F4F ICE is tricky, as I dont think it has the same kind of buff options, but just decompressing and moving all 14.0s to 14.3 and some 13.7s to 14.0 would do the trick
It would be best to compare the Su-39 with aircraft like the FA2, AV-8B+, Kfir C10 and J-8F
Rn, the only fox 3 carriers that are below 13.0 are phoenix slingers. None of the “modern” fox 3s are below 13.0. Imo, having any kind of modern fox 3 should automatically grant you 13.0. also, british harrier with fox 3s which is the one i think youre talking about is 13.0, altho ngl it’s jsut a horrendous plane that probably shouldnt have been added at all. it is just unplayable.
Ya i guess there isnt any arh slingers at 12.7 is there? Unless you count f14. The radar on su39 bleeds a lot of performance doesnt it? Its a giant pod on the bottom.
FA2 would be fine if BOL worked and they added the twin rails + BOL which is technically possible, just doesnt appear to have ever been done due to how soon after BOL intergration the airframe was retired.
2x R-77 would be fine at 12.7, but would be stupid below that. 4x R-77 would be really pushing it at 12.7, but might be fine due to both low sub-sonic launch and the inherrent weaknesses of R-77, in addition to the radar limitations from being a pod
But does still raise the question of whether an Su-39 is anything other than canon fodder above 11.7/12.0 and would it be better to just leave it alone, as much as possible, and perhaps just give it some R-27R/Ts?
Yeah but even then, I am pretty sure you give up either amraams or twin 9ms for BOL pods, which ruins the plane entirely. You also have to give up your gun for missiles. Also terrible RWR too. Probably the only modern fox 3 slinger that can be 12.7. Also, it doesnt even get the harrier 2 flight model, it gets the original FM of the frs 1 im pretty sure.
Has a top tier RWR these days, was fixed at long last in decemeber.
Yeah, its a Harrier 1, but all Harriers are underperforming a lot and the Harrier 1 airframes should be more like the Harrier 2s and then the 2s should be even better still
The loadout limitations are an issue, but between fixing BOL, other buffs and general harrier fixes, it will probably always be an underdog, but a fun one. But yes, in its current state, 12.7 might be better for it
13.0 with everything would still be less miserable than it is now at 11.7 with 2 r73. 12.0 is a giant blackhole becuase there is an absolute army of f4s.
At least 13.0 you see downtiers because of the f4s, it would be fine in downtiers and pure misery in uptiers, still at least it has a chance to be good, right now it is just a dedicated GRB plane that thankfully you dont have to mod out in ARB.
Perhaps, just in experience with the Harrier Gr7 and FA2 that are comprably very strong aircraft, something like the Su-39 looks even worse when you do get an uptier.
So I do think the first step is buffs to keep it at or near 11.7 that round it out better. (Such as R-27R) Plus, Gaijin is never moving the Su-39 up dramatically, It was hard enough to get them to drop the Harrier Gr1 from 10.0 to 9.7 and now we are fighting to get SRAAM modeled properly. I seriously doubt they have any incentive to move it up to 12.7 at this time. Especialyl as you have the whole “I paid for X and now I have Y” situation.
The only hope would be for a “Su-39 (Late)” for the TT I think.
Written up responses to this argument previously for a different frogfoot but statement still holds:
On account of the IRCCM of 9M vs 73, A10C can utilise it’s AAMs far more effectively than frogfoots can utilise R73s. 4 x R73 on a frogfoot would still be worse off than A10 with its 9Ms. The primary limitation of 9M being it’s rate of closure is still a problem, but the IRCCM still functions throughout the approach, whereas 73’s IRCCM relies on rate of closure to be effective. Which is effectively as poor as a 9M from an A10 when accounting for the fact the frogfoot lacks HMD and must bleed most of its speed to get the nose on target. So the missile IRCCM is very poor when launched from a frogfoot. If just lobbing it at a blind muppet, it evens out a bit, but so would throwing a super sonic brick.
That aside;
I’ve done alright for myself (with the caveat that I usually am screwing around with it) with the Su 25 SM3 with the limited air to air armament at 11.7. A properly armed su 39 would be quite comfortable at the rating. I do focus primarily on ground attack, so I’d wager folk better at air to air than I would fair better. But the aircraft itself would sit relatively comfortably at the rating.
1 Like