Why would anybody want to make a plane like that suffer bus?
I started trying to spade the F-5TH TCU a while back, adding ARHs to a 11.3 airframe is not always an improvement.
“Su-39 is an exported attacker, it’s made to attack tanks, not aircrafts,”
Also, technically it’s a planned export aircraft since it was never sold lol.
Also, it’s advertised as being capable of attacking aircraft, since that’s what was planned, it being capable of targeting air and ground targets.
and u think giving an attacker better A2A weapons would be “balance”?
It’s why I think they should add a new aircraft with said weaponry, instead of giving the already existing one better A2A weaponry.
Something something reading comprehension.
Su-35 carrying R-77M1
talking about upgraded Su-30SM Flankers.
Yes, R-77M"1" on that very clearly Su-30SM2.
Anyways, R-77M"1" isn’t a real designation… It’d likely be called Izd.180-1 if that were the case, which it’s not… also there’s no confirmation that it’s been put on 30SM2, speaking of, your sources actually just say “R-77M” as well lol.
is there any difference between R-77M and M1?
One exists and the other doesn’t? Pretty simple.
R-27ER1 exists, and it’s an exportation variant.
u should stop getting rude.
Since at this point from what you were saying the other day, kinda hard to tell if you’re just baiting or not.
Anyways, not every Russian missile follows the xx1 designation system, notably, no member of the R-77 family does, so there’s no reason to assume that’d suddenly change for R-77M if/when it gets exported.
wow, a random in the internet is bullying me by no reason calling out something i said the other day which i don’t remember cuz i don’t take things that seriously to have recorded inside my brain what somebody said.
the only relevant thing u have said apart from mocking me for confusing about designations.
How is calling you out for baiting and telling you you are wrong about missile designations bullying?
capable or not, Su-30SM2 and other vehicles are lacking their actually good/real armament for the simple logic that it would be too unbalanced.
same thing for this brick with wings, it’s nonsensical giving an attacker air superiority weaponry.
i wasn’t baiting, how is being wrong and not noticing “baiting”?
one thing is being wrong and telling somebody why, other thing is mocking people for being wrong u not.
Su-30SM2 and other vehicles are lacking their actually good/real armament
R-74M/R-37M (The current “missing” AAMs from Su-30SM2) are simply not needed in the current climate, Su-30SM2 is already strong enough.
it’s nonsensical giving an attacker air superiority weaponry.
Hence why there should be a one added in the tech tree with everything the premium lacks, and just because it’s silly doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be added? People (including me) want it, and it’d be fun. Good? Likely not, Fun, yes.
i wasn’t baiting, how is being wrong and not noticing “baiting”?
Also I didn’t say you were, I just said I couldn’t tell if you were or not.
You think the su39 is bad lets talk about the A6
last part is on me for how i wrote it tbf
so i’m right, thx.
mainly ground targets, that’s why it uses the original fuselage of a Su-25, if it wasn’t it would use a different fuselage with way better capabilities for A2A engagements.
Su-25TM wouldn’t solve the problem.
how can u have fun with soviet Hawk 200 RDA?
the same way people have fun with the non soviet Hawk 200 RDA?
so i’m right saying it’s for balance.
Because I simply do not care if something is good or bad, if it’s something I’ve wanted to play, then I can have fun in it either way.
Like I WANT T-10KUB-1 simply for the sake that it’d be stupid and silly, it’d be pretty shit if I actually wanted a competitive fighter.
NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE GOOD OR COMPETITIVE.
2 Likes