what about the 78% of people who want to actually play with the aircraft to grind or have a good plane in their lineups instead of using it like a FV4005 or KV-2?
skip/dont play it?
complete truth nuke
(It’s in a folder so you don’t even need to grind it)
1 Like
but it must be balanced, and giving the Su-39 R-77 and R-27ER won’t be.
yeah, ignoring the people who already bought it.
Su-25TM/39 cannot use R-27ER, just 27R/77.
And I could see it being “balanz” if you just put it at like, AV-8B+ BR, maybe a notch lower if need be.
bro actually believes i’m getting cracked in a 3v1😭🙏
Time for some corrections
I’ve debated many people over the years on this forum about the SU-39, and the biggest misconception is that it’s purely a dedicated strike fighter or attacker. In reality, a plethora of sources refer to the SU-39 as a multirole aircraft - it was designed as such, albeit in a more limited sense.
Loadout of the SU-39 from a secondary source, screenshot taken by me
The SU-39, a development of the SU-25T, which itself was a further upgrade of the SU-25 - was modernised with the intention of improving its A2A combat capability. It was fitted with the SUO-39P, allowing for the seamless integration of A2A missiles such as the R-27 and RVV/AE.
This isn’t something which would be performed for a dedicated attacker aircraft out of a whim
The SU-39 also received further upgrades to enhance its multirole capability, such as the SU-39 Strike Shield and the SUO-39P, as mentioned earlier.
It’s been a WHILE since I last did a deep dive into the SU-39, so this is all from memory. Don’t take my words as exact
Comparing the SU-39 to something like the F-111A is just disingenuous and short of ridiculous, the entire point of the SU-39 is it being a multirole export upgrade over the SU-25T/TK. Whether it should receive the loadout is entirely different - a balancing decision - not a historical inaccuracy.
No it wouldn’t, the SU-39 was actually fitted with A2A missiles such as the R-27, RVV/AE, and additional R-73Es not present in-game.
Picture of the SU-39 fitted with a ARH missile in red
3 Likes
i have SU 39 its good fighter but you cant bomb with it due to F5/F4 spam
AV-8B is better at everything compared to the Su-39, u can’t compare it with it.
giving it R-77 nor R-27R would be too much.
That’s like removing the AIM-120s on the F-15E to force it into a lower BR bracket. Sure, it’ll be significantly more effective at 12.3, but you’re stripping a vehicle of its true nature. It doesn’t matter if WT is a simulator or not, that’s just a mute point.
if everything here is actually true, it should get 4 R-73s as much.
again, giving this thing better A2A missiles is a bad idea by the fact i already commented.
it’s not comparable to any 13.0 Fox-3 carrier (AV-8B is the nearest thing to compare it with even if there’s a huge difference between each other).
Hence why you’d simply put it at a lower br, I think an Su-25TM w/ R-27R1 at say… a notch or two above where Su-39 is currently placed would be fine.
Su-25T/TM is incapable of carrying more than 2 R-73s.
he said not to believe everything written on his reply, but what about this?
That was my bad, confused 25T and 25TM’s loading capabilties.
T is limited to 2
TM/39 is rated for 4 tops.
Everything I’ve sent is from a secondary source which Gaijin has already accepted in some of my bug reports, giving the SU-39 its 4x R-73Es is at the moment the more sensible option - I’d agree. But I’d also like so the the introduction of the R-27R on the vehicle.
The SU-39 is a very confusing aircraft and I do understand why people are hostile to the idea of radar missiles being introduced onto the vehicle, but that’s just outright limiting the true nature of the vehicle - even if it ends up being a##.
Personally, I think what would be the most reasonable, give Su-39 two more R-73s and then the wishful Su-25TM getting R-73/27R1 a notch or two higher in br.