NO???
R-27EA has 10+ seconds sooner time to target for equivalent range on the AIM-120 and considerably higher velocity at all launch ranges.
The R-27EA in this is just an R-27ER with AIM-120 loft code applied.
1 Like
Why did you replace the first chart that you posted?
I had not realized that @dark_claw had made a full chart with not just a single datapoint, but the entire lines for a properly modeled R-27EA. The first chart was just for an R-27ER manually lofted at 30 degrees.
The new chart has the R-27ER and R-27EA present in full with the entirety of the launch envelope data visible.
The R-27ER is not on this chart so it is not possible to see the effect of lofting.
My testing has been that an R-27ER launched at the same time as an Aim-120 at around 50km and 10,000m of altitude will reach its target about 1-2 seconds before the Aim-120.
1 Like
Let’s assume this chart is correct.
Where on this chart are you seeing a 10 second gap in time to impact??
Here is his original chart that I removed in favor of that one from my post;
Data shows ~3-5s difference depending on launch conditions and doesn’t consider notching a factor.
When you launch and then notch at closer ranges, the MiG-29SMT’s 85 degree gimbal would give the R-27ER or R-27EA an absolutely insane advantage.
I was looking at around 60km, factor in the AIM-120’s wobble in actual in-game testing as opposed to this data which appears to be extracted from a formula.
What you are discussing though is real in-game performance but not discussing realistic in-game engagement scenarios where both sides launch & defend instead of just flying head-on into the horde of incoming missiles.
The data is somewhat outdated as well I’ll admit, with some ordnance seeing some changes since then.
That is also for the R-27ER using R-77 loft trajectory, I misread his post. It would be improved even further with a proper loft trajectory like the AIM-120’s considerably.
The original chart is from before the Aim-120 range was buffed and the maneuverability was nerfed. The Aim-120 in the first chart reaches 65km in 64 seconds. The updated chart shows it reaching 65km in 58 seconds.
I’ve tested this. If MiG-29SMT and F-16C launch at each other from are 50km…and both go fully into their notch limits…the R-27ER will hit about 5.5 seconds sooner than the Aim-120.
The time to climb for the MiG-29SMT to reach 9000m and reach Mach 1.2 is around 2:40 seconds with 4 R-77 and 2 R-27ER. This is no drop tanks and 30 minutes of fuel. The F-16C under the same circumstances will reach 9000m and Mach 1.2 in around 2 minutes.
In a symmetrical start from the runway…the F-16C would have an additional 40 seconds to accelerate or an additional 40 seconds to climb in comparison to the MiG-29SMT.
There is also the issue that the MiG-29SMT wallows around like a pig at high altitude and all subsequent launches past the first one are probably going to be from an even lower altitude and probably from subsonic speeds.
1 Like
Modern day AIM-54 for the russian side.
Maybe more on par with the AIM-174B although i am not sure because its capabilities are classified :(
Along with same statement about r-77…
This seems to be an error in some part
I don’t enter the match in these conditions and fly directly at the enemy, I am always prepared long before the F-16 would be. Even so, the F-16 is not going to be able to slow down and maneuver away from a properly timed stealth R-27ER launch
I don’t foresee this being an issue in air RB conditions or even in sim.
Somewhat more believable because for some reason it seems more prone to chaff although I haven’t looked at the seeker file data to see if this is just my imagination.
There isn’t. But nice try I guess?
Do you mean the whole locking an R-27ER, firing it, and then breaking lock while letting INS guide it?
This only works if your target decides to fly straight into it. Anyone that is aware of the tactic can easily avoid it.
It’s a pretty noticeable issue in sim if you ever attempt to BvR against someone who has thumbs. So not your average Aeroturtle viewer.
2 Likes
Idk, same type: no missile start data, along with target data
Just funny
90% of early game players who climb and launch fox-3s early do this, and don’t turn away because they’re just waiting for the active missile approach warning from the RWR before they decide to break. Observe it while watching the missile in flight and lock them from TWS once it’s ~5-10s out.
I suspect this is some sort of jab but I don’t get the reference.
You’re arguing that the plane with higher notch angle is going to guide the missile which already had a decent ~6s time to target advantage (un-lofted) is going to suddenly have less time differential against the opponent after you account for the notching?.. math doesn’t math there.
Well I have not killed a single AIM120 carrier in my 20 or so games of F16A MLU, plenty of Su27s though, seeing them struggling to lock on to me at sub 10km range and then getting 7M in their face, honestly the R77 is usable, especially paired with Zhuk, the real problem is Mech + RVV-AE, which means the worst top tier radar + one of the worst missiles.
3 Likes
So your arguments are basically that the R-27ER stealth launch tactic is good because most players do not react to it? But also that the MiG-29SMT flight performance does not matter because you are smart enough to not fly straight into the battle? But also comparing time to impact on targets that do not react is invalid because obviously the target would react?
This is a double standard.
It does not have a 6 second time to target advantage when it is un-lofted. Un-lofted and un-notched the time to impact between Aim-120 and R-27ER fired from similar conditions at 50km and 9km is going to favor the R-27ER by about 2 seconds.
Notching to maximum angle gets about 5 seconds advantage.
Aim-120 calculated time to impact is 35.5 seconds. R-27ER calculated time to impact is 33.5 seconds.
It’s a reference to all of the horrendously bad war thunder takes…especially about sim…that originate from Aeroturtle viewers and his server. Things like “the F-14A out-rates everything” and that kind of nonsense.
2 Likes
F-15C MSIP II: Amazing radar for 13.0
Not at all, It’s very slow to refresh targets. Have to use very low radar fov to actually get a accurate reading.
Perfectly modeled
Meanwhile missing it’s countermeasure pods and has wrong engine thrust
This is some high level Russian/Chinese copium.
*Note: I’m not denying F-15C is more meta right now, but what the OP says is just not true. And before that the Su-27/J-11 was dominating with R-27ER’s and R-73’s, 10x total missiles. Stop being mad when cards change.
No, it’s valid. It’s how the game goes. This is a realistic expectation.
This software was wildly inaccurate for the R-27ER last I checked
The F-14’s peak sustained turn rate is higher but that doesn’t mean it wins the rate fight, they’re not exactly wrong if that’s the hill you’re gonna die on.
I don’t think that it is. By the same measure the USA already has a missile that is much better for killing people who are basically AFK.
The time to impact difference between the Aim-120 and R-27ER seems pretty accurate from my testing. I have also tested it in-game.
In practice, the MiG-29SMT will lose BvR against F-16C and F-15C.
It does not have the ability to leverage that advantage in any reliable way. There is a reason F-14 has never won any major dueling tournament.
1 Like
No they don’t, because it warns them ahead of time with plentiful room for turning evasive.
In practice I’ve found the opposite to be true, but ok.
Lack of countermeasures, lack of IRCCM missiles, lack of HMS?
The only time it ever had a serious advantage was when it was immediately added after the MiG-23. Even now, it puts up a fantastic fight against the currently overperforming peers such as the F-16A & Gripen.