Absolute maximum travel distance due to MAJOR aerodynamic changes are…
Yes, in a specific scenario that I also explained would not translate well to the game.
To reiterate for everyone else (you already know), the R-77 used grid fins. In-game it uses the same model as any other missiles even though they are in the 3D model. They gave it an average drag coefficients to meet medium altitude expected range and performance. Since drag does not drop at high altitude in-game as it does in real life, and since it does not benefit from reduction in drag at higher speeds as compared to conventional fins, it doesn’t have any range advantages that translate into the game.
That being said, the AMRAAM suffers in maximum range scenarios as well, so does the R-27ER.
So yes, my test and scenario didn’t translate to the game. I said it wouldn’t. Is there anything else you don’t understand or want to purposefully misconstrue so as ro push your absurd opinions?
I was right about the thrust, the maneuverability, the seeker, the comparisons to R-27ER (in-game) hold true.
1 Like
It isn’t? There was a major switch with the C-5 that gave it a less powerful boost-only motor, instead of the boost/sustain mix of the 120A. Its primary purpose was to lower the time to target, and it did that well.
It’s also why the C-5 is the slowest of EVERY missile on the chart at longer ranges…
It’s actually more powerful, higher deltaV
the motor is more powerful and it should have less drag due to the clipped fins, wheras in the files it has a 1.55 CxK vs the 1.425 of the AIM-120A
More powerful in terms of total potential, though the C-5 makes almost 7kN less thrust.
The motor is far less powerful, and the drag is mostly insignificant seeing as the speed was a major changing factor between the two missiles.
I’ll check up on that, the only reference I have on my phone doesn’t state any drag characteristics.
the missile has higher deltaV, thats going to push the missile further no matter what provided the drag is implemented properly
and i just took those drag numbers straight from the datamine
That is not the total drag value, it is a coefficient combined with other factors.
The CxK of the AIM-120A was initially 1.6 not 1.425. The AIM-120C-5 was added prior to the report that fixed the drag value on the AIM-120A. It had a lower coefficient than the AIM-120A at the time of 1.55.
Whatever the current performance of the AIM-120C-5, it will likely be higher when it is ultimately implemented on live and the same fixes are applied to the missiles data file. It also should have a lower WingAreaMult line, inferior fin AoA & acceleration which would also yield less maneuvering losses.
I agree actually. I think it would be very good if the soviet planes had the edge at close range. They should have to weave under the barrage of Aim120 and get rewarded for closing the gap with close range R77 and R73. But unless their FM gets fixed properly, they need at least one advantage.
3 Likes
That would lead to imbalance because the AIM-120 is easy to avoid, just continue defending until they are out of missiles and suddenly the teams with Su-27’s are winning every match.
Still need to do that and how ever advantageous is the close range, you will probably in a disadvantageous position to win a fight since you have just dodged 4 ARAAMs.
2 Likes
But… thats practically how things are now, no? R-77 is useless for BVR as of now, so you had to hit the deck, weave under missile fire to get within that “DIE” range of R-77 and R-73. Only difference that Su-27 cant stay and fight well enough (or show that edge)
1 Like
People have been saying you’ll be in a disadvantageous position after dodging radar missiles since radar missiles have been added to the game. That has almost never been true.
I found the AIM-120 to be equally useless.
Same thing, but the AIM-9M is more effective at the moment and the Su-27 FM is dog poo.
Both sides will be diving for the deck in both situations.
2 Likes
In the current situation, the only moment the Su-27 is able to retaliate is when the F16/F15 is within 10km in their 3-9, which is prime positioning for an Aim 9M launch in the next 20 seconds.
The 20km HMD will probably help a lot, at least to extend that range to a 12-15km launch. The Mirage is able to counter the AMRAAM spam thanks to 20km HMD + MICA.
But fixing the Su-27 FM would go a long way to enable a more agressive playstyle. Having to “wait until it’s your turn to play” always feel very bad.
4 Likes
OMEGALUL
Dude, try to figure out the modifications of the Su-family aircraft. The Su-33 is much heavier, it can carry 12 missiles, it has the same shitty radar as the Su-27. It probably has the same shitty RWR. It has similar weapons to the Su-27.
1 Like
Most important is we need a better radar… That should be priority 1 for Russia’s next Flanker/top tier
The Su-27 is > than F-15A.
1 Like
Depends how you look at it, F15A demolishes the Flanker in a dogfight, it’s also kinematically vastly superior for higher altitudes and speeds, to the point where it’ll sometimes equalise the gap with 7M vs 27ER. Much more countermeasures and although bad at holding STT, it’s not the abysmal radar of the Flanker. But I can see how in the more laid-back fur ball RB environment the flanker would be more ideal
3 Likes