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.
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.
And anyone that does any form of maneuvering while launching their AMRAAMs will end up avoiding it due to being outside of the seeker FoV.
Heck…if that is the point you want to make is that you can “stealth” launch the ER…then the EA would be worse for your intended purposes because it would activate the targets RWR ahead of time.
If you wanted to prove me wrong we could set up a custom game in sim.
Missiles don’t play a large part in 1v1 tournaments.
If simply having the biggest rate number on the RideR2 charts was as decisive in a dogfight as people claim…surely it would have won a tournament?
Are you sure that the Su-33 is the counter to F-15C? Su-33 might be the counter to F-18 hornets. I would suggest the Su-30 being the counter to the F-15C.
Might be mistaken though.
That is correct, but the loft profile would reduce time before missile impacts significantly and increase average velocity allowing it to go after targets further away than the AIM-120 could effectively launch. Especially from lower altitudes.
The argument boils down to more than a 1v1, we are discussing as played in air RB as far as I am concerned. I am NOT dying to radar missiles in sim almost ever, if I do it is generally a friendlies.
Missiles are huge in 4v4 tournaments from what I’ve seen as of late and missiles are the primary reason people didn’t use it in the top tier tournaments. F-14 can’t beat stuff equipped with R-73 or Magic 2. Simple as that.
You are the one making that claim and trying to suggest that an R-27EA would have lofting included with it. My assumption is that it would simply be an R-27 with an active seeker.
So far basically everything you have said about it has been wrong in this thread.
Even the chart that you posted and claimed that the R-27EA would have a 10 second lead on the Aim-120 directly disagrees with that assessment.
Basically your argument is predicated on using a gimmicky tactic that only hits non-aware players while also hoping that nobody launched on you soon enough to negate that tactic or guarantee that you die.
Nobody was talking about 4v4 tournaments. The whole point I was making was limited to people looking at a chart and deciding that the F-14A would win a 1v1.
In previous testing of my own this was the case, in his chart he did not utilize the best loft profile available. The R-27ER vastly outperforms the AIM-120 in deltaV, so the higher the altitude and faster the launch the better it is off. The only really big issue after burnout is higher drag coefficient and trying to maintain speed through maneuvers.
And no, everything I’ve said was more or less factual. You yourself exaggerated as well stating that it only ever had 1 or 2 seconds advantage in time to target. Don’t get ahead of yourself claiming “Gotcha!” if you were doing the same thing.
Starting your reply this way indicates you’re preparing to completely skew what I was saying in a very poorly summed up way in an attempt to force me into another elaboration. All this word spaghetti isn’t going to be read by your average forum goer.
Just address the argument rather than coming up with some gimmicky tactic to avoid it in the first place.
It doesn’t matter if no one was discussing a good point before it was brought up, it is a good point. The F-14 is a good aircraft. It is vastly undertiered. More so than almost anything else in the game currently.
There is not a single 12.7 fighter in the game that stacks up with the F-14 in an air RB match. There is not a single 13.0 fighter that stacks up evenly against the F-14 in an air RB match. It’s at that BR because it isn’t forgiving and easy to play.
The F-16 & Gripen VASTLY overperform. The MiG-29 / Su-27 underperform. Your average pilot who doesn’t know what a yo-yo is will probably be beat by the average F-14 pilot in a sustained turn. I’ve seen it. The aircraft certainly smokes the pants off anything at 12.3 currently with few exceptions.
So yeah, it is easy for people to get the idea that it is the highest sustained turning of any fighter in the game but to call out the “average” pilot in a youtubers fan server for claiming that doesn’t really disprove them either. They have their own point of view, perspectives, experiences and due to how the game plays… it is valid. You knowing that in practice and in a 1v1 with much more skilled players involved the F-14 will lose the rate does not diminish their experiences.
When the AIM-120, while good, is much more easily evaded once it is below 1.5 mach compared to the R-27ER which would still be 2+ mach in terminal. The 10s time to target advantage at long range is mitigated primarily by the fact that two above average pilots simply won’t let that kind of situation develop in the first place. This entire argument is built on imaginary unlikely scenarios. Most of the time I’m even at altitude in the game is to get enemies to launch a ton of their ordnance at me so I can scrap it a few seconds later by going cold.
So many things to cover, so many things to discuss. For some reason we’re dying on the hill that the R-27EA shouldn’t come to the game because you don’t think it would have an advantage against the AIM-120? Didn’t we just prove that even by your own admission it would outperform it slightly? Would that not be balanced counter to the AIM-120 for some Russian aircraft in spite of poor radar performance?
The first chart that you posted with the old Aim-120 data would have been closer to being correct. I have already pointed this out to you. The second chart that you posted shows a 6.5 second time to target advantage if it was lofted at maximum range. This is operating under your assumption that it would receive lofting code and not simply be an active seeker R-27ER without lofting. Never in my argument have I ever said that it should loft or that it should receive lofting code similar to Aim-120…this is purely your conjecture.
This statement was a lie. You didn’t even read your own chart.
Even you don’t trust the chart that you posted. I have actually tested it in-game by launching head-on as well as launching and the cranking to respective gimbal limits of F-15C/MiG-29 SMT.
The source of the graph that I posted also shows that the R-27ER will arrive at its target only a few seconds before the Aim-120 does.
You moved the goalposts when I pointed out the chart that you were using as your source showed a 4-6 second gap between R-27EA w/loft and wanted to point out the chart didn’t account for cranking.
I gave you a different time gap for a cranked target because it’s something I have already tested.
It’s completely unrelated to the point that I made.
The MiG-29 and the F-16A exist.
The F-15A is far better than the F-14.
It’s something that isn’t going to change anytime soon.
The players that make these claims usually have “SIM DUELIST” tags in his server.
It doesn’t have a 10 second time to target advantage. I can prove this in a custom match if you want. We can fly to high altitude and launch missiles at each other and break out a stopwatch.
Where did I say that it shouldn’t come to the game?
My argument is in favor of it coming to the game on the MiG-29SMT because the flight model is awful and it would be limited to carrying only 2 of them.
Even if they added them to the Su-27SM…that planes radar is bad enough that the only real way to utilize them would be at shorter ranges and it would still probably be easier to decoy than the R-27ER.
The R-77 shouldn’t loft either, but here we are.
In the exact same fashion - your own statement was a lie
I doubt that since the numbers appear off, so far
Bringing up a valid point of us both dying on the wrong hill isn’t moving the goalpost, there isn’t even a goalpost.
What are they supposed to do?
Taking a look in his discord it seems to be a role solely for him to ping people to fight him for videos, by no means a mark of excellence.
You want to die on that hill, you’ve never even pointed out how a 10 second time to target advantage is still mediocre to begin with… Well, it would be if the missile wasn’t already evadable or out of energy.
It’s supposed to carry four total ER’s
I don’t think that’s the case. What’s wrong with its radar?
bruh
have you reported that? what a sources?
Since F15 was 13.0 and they are 13.3? A better capability means higher BR, except they realised F15 is a bit too low RN, so for some reason rather than decompression, they moved su27 back…
I could not find sources stating “The R-77 doesn’t loft”, I also could not find a single source that says “The R-77 lofts” so Gaijin has interpreted that as “it must have a very mild almost useless loft profile”. The result is an over-estimated drag profile in-game and slight underperformance by 10-15%.
Coupled with the files essentially utilizing a conventional style fin with the drawbacks of high drag in even low AoA maneuvers - the missile loses speed incredibly quickly especially due to the current missile wobble problem all ordnance suffers from at the moment.
check that on server replay
Why? Server replay can’t accurately display aircraft velocity currently either iirc.
maybe issues with connection
at least seen ppl sometimes stating thats reason why issue exists
The issue becomes worse the longer a match has gone on, and it is truly problematic after 2 hours in sim. We’ve thoroughly investigated the issue and made it known to the devs but they have not commented on it.
This isn’t really my problem. You should go bug report it or something.
It was not. You just wanted to change the definition of time-to-target to fit your argument and I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.
My original statement is that an R-27EA that was implemented as simply an active seeker ER would have a time-to-target that is about 1-2 seconds faster than the current Aim-120 in the game. This an easily testable fact.
You are the one that made the 10+ second claim and then doubled down on it.
They aren’t.
I made a whole video about trying to use the MiG-29SMT as a BVR bus in Sim because people kept repeating the notion that it would somehow be great in BVR because of the radar gimbal limit.
The chart that you are using as a source is for an R-27ER with lofting code applied to it…and it shows a 4 second time-to-hit gap between itself and the Aim-120 at 50km. My original post is that the time-to-hit gap that I measured between an unlofted R-27ER and Aim-120 is 1-2 seconds.
So which is it?
Does lofting make a noticeable difference in time-to-hit? Because if it does…then the chart basically agrees with what I have tested in-game. Because if that is the case…it agrees with my original point that an R-27EA without lofting code would simply be slightly faster to target at longer distances than the Aim-120.
Or is the chart wrong and vastly underestimate the time to impact of the R-27ER? Can you actually prove this?
Why do I need to explain this to you? You are a big boy…you should be able to figure it out.
Heck…didn’t you have a whole post earlier in the thread about why the F-14 hasn’t won any 4v4 tournaments?
It doesn’t have a 10 second time to target advantage.
And yet it doesn’t in-game.
It’s refresh rate is extremely slow.
7 - 14 seconds to populate new targets or reacquire old ones.
The refresh rate also has negative impacts on guiding R-77 over long distances and makes an inefficient missile even more inefficient. That is if you are successful at keeping the target in TWS in the first place.
It is a problem, and it goes against your thought process that the R-27EA would come without lofting.
Nuh uh isn’t a valid response
They are.
Ok, so you claimed 1-2s when it was really 5+ seconds and no one called you out for exaggerating. Someone else exaggerates and you’re immediately crying wolf.
In quite a large number of scenarios it absolutely does.
And? It doesn’t have R-27EA either.
That’s it? That’s the only gripe? Y’all are just spoiled and this honestly screams instant gratification or something.
The drift rate isn’t that bad
It really doesn’t.
My original statement was that R-27EA would be active seeker R-27ER with no other changes.
Even you said that you cannot prove that the R-77 doesn’t loft…basically your source amounts to “trust me bro”.
I pointed out that you were lying about the 10 second time to target gap and your whole response has been a variation of “nuh uh” and “well acktually”. My claim has been consistent throughout our conversation.
There is a 2 second time to impact difference between Aim-120 and R-27ER when launched under the same conditions.
Even if you insist that the software and calculations are inaccurate…and to my knowledge it is slightly skewed by the fact that it doesn’t account for lofting in Aim-120…this is something that would be easily testable in the game and I have offered to do the testing with you.
And this side discussion is adding the R-27EA to it. Not about adding the EA and also adding 2 more pylons. Or adding the EA and fixing the flight model and nerfing the F-16.
The original point I made is that adding an R-27EA to planes as they currently exist in the game would make less of a difference than people think they would; at least from the perspective of trying to shoot missiles at longer ranges.
Up close that might be a different story.
It’s the worst radar in top tier sim. It is practically useless as a situational awareness tool.
It’s far worse than every other radar at top tier in sim. It effectively limits R-77 to being fired at the same ranges that you would use an R-73 at.
