While there is a technological gap here,
This is a lie. 73M service entry is 1997, to the ASRAAM’s 1998. That is a one year gap. You are an order of magnitude out. the IS-90 seeker used in the 74M is a further decade ahead, first being shown publically (to my knowledge) in 2006.
No but I expect people to have the sense to understand that an already superior aircraft doesn’t need further improvements.
The flare resistance is inferior in places, and superior in places. To directly compare it as one worse than the other is incorrect. the R-73 is far superior within roooughly 2km, while the 9M is superior outside this distance.
The hornet is another topic and is equally capable, instead trading airframe and radar performance for armament.
R-74M is a dual band seeker with ± 60 degree off boresight. This would put it closer to the performance of existing dual band missiles in game, which utilise a mix of both IRCCM methods present to “simulate” this performance. If you believe dodging a 50G stinger is reasonable be my guest.
Not directly I suppose, but you were thinking precisely that.
Service dates are beyond irrelevant. In that case the 74M spent 20+ years in development.
It’s a comparison of 1986 to 1992. The 74M was even denied contract once it was completed before your state service date for the ASRAAM.
Do you see why service dates are generally disregarded?
This has to be a joke…
I’M an order of magnitude out?? You can’t even name the correct seeker than the R-74M uses…
Hence why I’m lining out equivalent improvements for other major nations…
There are very few things superior about it. Its engine power is hilariously bad, the TVC implementation is rocky as of now and grants it beyond too much maneuverability, and right now America and Britain are still slumming it with missiles from 1980.
Hence why I’ve named an equal AIM-9M variant that vastly improves short-range performance while giving an R-74M that improves longer range performance.
I do? The Stinger uses a botched tracking suspension seeker that it shouldn’t have and has a hilariously stiff turn radius. It’s even better than it should be given the fact that it outright ignores ircms when dual band shouldn’t.
I wasn’t. I was thinking that the aircraft made in an arms race against america would best be compared to American aircraft.
If you felt the need to make it personal, take a seat and come back in an hour.
Then why did you mention it “predating” the ASRAAM?
Enlighten me. Quite certain K-74M uses Impuls-90.
Or… just fix the things we have instead of immediately asking for new kit? We don’t need 73Ms in game just as we don’t need any of the other suggested equipment improvements right now. We’re already at a multiple-decade technological overstep with gaijin playing catchup on aircraft tech.
Or just… don’t fix what isn’t broken? I’m not seeing the issue with the existing 9M vs 73 dynamic.
That’s brilliant! You’re getting it. Gaijin’s implementation means it will act in the exact same way lol.
A multirole conversion of an interceptor isn’t exactly something that can be treated as being in an “arms race against american fighters” but okay I guess.
Could get one of the late AIM-9M models with increased overload
Uhhhh. Can we see the uhhh AIM-9X and the uhhh AIM-120D and uhh maybe the AIM-174B oh yeah and don’t forget about the F-22. Just add the NGAD all together. Let gaijin make it themselves.☝️🤓
No. Of course not. The SU-30SM will probably dominate in WVR and BVR or maybe at least be as good as the F-15E in BVR if not better because of the PESA
Would be fine by me, at least the end of the line planes should get it
based on the info on stat shark the r77-1 is better than the aim120 in range so it will be the best in game when added
Only theoretically. 77-1 bleeds much more speed when manoeuvring.
even then it would end up being around the same range while being way better for close range combat
-_- I’m a Flanker Cultist (Hyped for the 30SM) and I don’t want the R-77M…Yet! You do know the guessed specs of this missile right?..Gaijin would have to do an ENGINE update to the game so they could make the maps big enough just to use it!
Gaijin already needs an engine update and bigger maps. It’s already not hard to just crossmap with some missiles.
Or just more effective means to deal with missiles beyond “Turn 90 degree, maw the lawn, spam shaff and (optionally) pray”
Lol they dont use those, one only use is being on su57, one we know nothing about as it isnt even in service yet
Technology wise, both for development and the era of missile itself.
Don’t mistake service date and synchronous development. They are still 24 leagues apart.
K-74M had in its secondary development; though the original R-74M development had started with the MK-2000 UV/IR seeker. It’s commonly called the Mayak and predated the IS-90, and was what was first used with the R-74M.
It would be true the RVV-MD uses the IS-90, though both have been succeeded by the IIR MM-2000 (R-74M[E/1] and the Carthage seeker (R-74M2).
I’m personally against 73Ms, unless as a minor upgrade for aircraft already carrying 73s.
What I’m arguing for is better missiles and implementation all around the board. It’s a catch 22 in any situation you look at it… Missiles are gimped because other missiles perform poorly while those poorly performing missiles are nerfed due to their competition not being good enough.
What 74Ms would do is raise the bar for Magic 2 IRCCM, allow for Python 4 and later Pl-9 implementation, as well as better Sidewinder variants.
No middle-ground strengths of either. 9M lacks the close-in performance that the R-73 has, while the R-73 lacks any performance beyond 3km.
There’s no well-rounded implementation in that. They’re polar opposites that force two entirely different use cases that don’t mesh at all in either ARB or AAB. ASB is somewhat manageable, and that’s given you don’t get seen (SPO-30M shows you the exact aircraft of your RWR contact).
What? Having a dual-band seeker would make it far more susceptible to flares… Current small-scope gates + suspension makes it quite literally undodgeable unless you’re spewing flares like a dog with explosive diarrhea.
The Su-30SM isn’t an interceptor, nor was it converted off of anything. It’s a born and bred air superiority fighter that received AGM/ASMs further into its service.
You put a poll to add a Russian missile in a place mostly ran by U.S mains, you should know what the majority is gonna say
They are not intended to mesh. The point is that you use your aircraft to position yourself in a way where your weapons are at an advantage, in the same way you would in e.g grb, or even props. Personal opinion here, but everyone having roughly “even” weapons which are capable under all scenarios just strikes me as boring.
Correct. My problem isn’t the realistic implementation of a dual band seeker. If they ACTUALLY modelled dual band, fair enough! all for it. Problem is the current missiles in game with dual-band seekers don’t have dual band seekers, but instead have a mix of seeker shutoff and gate width for seemingly no reason. I don’t want them to add an air to air missile with that kind of behaviour.
The Su-30SM is a modernisation of the Su-30, which itself is a redesignation of the Su-27PU program. P designates interceptor role.
I understand such, but there is no middle ground whatsoever in missile performance between the two.
Them being stuck as the best missiles of either nation in turn ruins the capability of proper implementation of other missiles, such as the aforementioned 550 Mk.2 and PL-9C.
That’s exactly what I’ve argued as well? You seem to have taken issue with it, but I had said that any missile with current stinger-like implementation would be beyond beatable. If the stinger did receive its proper seeker implementation, it would be more than fine.
Which is why I’d rather have dual band modern missiles… With current implementation, missiles are openly gimped due to balance. If the Stinger got its dual band or the TY-90 got its IIR seeker, no other missile can compete. Hence why we have AIM-7Ms and AIM-120As fighting R-27ERs and R-77-1s now. R-27Rs are entirely irrelevant and nowhere to be found but on an American plane, while IR missiles are left even further in the dark.
Tell me, apart from the AIM-7P (literally just a 7M with datalink) or the R-77-1 (a renamed R-77 that now has the same engine performance and flight characteristics)… What has been added in recent time??
So… An air superiority fighter. The Su-27P denotes nothing but air to air combat, as they lack air to ground ordinance options. No tactical nuclear devices can be carried, nor guided weaponry. It doesn’t mean it fills the interceptor role, but that it is made for air to air combat instead.
Then we are in agreement, but there is no sign gaijin is working on this type of seeker.
No, (in this case, at least) it means it’s assigned to PVO, which serve a dedicated interception role. That is the entire purpose of the Su-27P.
oh ok i got u that makes since