F-15 Eagle: Soaring High!

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
83
SARH vs ARH

The only relevant factors are multipath and the requirement for a constant lock (ARHs are affected by the former)

So, then the simple fact that you need a constant (or in the case of the R-27ER only a terminal) lock instantly makes them weaker than any ARH missile?

Let’s take the only currently implemented ARH, the AIM-54

  • It is up to 1.45 mach slower than the R-27ER

  • It pulls half as hard

  • It theoretically out-ranges the R-27ER (but maps are too small for this to be relevant)

  • It can guide the last ~16km to the target autonomously** assuming the target hasn’t deviated somewhat from its last known TWS vector

R-27R vs AIM-7e2

These missiles aren’t even close to comparable, one is a sophisticated 1980s design with inertial navigation, while the other is a Frankensteined dogfight missile from the 1960s

Making the Airframe

Except the Su-27 is a functional airframe.

MiG_23M has been incredibly helpful on the AIM-120 page and has done several tests on both missiles. I trust his results and would encourage you to take a look if you disagree

AIM-120A/B (Which are functionally identical as far as the game is concerned) Has nearly half the range of the R-27ER.

At 60km (The AIM-120A/B’s maximum* range) the R-27ER likely beats it to target by ~18-20 seconds, so the active seeker is irrelevant because the R-27ER will kill the launching aircraft before the missile can achieve an independent track. It can then go evasive and dodge the missile effortlessly

Maneuverability is similar too, with the AIM-120 doing ~35g (presumably single plane) while the R27s do 35g as well

AIM-120s can’t track a target until <~20km (real distance is unknown and thus can only be guesstimated)

So the launching aircraft has to maintain a TWS track (stay hot) until the missile goes Pitbull, or it falls back onto inertial navigation and can easily be evaded by simple defensive flying.

AIM-120A/B simply aren’t as effective as you seem to think they would be. They’re out-ranged and out-accelerated by R-27ER. They aren’t ‘fire and forget’ at medium to long range, they simply aren’t all that special.

2 Likes
84

If both targets notch you can effectively half the ranges used. The SMT can notch at nearly a perfect 90 degrees as well.

A 35km launched AIM-120 against an R-27ER launched at the same time with both targets notching will have ~20 seconds time to target when the R-27ER hits the AMRAAM launch vehicle.

2 Likes
85

ARHs are guided to pitbull with using TWS.
R-27ERs have IOG for non-locks similar to GBU-24, but it’s not the same.
And yeah, AIM-54 & R-33 are trash compared to AIM-7F/M, but they’re also 1950s/60s ARHs not designed for dogfighting.

R-27R & AIM-7E-2 have similar ranges & dogfight capability. Timeline doesn’t mean anything. R-27R is literally just an AIM-7E-2 with IOG in performance.

I’m glad you trust Mig_23M & I.

AIM-120B has more range because it’s an ARH as all you need is a fraction of a second of lock with AIM-120 to launch it. Range is more than just the paper number.
R-27ER is easy to defeat.

Having more paper range doesn’t mean what you think in matches.

86

AIM-54 is inferior to AIM-7F/M only within 3nm head-on. After this, it is equal until the AIM-7 runs out of energy at which point it is superior. (This has been reported and should be fixed eventually).

The IOG for R-27 is fantastic, and the datalink allows re-lock capability much longer after AIM-7F/M would have been able to find track again.

R-27R is superior to the AIM-7E-2 in range, significantly. It is also much better dogfight missile with superior monopulse seeker. Akin to AIM-7M.

AIM-120 is highly dependent on TWS track file to support it until it is within active range. Without this support it is ballistic towards last expected point of intercept which is going to cause a miss against an aware target.

2 Likes
87

F-15 and F-16 engine temps should be reduced from 977 celsius to 935 celsius.

Also, the F-15 should have automatically deploying takeoff / landing flaps if you didn’t raise them after takeoff yourself.

Flaps
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yF1rjhzBfGb9

Engine temps
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/pqvhDs65mzzx

3 Likes
88

Thanks for this context, I appreciate it.

No-IOG shouldn’t cause a self-destruct as quickly as it does but I don’t think anyone reported this as of current.

89

This is why I think R-27ER Vs AIM-120>C-5 is balanced. Besides the R-27ER can be launched using TWS (I have heard) so it can be launched using TWS at long range and the target can be locked onto at 20km (which is the Pitbull range of the 120’s.

R-27R Vs AIM-7P is balanced.

90

I have already begun reporting missiles that should not self-destruct on break-lock.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/7SCTaNx9qImu
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uVmEUV8lfouH

3 Likes
91

R-27ER vs AIM-120C-5 and newer would be unbalanced. The AIM-120C-5 would just eat alive R-27ER slingers and have multi-launch capability against multiple targets.

The early F-15A MSIP program allowed TWS track of a single target at a time for AIM-120A/B initially… honestly an interesting compromise.

Whatever the case, it’s up to Gaijin.

92

Exactly my point. there is a massive favour towards the Russians. They have the best SARH and IR homing missiles along with having a HMD well before any decent Western aircraft had them.

For now the only way for the USA to become competitive against the Russians is the AIM-9X BLK 1 and the AIM-120C-4.

Top tier was power crept way to hard and way too quickly

93

AIM-9X is absurd, and the AIM-120C-4 isn’t necessary.
The AIM-9M is sufficient, they should just get the AIM-120A/B right now. That would solve a lot of issues.

5 Likes
94

The best IR missiles go to AIM-9M and soon to be AAM-3.
Maneuverability isn’t everything.
Magic 2 & R-73’s lower-FOV IRCCM is still easily flared compared to 9M & AAM-3’s IRCCM.

95

There’s a discussion to be had here but I’m too tired to think of any counterpoints here. From what I can tell the block 1 -9X should be on par with the R-73. But for now a better version of the 9M should be added in along with a Br increase to 14.0 or something. Su-27 Vs FGR.2 is a very good idea and we need more 70’s designed aircraft Vs 50’s designed aircraft.

96

Yes of course maneuverability isn’t everything so is speed, drag, and motor. AAM-3 definitely beats the R-73 in the latter. But AAM-3 will not pull a 100° turn to hit a target moving parallel to the firing aircraft

Besides the AIM-9M seeker is much easier to flare than the R-73 at every range.

97

This comment is absurd. There are two entire generations of IRCCM between current missiles and AIM-9X type seeker.

The AIM-9X is capable of 90°+ off-boresight.

AIM-9M we have in-game is already performing as it should, if not overperforming. There is no better model of it that can come. “Push-ahead” if modeled as it should be would be very easy to defeat compared to what it has now.

98

I’m just learning so am curious but, how is the 9M overperforming? Is it the flight performance or more with the IRCCM stuff?

99

The IRCCM it uses is called “Push Ahead”. When it senses a countermeasure, it will stop tracking and push the reticle further in the direction the target was last moving hoping to re-capture the target.

To defeat this is as simple as ejecting a flare forward of the direction of travel or continuously flaring while maneuvering to lose the lock.

In-game it is much harder to lose it’s track, and it can’t be decoyed to the flare at all… Also it should be more susceptible to accidentally tracking a missile fired off from the aircraft due to its’ design.

2 Likes
100

Oh, I see, thank you!

101

120a/b will be fine

3 Likes
102

Again though because of this it can be defeated while in full afterburner while dumping flares. The R-73 is 100% going to kill you within 1.5km rear aspect.

Yes it did. I was wrong. I thought it used the seeker of the M-8/9 but obviously I misremembered. I wonder then if there was any prototypes that used more components of the M-8/9 instead of the motor and warhead.