This. And also the reason why some platforms, like F-5, shouldn’t get them with their potential. It will be an A-10C situation part 2, but with much, much more horrible matchmaker.
Unlike the A-10, the F-5 can sit comfortably at the top br with these missiles
The main issue with the A10 is that other planes get no flares while this isnt really an issue at top tier since the other aircraft would even have better long range aam
Well, I specified the A-10 C variant. It was terrible at 12.0 becuase PD radars and SARH missiles from supersonic fighters just violated it, and ppl wanting it at 11.3 are madmen because how do you even counter AIM-9M with one of the best IRCCMs for air battles when ppl get like 40 regular flare pops?
The same with F-5: it cannot go faster than M1.1 properly yet will have to fight eurocanards, late F-15s/16s and different Su-30s et alikes while having FM of like 12.3 at best, until first F-16 model encounter.
It is not only about the missile but also a FM and competition, and with P4s being R-27ET level, F-5 can stand solid at 13.0, but if P4 is at its full potential, lower brackets will have to pray they are not locked with them P4s as it is straight up death no matter your FM/ordnance/systems.
They are more similar to the R-27T rather than the R-27ET in terms of range
1 Like
I also look at off-rail acceleration and sustainer, as well as drag and everything that affects max effective range.
Python 4 has significantly lower off the rail acceleration than the R27ET
1 Like
Not sure if this takes drag into consideration
Yeah, but missile weight is extremely different (105kg vs 245kg), better look at them deltaVs, and you will find out that P4 is much better given its agility and drag that leads to greater max effective range
DeltaV does not reflect max range at all, it only shows the maximum difference in velocity
A missile can have a very high deltaV but really bad range if it accelerates very fast but has a lot of drag so it decelerates when the booster runs out
1 Like
it does
A missile like the firestreak has a higher deltaV than the AIM-9P yet its range is far lower
Or even the Shafrir, with a far higher deltaV than the AIM-9B yet it has very similar range
Or even the SRAAM that has double the deltaV of the AIM-9B yet it has half its range
However looking at total deltaV Python 4 is almost the same as R-27ET, while R-27T has R-60 level of it. Can’t really tell if it is proper comparisson given R-27T has larger and more powerful booster/sustainer than R-60, yet comparing 230mm calibre 245kg missile with 120mm calibre 45kg one is not the best.
Because it self-destroys at like 2kms?
While Shafrir gets lower mass, its also shorter yet wider (140mm vs 127mm AIM-9B) which also influences drag. Also, with a look of things, the same booster propels Shafrir to greater speeds, but due to numerous factors influencing drag, its range is similar to that of AIM-9B, but still has slightly greater max effective range.
Because when missiles’ booster burns out, the missile and booster are still there. Look at empty mass of AIM-9P and Firestreak, and you will see an answer why the latter sucks much more at greater ranges. Also wild to assume that a missile with less burn time (2.2s vs 1.9s), not much greater deltaV (594m/s vs 629m/s) should propel almost 2x heavier missile at empty mass further.
In addition to this statement: R-27T gets more powerful and larger booster when compared to P4 (717m/s with 6s burn time). Yet R-27T has absolutely no sustainer, so that 178kg chonk has to travel further with inertia it got from booster (if missile tries to maneuvre it is joever for max range), and P4 gets 3s booster and 5s sustainer with almost the same deltaV (570m/s and 553m/s) which means it has greater max effective range.
Whereas R-27ET, in fact, gets booster (3.2s w/ 588m/s) and sustainer (4.8s w/ 550m/s) very much resembling P4. The only real difference is the fact that off-rail impulse is much greater which leads to better initial speed. However, as booster and sustainer burns out, R-27ET would still weight 204kg and P4 only 63, which is why max effective range at the end of burn time is greater at P4 side than R-27ET. Not to mention how much maneuverable P4 is (50G vs 35G).
I hope this yapping explains why we shouldn’t get R-27ET-level missile with undefeatable seeker.
This is only true from a stationary launch’
On a high speed launch, the intertia of the much heavier R27T will give it more range than the much ligthter p4
1 Like
No one asks undefeatable seeker, Gaijin can tone it down in order for balance.
As for the Range they can limit it like they did to MICA or they can just left how it is.
2 Likes
I… Don’t think so. I mean, the range would be greater for both anyway, no? It is not like only R-27T benefits from it… I can see how heavier missiles gets opportunity from carrier speed, but it is not going to be all too larger when compared to P4 which also gets air start and would still have greater range thanks to lower end mass and sustainer
There is enough people wanting IRL weapon characteristics, and even if we get gimped P4 on arrival, we will get a crap ton of bugreports stating “MuH mIsSilE dOesN’T sTriKe pLanE thRougH 1 biLliOn flArE pOps lIkE AiErEl!!1!”
1 Like
Haven’t seen that happen with the AIM-120C, AIM-9M, AAM-3, AAM-4, Mica, PL-12, etc
Sure there were some but it wasnt a massive outcry
1 Like