Aim-120: “Yes, this russian bias is unbearable.”
5 Likes
well as we have seen everyone has been saying russia is better so yes I am going to say it.
Especially since their beloved Su’s are made out of wooden screws.
The ONLY good thing going for any russian aircraft right now is the kh-38. Even then people seem to somehow fail to grasp how lacking a thermal pod capable of looking in 360 degrees like the rest of the nations is a concern.
Not from what I have seen and Heard.
Then what you’re hearing is 1984 “two minutes of hate” style blind dogma since top tier russian planes are lagging behind in basically every metric. Flight model, radar quality, countermeasure count, missile quality, etc.
3 Likes
I am not seeing that again I have used a few and I don’t feel this “behind in bassically every metric” feels like the dam things are made out of stalinium and have good missiles that defy logic.
1 Like
By the way, forgot to add; based post.
It’s impossible to make the “CryJak” American mains happy because their stuff isn’t the best of the best, and actually balanced.
Your Average American Main:
It’s a classic case of the Deathstar; the exhaust port is its weakness. Just in the same with the Abrams; the turret ring exists.
This got flagged as “inappropriate,” I hope you know I genuinely do not care what you think, if it’s the truth it’s the truth.
4 Likes
You’re literally just saying that they’re biased because your echo chamber says that they’re biased.
Flight models? It’s proven that the mig-29s and Su-27s hemorrhage their energy in any kind of maneuver compared to the F-16s and F-15s that fly circles around it.
Countermeasure count? Just count bro.
Missiles? SPAMRAAM is the current god-king and the R-77 has terrible performance because of the way that its drag is presently being modeled.
Radars? The american ones scan faster with more flexible scan patterns with greater datalink capacity. Hell, for months america enjoyed a full +10km range on their ACM modes until gaijin finally LEVELED the playing field by equalizing ACM range on both sides of the iron curtain.
How can you look at all of the categories where america is unquestionably the king and then still assert that the russian plans are biased? It’s literally just repetition of rote dogma at this point. What does russia even have going for it at this point? There there is a razor thing band of point blank jousting ranges where a spamraam won’t quite be able to pull enough but an r-77 might? That the R-73 pulls ahead of the 9M within guns range? NATO craft have been enjoying thermal pods as part of their multirole capability for several BRs at this point. The complete absence of any sort of equivalent pod for the russian birds is some kind of bias? About the only weapon that clearly pulls ahead is the kh38.
If you look at the facts the only bias at top tier is american bias by leaps and bounds with lots of hand wringing and pearl clutching about edge cases where foreign equipment, russian and otherwise, can barely pull ahead in specific cherry-picked scenarios.
5 Likes
There are issues with properly modeling the control schema due to its “closed loop” nature and complexity, here’s an example of the F-16’s.
I’m sure that it will be refined at some point in the future, the issue is making it work smoothly with the existing instructor and mouse aim.
Performance is still pretty abstracted, Far more advanced formulations exist, and there are still pods like the ECA (F-14), ALE-37A(Various), ALE -58(F-15).
There are also other issues where a given engine’s IR signature is directly related to instantaneous thrust, which is again abstracted, and not all too accurate.
Also since there are only generic Small, Standard, and Large Sized Flares, detail is lacking, between the BOL-IR (L5A2), M206, MJU-7 & MJU-10. And modular systems that would permit the loading multiple of sizes simultaneously via MJU-12 , -13 & -17 Countermeasure buckets for modern dispensers, isn’t modeled.
And that doesn’t even touch on advanced formulations like the Covert MJU-50 which does not provide a visual signature, so would be of increased effectiveness when used preemptively or the Kinetic MJU-47 which defeats spatial / velocity IRCCM methods, by retaining aircraft velocity for longer due to self propulsion.
And they still heavily curate which models we have to limit functionality, and Airframe configuration and they underperform known metrics.
The Sparrow, Sidewinder and Maverick are also significantly impacted by this, so it’d be safe to assume that many overhaul would improve performance of most missiles.
You do know that some upcoming later model radars, don’t have a range limit, but use the entire range and sweep, to find either the closest return, or the strongest within the scan volume.
Access to Alternate HE warheads & SALH guidance (?AGM-65C?) for their rockets / missiles.
Don’t push that stuff on the US tree, the first Thermal pod (that should be a Targeting pod) they got access to was with the F-14B at 12.x, sure its been joined by others (or a $60 USD premium). But its not like The F-4E got access to the Pave Spike / Pave Tack, or there is a B-57G Tropic Moon III / F-4D at ~10.0. There are a ton of outstanding Pods (& Features, Like TISEO) that aren’t in the Tree even though they are modeled (F-111F has Pave Tack, Pave Spike is on Buccaneer S2.B & Kurnass 2000) elsewhere.
Where if they were more lenient about trialed configurations, and the apparent need to be able to C&P as anything they add into as many trees as possible there would be many more options, so things don’t immediately jump straight into multirole territory but are introduced on specialist airframes like the OV-10, B-75G and (a tech tree) A-6 among others.
Why struggle so much with an AIM-9L w/ IRCCM, when it’s supposed to be far more deadly. A better counterpart would have been the AIM-95 even if it never saw service, low rate of production AUR’s were produced, and is closer to the R-73 in performance.
The issue is more so that outside a handful of demonstrators, Airframes that would / could receive podded solutions with Thermals, not LLCTV specifically tend to be currently outside scope on performance grounds.
Ok, so what advantage does the AGM-65E(-E2 or -L) have over even the KH-25ML, let alone the -29L.
Also there are a number of things that are erroneous about the Electro optical Seekers in game which won’t be fixed due to “Balance considerations” issues, and so are allowed to overperform significantly (Tracking range is anywhere from 4x to 1.25x what it should be, though should not be able to lock onto area targets (the ground), this was reported , but rejected, I’m also in the work up stage of a second report that uses different sources and approaches that would reduce the range of most Contrast seekers to bring them into line with known trials, or otherwise use known target gate minimums to work backwards to recalculate what the cutoff should be).
Also do I need to explain about how the S-24(B) (let alone the S-25O) is much more constant at killing light armor than the 70mm M247 even Mk.32 equipt Zuni’s, even though the M151 or M282 warheads are implemented (just only when combined with the APKWS II ).
It’s more so that; of what (little) US equipment is implemented, is widely farmed out to other nations and forms a solid baseline of performance where other options (e.g. GBU-9 / -11, Gimlet, ATAR, GBU-15(V)2/B, AGM-130, etc.) either are never added or apear only on event (A-1H) and premium vehicles(A-6E TRAM), while other nations more readily receive their own novel stores.
For example look at two stores being added this patch, the GBU-39/B and LJDAM, the former is being added to a number of trees and the US tree not planned to receive the latter on top of EGBU’s (Paveway IV, or otherwise refined Paveway III loft mechanics) last patch Well I could go on.
6 Likes
Holy this man just did a four page essay on how you are wrong 0-0
3 Likes
Wait, US mains are spoiled brats for wanting the engine that’s on their planes?
I think that’s called reasonable, not spoiled.
6 Likes
They are if the plane is already going to be one of the best.
Plus, they whined more about not getting better engines than everyone else collectively did about Gaijin potentially nerfing all RWR. It’s just ridiculous how many people cared about a single aircraft.
So you’re more mad american mains were able to get what they want because they cared enough to argue for it?
Bit weird, but okay.
6 Likes
that “single aircraft” is one of the most defining US 4th gen multiroles
1 Like
People that complained about the RWR change either complained about a detail that wasn’t happening: “Air to air identification for top BR battles is gone!” when the only change to PD radars was Viggen now being identified as F-16.
OR they complained about ground battles RWR use case where you as a CAS player shouldn’t be getting into missile hit ranges to begin with, thus nulifying the RWR that can only see maybe 1 radar lock source in clear skies where your CAS weapons are useful.
Without clear skies you shouldn’t be bringing such CAS to begin with.
So yeah, most of the RWR change critics’ statements were poor statements.
And all I know is if I’m being locked on by “AI”, I climbed and 1 chaff will deal with the lock.
Where did you hear that?
But it is true tho lmao , the amount of thread crying about how bad le US is on here is literally the proof of it
3 Likes
I’m annoyed at them for ignoring the real issues, not just that one US plane isn’t quite as good as it should be.
This community should do better, and actually care about something other than the brand new top tier aircraft that should be a much higher BR. (we need decompression)
just get them to give US a plane that has whatever feature you want fixed as an important part of it, within a month itll be fixed
1 Like