In the game, su-27sm and mig-29smt may be buff by mounting the r-27ea

Just going to leave this here.

This is the performance difference amongst R-27ER (EA is just ARH ER), Aim-120A, R-77, and Fakour with a 50km launch and a 2400kph (two planes going supersonic head-on at 10,000m).

The time to impact is the following.
Fakour = 32 seconds.
R-27ER/EA = 37 seconds.
Aim-120 = 39 seconds.
R-77 = 41 seconds.

From a BVR perspective…the R-27EA would probably work out as a slightly better Aim-120A with the drawback of being launched from something with abysmal flight performance (MiG-29SMT) and limited to only 2 of them. Or launched from something with good flight performance and up to 6 of them…but has abysmal radar performance (Su-27SM).

The range advantage that the R-27EA would also probably be offset by the fact that F-15C with AMRAAM and F-16C with AMRAAM loadouts are able to climb better, reach supersonic faster, and be able to launch their missiles sooner or from thinner air.

6 Likes

Yeah but the 9B1103 is also used on R77-1 (RVV-SD) and should be similar. The only thing is it is 9B1103-K and not 9B1103M.

Refer to

The only difference is between electronic implementation, in which case the 77-1/77M would be on-par.

Since the most recent update the Fakour-90 received a large buff in it’s maneuverability making it practically impossible to evade from far distances.

It’s the best BVR missile in-game in my opinion (and hard emphasis on BVR), only downside is the poor seeker which it ahistorically inherited from the AIM-54.

The close range performance compared to something like the R-77 or AIM-120 however is still poor due to the incredibly heavy weight of the missile.

1 Like

Not sure what the difference between 9B1103K and 9B1103M though, any idea? (K for R27EA and M for RVV-SD)

1 Like

lol now we have the AIM-120C-5 and C-7 in the game and I’m fairly sure at this point with how they’re modeling them that the R-27EA would be better than an AIM-120D .

Its barely better than Aim-120B ingame.

so strange by gaijin instead of buffing the artificial nerfed missiles in game that should be on the same level as the AIM-120C5 IRL they nerfed the AIM-120C5 to be like all other artificially nerfed missiles in game

we all know the russian R-27ER, with SARH guidance, but the R-27EA feature an experimental ARH guidance from the R77, which it never entered serial production, but i think been tested.

Will it get added to WT???

When IRIS-T carriers appear, then I think they will add it. Because it will be to strong right now and unbalance

did the SU33 had the ability to mount R27EA? ( since they have compatible Pylons with launch systems )

Neither of those planes are excessively OP anyway right now, the Su-27 has way more potential with the missile, because it can carry so much more than the SMT, the SMT is just getting and range buff essentially, that’s it.

The MiG-29 (9-15) is way better than the SMT anyway.

These two are entirely different missiles.

2 Likes

Yeah, they should be thinking AIM-120D’s or newer.

I understand. The logic is that there’s no point in adding it now, only when the need arises. IRIS will be carried by Britain, France, and Germany. Obviously, the Soviets will need some kind of missile, and this one would be perfect for that.

guys can the su33 carry R27EA?

( what all the planes that are compatible with it? )

Are you sure?

IRIS-T is “short” range IR missile, R-27EA is long range ARH that would likely be, kinematically wise, extremely potent ARH.

Equivalent to R-27EA would be , i dunno, Meteor? Certainly not IRIS-T.

IRIS-T equivalent would be whatever the next russian IR is after R-73

It can’t carry a missile that doesn’t exist

None. I have yet to see evidence of it being mounted on plane.

Or is it? ( hey Vsauce is here )

2 Likes