Its time to play ace combat lol
1 Like
And russia R73M
The R73M should so good against 9X block 1, block 2 is only matched by R74M2 tho
1 Like
Are you listening to yourself, are you saying USA should get both good FM and good MISSILES???
No ones underestimating anyone… r73 is easy asf to flare unless within 1km range but that shit magic 2 does well too…
You literally got no point the USA already has top FM giving it top missile too is ridiculous
Anyone who can’t flare an R73 needs to get good at the game… or not play it at all because I can dodge it with my eyes closed (ofc unless its within 1km range/within 2km rear aspect)
They have the same code for IRCCM
The R-73M will have better range/kinematics than the AIM-9X but worse maneuvrabilty (only matched by the R-74M2). The things really putting down the R-73M is its seeker.
The R-73M only have a 60° gimbal compared to the 90° of the 9X. And 90° gimbal + insane maneuvrabilty is going to be a game changer.
Also the R-73M/R-74M only has a multi-element seeker (and dual band in case of the R-74M) but that’s still a lot worse than the IIR seeker you can find on the 9X. So the 9X is going to be a lot harder to flare especialy at medium range.
The R-74M2 has LOAL and Datalink and could indeed compare to the AIM-9X Blc 2.
The R-74M2 is indeed a big upgrade over the R-74M (better range, better IRCCM,better gimbal, 360° engagment capabilities …). Still lacking an IIR seeker tho.
You’re lacking the comprehension to get what i meant, it’s not my problem at all, but i’ll explain myself again.
The balancing format for top jets so far was fair and square:
Last time, F-16s had the FM and MiG-29s had the missiles.
Now Su-27s has the FM and F-15 has what, a cool radar with literally an outclassed SARH missile to engage with?
He did, and stop pretending he doesn’t.
On the F-14s and the F-16s, i can certainly agree, but the F-15 its not going to be improved that much, thus it needs a better missile or a battle rank decrease.
Honestly the US ordnance problem is not the sidewinders, its the sparrows, US needs a new SARH. At this point the 7M at 12.3 feels anemic.
3 Likes
That’s because it is a mid-80s missile fighting late 80s, 90s, and early 2000s designs/technologies.
And it is not even an upgrade over the 1976 AIM-7F because SARH missiles are modeled wrong
So US, Japan, China, Italy, and Israel are stuck with effectively 1976-era BVR while being expected to fight BVR missiles with 10-15 years on them
(SuperTEMP, 530D are late 80s, R27ER is early 90s)
1 Like
so does the r73 and magic 2
I’m not talking about IR missiles, overall IR missile parity is here, they’re all ~mid-80s missiles, with similar capabilities more or less
(Technically AIM-9M is the oldest IRCCM missile [82] followed by R73 [84] and then Magic 2 [86] and AAM-3 [91], but they’re close enough it isn’t disruptive to the balance)
2 Likes
Yeah okay budy take your hate else where. Unless you have video proof of you dodging all 6 r73s from a su27 then ima call you a liar to your face.
With that the su27 has a much better FM than the f15 and much better missiles so i dont know what your smoking but the f15s fm is only slightly better than the F4s fm
R-27ER complainers when they realize that they can just fly low
I’m sorry, I don’t think we’re ready for AIM-9X…
That’s scary.
1 Like
for me its not scary actually the R-73 is capable of that too soo… this types of things didnt scare me because i know what those things are and how can i try to defeat them in game because in game would be really different from what they are in real life, guys you need to understand that is impossible to replicate the exact same performance that the missile have in real life and implement it in the game. guys stop taking this missiles like they would be added like they are in real life because thats not gonna happen.
That is true. Based upon some RAF docs i’ve seen posted on the Forums before. What Aim-9Ms are like currently, is much closer to what Aim-9Ls were like IRL. (Flare resistance wise)
1 Like
yes i know, i think that i see those documents before, but and i can say too that is correct because i have information from english pilots that fought against the Argentine pilots in the malvinas (falklands) war that claims that the 9L was a really deadly missile, the countermeasures didnt do anything to the Aim-9L. am from argentina and i know argentines pilots that knows british pilots and they told me a lot of things about the war and how the Air to air combat was in that war.
1 Like
Yep, they were really good:
those are the best docs I know of. TLDR. If the target is on any kind of reheat, flares shouldnt work at all. In rear aspect, flares will work, but you’ll have to break hard.
1 Like
Currently AiM9Ls at about 1.5 km rear aspect hit at least 50% (even more in my experience) of the time even when the guy who’s getting shot at cuts afterburner and flares. It isn’t that far from the 69% figure that is the average of what is indicated in the paper.
Consider also that many planes have higher caliber countermeasures, so against missiles without IRCCM they are more effective than regular flares.
Those tests in the Jaguar were against large calibre flares iirc