Su-27, but its a low bar to beat.
1 Like
1- Su-27’s flight model is overperforming in engine power and has too much drag.
2- Mig-29’s are largely accurate.
3- No, Mig-29s need their R-27ERs in order to stay 12.0.
They shouldn’t be made 12.7 as you suggest.
4- No, Mig-29G should keep its R-27ER. It’d stay 12.7 whether it has it or not because it’s 12.7 because of R-73s, not R-27ERs.
Typical anti-Mig post that wants to ruin Germany’s Migs with nerfs.
1 Like
2 - Majority of opinions I’ve heard say otherwise, but I’m no expert on migs
3 - And why is that? R27 r would be balanced, slightly worse than aim 7m, but that’s not the end of the world, is it? R27 r still has inertial guidance and data link. Why do they need r27 ers to stay 12.0, if they had their flight models buffed and they got access to r73s? Even in the new meta these are quite strong features. The flight model would let you keep your energy and dodge radar missiles better, that’s a big thing now, especially at high altitude.
4 - In the new meta irccm missiles are no longer so powerful, to bring the plane’s br up 0.7 by themselves. Right now if you have access to fox 3s, you don’t want to take more than 2 ir missiles. Some people take 1, even though it’s asymmetrical.
If anything it’s anti-r27 er post, not anti-mig post, but mostly it’s a pro-realism post, which happens to ask for mig 29’s soul to be brought back.
It’s very bad actually, not slightly worse.
The 27R is worse than the 24R on the Mig-23 in the game.
In terms of range it’s Aim-7E2 levels
R-27R is equivalent to Skyflash and R530.
7M would be the only high-range SARH in the game at that point with no equivalents.
Mig-29s should stay 12.0, there are already Mig-29s with R-73s, the first ones don’t need them.
Perhaps it needs fixing then? Why immediately resort to the op missile that is r27 er? Again I’m no expert, but a newer missile being worse than the older one seems obviously wrong.
Edit: I just found that R27 r has no sustainer, it lacks 5 seconds of burn time. Seems like an easy fix and honestly I don’t know how did Gaijin miss that.
There should be no mig 29s without the r73s. Only some export ones weren’t fitted with them i think. R73’s development started in 1973 and it formally entered service in 1984, but was operational in 1982. Mig 29’s development started in 1974 and it entered service in 1983.
1 Like
R-27T has less kinetic range than R-23T, that’s how trash the non E versions of R-27 are in the game.
1 Like
Buff the r27 r and remove r27 er for MIGs and SUs without r77.
There should be no 9.12/9.13s with R-73s.
Stop trying to nerf the early R-73s by putting them to 12.7 with the others.
You already proved Mig-29s were in service before the R-73 anyway.
Stop trying to remove a SARH missile worse than all the ARHs just cause you never learned how to defeat SARH missiles.
1 Like
Then the Mig-29 should be 11.7, and su-27 12.3.
R-60M is no match for 9L at 12.0, and 7F is better than R.
R-73+27R will be worse than 9M+7F as well.
Not to mention the flight models.
Si-27/Mig-29 flight models are miles worse than F-16/15.
Hell, Su-27 without ER could be 12.0 with that garbage flight model and pathetic radar
It feels like you don’t read what I’m saying.
I never said i want to make mig 29 9-12 12.0, you just insist that anything with R73 should be 12.7.
Mig 29 was in service before R73 only formally, but even then it’s only a year of difference. A year of difference is a lot during war, but not during peace. And it was probably only a couple of months of difference, but I’m too lazy too search for that.
I never said i want to remove r27 er completely, but to keep it only on planes that have r77s as a side grade. It’s kinematically still better than any other missile in the game.
That’s cause everything with R-73s is 12.7 or higher.
Mig-29G is already your dream of R-73s, go play that.
Correct, that’s why I want all mig 29s to have r73s.
I bet it would be only slightly better than r27 r if r27 r was correctly modeled.
In my opinion no, one loadout would be better for bvr and the other for dogfighting. Remember russian planes have hms and early u.s. planes don’t.
Also adding 9Ms to early u.s. gen 4s is only an idea to keep in mind, 9Ls are good enough.
Did you even read the original post? The whole point of this thread is to make their flight models realistic (buff them), but keeping the planes balanced AND historically accurate.
Their flight models should be fixed regardless of armament changes
1 Like
Bruh. People that do the balancing decide on what br should a given plane with a given loadout be. People control brs, not the reverse. I know Gaijin uses statistics and bots to control brs, but that’s exactly what’s wrong with this game right now.
The first sentence of the original post
Hopefully they fix the mig29. It has too much drag.
5 Likes
Same with Su-27
2 Likes
In order to overcome the West’s superiority in BVR combat, the Soviets designed a different doctrine, which was based on significantly increasing the range of the missiles by increasing the speed of the launch aircraft. At first this seems illogical, since the same thing would apply to a Sparrow, but the trick they have up their sleeve is that the induced drag that the missile produces is much lower, which is why the R-27 has such strange fins.
The R-27R, obeying these variables, should be slightly better than the AIM-7M in range. I don’t think the MiG-29 has poor speed performance, so that wouldn’t be the problem in question, so if the R-27 is performing poorly it’s because its induced drag in the game is higher than it should be.
In my opinion, the introduction of the R-27E was misguided and has ruined the top tier experience since then. With a correction to the base R-27 the MiG-29 9-12/13 can easily continue at 12.0 without the R-27E while being much more balanced against the F-16A ADF and especially the inferior aircraft it naturally faces in lower BRs.
1 Like