The mirage f1C (not the CT) has an even worse rwr and its at 12.0, and i heard the flight performance of the mig25 is actually pretty bad under like 8k meters (very draggy and sluggish) so i could see it being around 11.0
Don’t see why you can compare this to a Mirage F1C… The only reason the F1 is 12.0 is the Magic 2+ radar missile set. MiG-25 is really weak in the flight performance department due to its weight (built with mostly nickel/steel if I recall correctly)
Make it 11.3 with R-40 Missles. Both R-40R and R-40T
Just saying bad rwr doesn’t mean that much, it has flares, can carry usable missiles so just needs to be put at a br where its speed at the fighting altitudes is fast enough compared to what it faces (eg f104)
It’s going to be among the slowest accelerating of the afterburning aircraft while not going to be able to turn well.
F-4C runs a slightly better kit of AIM-7Ds and AIM-9Es for the loss of countermeasures while accelerating faster.
F-104G is superior to Mig-25 having a vastly higher TWR along with better maneuverability and weapons.
@simsimkek
F-104G is significantly faster than Mig-25.
The altitudes Mig-25 needs to go 2.8 is unachievable in a PVP situation, and with its low acceleration, it’s going to struggle.
If Mig-25 was 11.0, it’d be the worst 11.0 in the game. Mig-23M is significantly better in that situation.
A strategic bomber interceptor does not make for great air RB fighter.
Somehow I doubt its acceleration will be that bad. Sure you won’t be achieving mach 2.8 very often but nothing around that BR is getting close. 10.7 is viable because then you mostly avoid the 12.0s which would be mostly untouchable. 10.0 with 4 R-60s and that ridiculous speed, with countermeasures would mean everything in the 9.0-10.0 would have a horrible time
1 Like
Its TWR with 9 minutes of afterburning fuel and 2x R-40s with 4x R-60s is 0.7 rounded up.
The Phantom with full fuel load is 0.8 while having better agility, a better gun, and the 11.0 one in Japan has as good IR missiles and significantly better radar missiles.
R-60s/9Js are not as good as you think on bad platforms.
Images added.
1 Like
But they’re not just basic R-60s but R-60Ms.
That’d be a balancing decision if Gaijin wants to give it an unplayable BR.
+1, one should be created for the Iraqi Ace as a event or premium for the Soviets.
Also there was rumors about those being able to use gunpods.
1 Like
Im afraid we cant tell until we see how the missiles are gonna be implemented.
Remember, the suggestion states its long range missiles have peak pull of 4Gs.
I cant see that being viable at any BR where planes have RWRs.
You see issue is gaijin gives missiles LESS peak G pull than IRL. AFAIK AIM-54A should have peak pull of 25Gs and has 17Gs.
could we get standard version as like a tech tree
4G is for target maneuvering. To comparison R-23 have 5G if I remember correctly and R-60 8G.
R40rd and r40td arealso 8g, which is the same as a r27er.
Top speed of r40 varies from mach 2.2 to mach 4.5, same as r27er. So r40 should get around the same g pull as r27
So it should be 30 - 35g, pretty maenouvrable, but I could see gaijin limiting that in the first few seconds off the rail
Lmao that would put it around 13.0 at minimum, if not higher, depending on range.
I would say 12.3 to 12.7
It’s still worse r27er
And afaik mig25 were stuck with spo10
A 35G missile with whats probably AIM-54s range (probably even longer) will never be below 13.0.
No ARH carrier beside F-14 is found below 13.0 and F-14A sits so low because phoenixes have only 17G pull, half of what you propose.