ok well let me get his number so you don’t have to middleman and speak on their behalf anymore.
Can anyone show the differences in fuel economy to series II and III in game?
People just can’t understand a fundamental difference in use-cases.
R-73 is a dogfight missile which was designed for close range encounters (hence extremely high G-pull and thrust vectoring) as such its IRCCM is designed to prioritize this environment. An R-73 is hard to flare below 1km and iirc practically impossible to flare below .5 a kilometer
AIM-9M prioritizes ranged engagements, hence no thrust vectoring and relatively lower G-pull. Its IRCCM was designed to keep it on target throughout its much longer flight times. And it technically gets easier to decoy as it gets closer since the seeker can search less volume the closer it gets to re-acquire your plane.
It simply comes down to a fundamental difference in combat doctrine. But instead of taking that into account people just expect them to be used the same way for some reason.
Spoiler
(29SMT)
(9-13)
There is no difference in fuel consumption between any MiG-29 in game atm
Thank you!
That is whack as hell.
Does anyone know how the Su-27 radar will be? According to my extremely limited knowledge from reading on random online websites it should be worse than SMT and F-16C radar.
Am I right? I read that it was basically a bigger longer range Mig-29 radar. Can anyone enlighten me
The entirety of the range the R73 is launched is considered a dogfight environment. How far do you think we are launching these things? 3km+?
Dang .5?! thats like Korean war dogfight range.
At 0.5 KM even 9L reliably ignores flares when fired at an F-16 or F-14 without afterburner.
1 Like
By physically impossible, I mean that the seeker FOV is significantly smaller than the target plane, thus it literally cannot see any countermeasures a target plane deploys
yeah, I say even further especially at rear aspect
I did not say R-73 does not ignore at that range, just that at such short range even 9L ignores flares.
These are air intercept missiles. You cannot just say they are dogfighting missiles this is the 4th generation and they are multipurpose at range and close range. I do not buy this .5km but interesting topic for sure.
I suppose in the case of IRCCM can very well be true. I would like to read up on it if anyone has sources. It just seems far too short of a range to feel the effect of IRCCM.
If the R-73 was on F-16 it would be great, an amazing turning plane with unflareable short range missiles, yet the MIG-29 is a garbage platform for such short range shenanigans if the enemy fights back instead of going straight and being unaware.
They’re certainly multi-purpose but Soviet doctrine placed strong emphasis on the close-range dogfighting engagement. Thrust vectoring is a complex and expensive development, yet the Soviets designed the SU-27 and R-73 with the concept in-mind.
Thrust vectoring becomes dramatically more effective the slower the user is traveling (ie a SU-27 is going to have no use of its thrust vectoring above like 700kph where the airframe provides more than enough lift to G-lock the pilot if it wanted to) The same applies for the R-73 where either because of aerodynamics or structural limitations it can’t exceed its 40g rating.
Now for IRCCM, I totally agree that the missile should be better than it is. The problem is that the way flares work in-game, the 9M’s ability to just turn off and avoid the flares is far more effective in most cases. Because the R73 still ‘sees’ flares like any other missile when at range, it is effected by the (severely overperforming imo) flares as any other missile is
Gaijin has a lot of work to do on the IR system (Center of mass tracking instead of center of heat, no simulation of airframe heat, etc) And it tends to disproportionally affect the Soviets who placed much more emphasis on their IR weapons. Especially stuff like the R-27ET which I believe completely lacks the long-ranged seeker it was fitted with.
The thrust vectoring of R73 is what makes it bad in WT, it goes spastic half the time when you fire high angle shots entering a 360 no scope mode into the ground, or wobbling and losing all speed.
1 Like
Well said, however getting into the ideal range and slowing airspeed to use the R73s perfectly as designed is a death sentence to a fighter such as the SMT. The G all day. Have no issue.
How do you consider knowing the two are different?
These missiles will never be here again
Soviets should have gotten the 29M or something that would have been far more competent in air RB than the fat SMT. Unfortunately Gaijin decided that sacrificing a fairly significant amount of flight performance for a pretty mediocre CAS ability was worth the trade. And well I generally don’t agree with the way they’ve implemented suspended armaments as a whole but especially the MiG-29’s weapons
Gaijin PID moment, its always funny watching a missile flop like a fish and bleeding all its speed trying to catch you
1 Like
Yes
As much as I love the F16C that thing is too good at energy maneuverability I do not think I ever fall under Mach .90 in a match just slinging Aim9Ms and flying circles around Mig29s.
While in the SMT I have to slow down and quite literally must be in the face of the F16 to successfully prosecute them at F86 and Mig17 ranges and speeds to utilize the R73s in their full potential.
Seems a little off to me.
60G
When the SMT’s engine was updated to series 3 these values changed;
The same values for the RD-33 Series 2 are;
0.8 for line 993 (0.02 lower than Series 3)
2.63 for line 1322 (0.01 higher than Series 3)
This indicates (to me) that the SMT has slightly worse fuel efficiency when it is not on burner, but ever so slightly better fuel efficiency than the MiG-29G’s series 2 when on afterburner.
2 Likes