R-73 is still not ready , it is in a janky ping pong state , bouncing around and spinning half the time. Even tho they had 1 year to make it and perfect it.
I don’t disagree but some frontline units didn’t immediately receive the R-73. Isn’t completely a-historical.
They DEFINITELY nerfed the speed you can hit 90 degree AoA. Its really slow under 800km min fuel clean.
It was 900km plus. It’s so hard to do the falling leaf now ever in full real.
27ER is worse in that regard imo, although if they didn’t add the r73/r27er and just kept both FMs correct it would be acceptable
2 Likes
Hell nah , R-60M was and is a torture to use , maybe if they found sikrit dokuments for an all aspect R-13M and added that than it would be ok. But that would be complete fiction
It’s definitely not as bad as R-60Ms on the Yak-141 or R-27Es on the MiG-29A, it just irks me. In combination with the R-27E it makes it hard for me to even think about playing it, if they took the R-27E away even without giving it R-73s I’d still find it less infuriating than the current situation. As it stands the only reason it is the way it is is because of a terrible last second “balancing” decision someone made a literal year ago
1 Like
I still find the R-60M to be quite good, tracks afterburning American fighters very well from rear aspect and close range. Usable in dogfights.
AIM-9L has no such use-case scenario.
Well R-14 wasn’t fictitious, it was a vanishingly rare prototype. Honestly adding the R-14 would be so insanely stupid that it’d wrap around to being funny so I wouldn’t even be mad more power to them at that point
İt’s the range that’s the worst part, I’d rather have an Aim-9G/H over the R-60, hell maybe even R-60M. İt’s pathetic range makes it very bad. And it never had CM Res close to 9L. Does it ignore sometimes? Yes here and then, but is inferior in almost every relevant way
AIM-9L used to have worse issues with dead zone, the difference is definitely still there but it no longer feels like the R-60M is head and shoulders above like it used to
Didn’t even know that a better R-13 called R-14 existed , thanks for enlightening me. I was just fantasizing when I said an all aspect improved r-13. I just love R-13 , it’s underrated as hell, it’s like an earlier PL-5B
The AIM-9L used to not have a 1.8s proximity fuse delay. Now it does. R-60M is now infinitely more useful at close range than AIM-9L.
It was the sister program to the R-73. R-14 was a R-13M replacement, R-73 was an R-60 replacement. Of course as the R-73 exploded in size and weight compared to the R-60 it stopped being a relevant distinction, and eventually it became clear that the R-14 was just worse than the R-73 in every way. Had it still made it to production in spite of that the only real boon for it would be that, if memory serves me right, it was supposed to be backwards compatible, so MiG-21Bis and such would probably have carried it
1 Like
İt accelerates much slower then R-60, so I don’t think it makes a big difference unless fired during direct headon with very high closure rate , and who gets killed in headon by IR flare? lol
Fair
The R-60M is good for point blank head-ons, AIM-9L is no longer useful for this. AIM-9L does not have the turn radius or response to maneuver at point blank range from any aspect whereas the R-60 can be used in dogfights.
my head is burning right now
Useability in dogfights might be noticeable to us in sim but without IRCCM useability in dogfights falls apart in the modes most players actually play, so its not compelling to me as a balancing point. In general, a missile being useable in an RB dogfight means that you’re fighting an opponent who, as you’re in a dogfight with them, almost certainly sees you and will almost always flare, to the extent that I genuinely get surprised when they don’t flare
If they don’t drop burner (for example, F-14) they will die to the R-60M
If they do drop burner, they die to the guns.
Very useful missile.
2 Likes
29s are competely unplayable now (almost). Nice at the same br as well
1 Like