What does VKS have to do with it? If the VKS is the customer, not the developer. And in what way is China more technologically advanced in terms of rocket dynamics?
1 Like
I will look more into it. But thats what I thought. Are you a 100% sure?
Distance coasting (using the additional guidance time) should allow the AIM-9 to overtake the R-73 if it has better aerodynamics but it doesn’t. Rollerons are known to cause high drag, missiles such as Magic 2 got rid of them partly for this reason.
R-73 is a larger caliber missile than the AIM-9L but lacks rollerons and has TVC double canard design. It has a slimmer body. The fact that both have similar T/W ratio and burn time but the R-73 has nearly double the maximum distance it can travel is a huge pointer towards improved drag.
Many nations continue to use the R-73 design, and at the time it was so ahead of it’s time that nations made great efforts to take a step beyond it. So when these programs culminated in the development of the MICA, IRIS-T, ASRAAM, AIM-9X they all out-performed the R-73 and took a huge step / leap towards surpassing it.
They already had the R-73 on their Russian fighters, no need to copy it when they can simply start a program akin to the West to build something better.
The AIM-9X is a fairly large step away from the traditional AIM-9 configuration. Not sure what “AIM-9 configuration” means to you in that case. Went from canard to tail control with TVC.
Except that they had the R-73 already, and saw promise in continuing to produce and develop what they already have for export as well as taking from the superior IRIS-T and other Western designs to develop a superior missile and get ahead. No sense in taking all that time to produce something that is already outdated.
I don’t want you to get muted or in trouble, so I’d avoid any political discourse with these conversations especially when referencing China and Russia.
Chinese missiles are more like a mixture of R-13, Aim-9, R-60
1 Like
The R13?
All Soviet/Federation IR missiles are predecessors to the United States Aim9 at the end of the day.
That is an undeniable fact.
This discussion is no longer even close to related to the topic of the MiG-29
and other users are becoming political in their discourse.
Ah you are right, lets move on.
We can move it to the R-73 thread, just trying to avoid this conversation becoming an issue in itself.
2 Likes
Ima save this picture though its good reference.
Thank you,
not all.R-40T and R-23T,R-27T
1 Like
You are absolutely right, and we can even say the R60 and 73 are purely the Soviet’s intellectual properties 100%.
However, these missiles are obsolete, and no other country has continued to build upon these configurations. Not saying they are obsolete during their initial deployment. They are great missile for their time and much feared.
However, in aerial combat in 21st century where “close range” is not so close anymore. The old Soviet doctrine of investing more in “knife fighting” is obsolete.
My point is if the R73 are so aerodynamic with an amazing 30km effective range… Why are they not researched and developed further outside of the Russian Federation by other superpower nations?
That is a fair, valid & unbiased assessment.
interesting, but we only have one in game, bro…
So essentially the Mig29 is supposed to have both R73s in one missile, capable on not going too fast, with thrust vectoring to hit high off boresight targets at high angles of attack, but also it is the most aerodynamic IR missile that has a 30km range and should cut through the air perfectly and run down high supersonic targets at long range too??
Why didn’t we establish we are talking about two different types of R73s at the same time?
This would be really neat in the correct thread
There is no R-60 equivalent for China, they went down the AIM-9 path until introduction of the sidewinder and TVC, in which case they still trend with the west for design philosophy.
R-13 is a russian copy of the AIM-9
1 Like
Hopefully come Tuesday or Wednesday we see those promised FM changes that will (maybe) improve the MiG-29’s situation.
3 Likes
I am still trying to ascertain what the Mig-29’s “situation” is.
The SMT is absolutely amazing. All Mig29s needs is more nose authority in high angles of attack and at slower speeds.
Any other buffs to mig29s FM or its missiles besides bug fixes is going to render the aircraft overpowered. The aircraft already has a 15Km-20km helmet mount IRST lock range when it says 10km range. Very sneaky buff there… I mean bug.
Anyone can pull a 4:1 kd in it casually flying as it stands right now. Anyone.
For people to say, “I am not going to play the SMT untill they fix it” are actually less likely to know what it actually needs… not pointing fingers.
I am not concerned with how it performs in regards to other aircraft in-game, I am only reporting historical discrepancy in performance / capability.
In this case, the instability and unrecoverable spin qualities are the issue I am most concerned about. And I don’t think it will be much more “OP” since at the moment the SMT can’t even go toe-to-toe with a Mirage 2000.
2 Likes
But historical discrepancy always comes last to how aircraft perform in relation to its competition. That is how GJ operates. Balance supersedes all.
Even in the case that they make it perform how it should, it is severely outperformed by the F-16 (all variants) currently so I don’t think that this comment is true. “Fixing” the MiG-29 would not make anything more or less balanced.
1 Like
Well the SMT is a much heavier airframe with heavier missiles and not supported with a powerful fly-by-wire computer.
You can say “oh FBW is not modelled” all you want. The actual physical computer and module is not obviously. But its characteristics are and why it can rate as good as it does in WT.
Additionally, when you fly with instructor we are flying with a fly-by-wire concept and program. When your wings auto sweep in the Mig23M they are artificially supported by a computer that never existed in the real-life model.