the M2K also has better flight performance, it has a better RWR, it gets better CMs (some large calibre ones) and it has a MAW
1 Like
I was only referring to radar in the quoted post
i would pick a R27R1 any day over a AIM 54 and not everything is about BVR you can multipath and notch to get in range its still a potent BVR plane just not the best one
The amount of mental gymnastics these guys are doing to justify an unbalanced Mig-29 is amazing.
Mig-29 with R73 is 13.0 material with the current BRs. End of story
1 Like
Considering all pros and cons of something is apparently mental gymnastics.
sure show us how it goes
You either lack knowledge of what you are talking about or are purposely ignoring important details when comparing those jets
Such as?
1 Like
Such as all the stuff that I and others have already explained here multiple times. Go take a read. This feels like talking with a bunch of amnesic patients
says the guy who said the Mig-29 has the second best radar at 12.7 and below (after the Yak-141) and after i pointed out that the Mig-21 bison has a better radar at 12.3, you said it dosent count becasue it isnt at 12.7
and here you are accusing ppl of doing mental gymnastics
2 Likes
I’ve already stated the Su-27s need to be 13.3 making the R-27ER argument null and void.
I haven’t used chaff at PD BRs on more than F-15E unless aircraft forced me since 2024 because kinematic defeating of missiles are at this time easier than running notch angles and allows me to push the enemy while defeating their missiles. So unless we get a high-altitude only game mode
I disable slaving countermeasures to MAW, and it’s not a feature I’ve used outside of simulator yet as air RB has high visibility.
If 2x R-27ERs was enough to make things 13.0, then Mig-29 wouldn’t be 12.7 currently, and Mirage 4000 and F-16A wouldn’t be 13.0 currently for not having R-27ERs.
The argument falls apart when there are zero examples of R-27ER causing a 0.3 BR increase when the airframe has 6 IRCCM missiles.
While while your preference for missile count to not matter has been noted, War Thunder as well as real-life don’t agree with that claim.
Kurnass is 12.3 while F-5E SCU is 11.3.
Viggen C is 11.3 while F-4 FGR2 is 12.0.
Sea Harrier is 10.7 while 4x 9L Sea Harrier & AV-8S Late are 11.0.
Yak-141 is 12.7 while Mig-29G is 13.0.
Su-34 is 13.7 while Tornado F3 late is 13.0 [of course the radar difference might play a role here too].
And so forth.
Can’t we just like… Agree that the early MiG-29s should trade the R27ER for the R73, then bully Gaijin TOGETHER into implementing that change AND further decompressing top tier, and afterwards let them adjust the brs to the new MiG-29s?
2 Likes
It really isn’t difficult to type 3-4 sentences or even less just saying what it is exactly you think I’m not correct on. I just typed back to you within about 60 seconds of you replying. I’m not reading through a 600+ post thread to find the exact things you’re referring to.
Decompressing 13.0 won’t change the fact that 6x R-73s/AIM-9Ms/Magic 2s is 13.0 on high agility chassis’ when 3+ of said aircraft are already 13.0.
I said it has the second-best radar package (HMD features included) of all the 12.7 jets, stop pushing the same lie over and over
Mig-29G, which makes your argument null and void
1 Like
you did not
1 Like
Comparing MiG-29 to the Gripen and F-16s is really funny. It gets curb stomped by both.
1 Like
Naturally, but what is being asked here is to put it at 12.7 level, which is delusional thinking. I don’t want to see the gripen A, belgian F-16A and a few others at the same BR of the other 12.7s
Why not decompress 12.X and 13.0 to allow for a Mig-29 with R-73s and R-27Rs to exist? Plus, the Gripen, Mirage 4K, and F-16A would all better than the Mig-29 if it were to go to 13.0.
4 Likes