R-24Ts replace the R-24Rs, and R-24Rs are AIM-7E-2 equivalent missiles.
AIM-7Fs and R-27ERs are superior to R-24Rs.
F-4J has a PD radar, Mig-23 does not.
You don’t need to preflare, just cut the engines and pop 2 flare releases. Extremely easy to flare missiles, Aim-9B level flare resistance lmao
So the MTI mode & IRST doesn’t provide LD/SD capability?
7F is comparable to 24R, nowhere near 27ER.
MiG23 has MTI radar, which is equivalent to PD radar.
Please do some research beforehand.
So you guys went from “single pop” to now saying two flares and cutting off the AB? Anything else I should know about?
I personally run 2 pops ever since the flare resistance got slightly buffed from rise time.
MTI isn’t pulse-dopplar, it’s a non-PD filtering thing so it’s more susceptible to chaff.
MTI is inferior to PDV by far. Congrats on just now learning what MTI is BTW, glad you found out years after we knew.
R-24Rs are AIM-7E-2 equivalent.
AIM-7F and R-27ERs are not AIM-7E-2 equivalents.
I am 100 percent down for that, but I also don’t mind the consequences. Look at the F-20 premium they are adding. An upgraded F-5 with 6 Aim9Ls, battle rating 12.0.
Here’s a question for you. Would you be ok with the F-4s or F-5s being at a higher BR than they are already because they have AIM-9P-4s? I’m down for them adding these more advanced all-aspect missiles, but I also believe that the vehicles that get them should go up in BR because of them. Take a look at the F-4EJ Kai, an 11.7 variant F-4 that has Aim9Ls. The F-4EJ Kai is the same BR as the F-14A Early with a worse radar and worse flight performance because of the Aim9Ls. Would you rather have the better airframe and better radar to use the Aim7Fs with normal Aim9G/Hs or the worse airframe with the worse radar to use your Aim7Fs but have all aspect IRs? I’ll take the F-14 every time, because a good radar/SARH missile combo is better than all aspect IR missiles, especially in an all aspect role.
The reason you are being shot down by R-60Ms more than Aim9s is because you play US jets much more often. You face USSR jets every game, and the USSR doesn’t use Aim9s.
R-13M1s are a more successful IR missile in my mind than R-60s because you can actually strike from above 2km away. Range means you can catch people unaware and not paying attention. If the Mig-21s could carry 6 R-13M1s instead of only 4 I wouldn’t use the R-60Ms because of the range disadvantage.
I’ve ground the entire RU tech tree with the MiG-23ML. Never have I experienced MTI being inferior to PD (Especially the HPRF PD found at that BR) at any point.
Other than the altitude limitations, for all intents and purposes it is MPRF PD. The only time I have ever experienced it getting chaffed is in side aspect where any PD radar would’ve lost track entirely.
It’s also probably overperforming (it works fine in look-up, MTI requires ground clutter to function right AFAIK) but that’s for another topic.
1 Like
EJ-Kai gets an F-16 radar with MPRF capability, making it significantly better than the F-14’s radar for most war thunder engagements.
I stand corrected then. I still stand by that I would take the F-14A over the F-4EJ Kai for an 11.7 aircraft.
Fair, F-14A is also getting a Phoenix buff so it might be an actually viable missile now.
But yeah F-14 gets the flight performance and SARH missile count advantage, EJ-KAI gets the Radar and IR quality advantage. 9Ls at this point aren’t in a much better state than R-60Ms tho so it’s not that special.
Its a “Thing” is it? to be specific to the MiG-23’s implementation of MTI, its using the Sidelobe returns in place of target returns to calculate the frequency shift of the carrier waveform, which is why it only works at low altitude, and yes it is still a doppler filter. and it further implements Pulse to Pulse comparison to figure out what is actually moving.
The advantages is a simpler, cheaper and much harder to jam via Self-Protection Jamming systems that a Strike aircraft might carry (the important bit) Radar, with some loss of capability.
The Major downside is that it halves the effective polling rate of the radar since it needs a 2nd scan for any given point so it takes twice as long to update.
That’s why the IRST was included as part of the sensor suite, and 80% the capability for half the cost is a perfectly serviceable tradeoff, at scale. and with GCI interception it’s less of an issue IRL, since vectoring on a contact gives you a pretty good idea of the predicted point of interception.
The AIM-7s are missing numerous features(Post launch English Bias maneuver, non-Coherent noise filter, Speedgate, CWI HPBW falloff, Dogfight computer not modeled, Auxiliary / Semi-Automatic / Manual / Surface guidance methods, Altitude switching, etc.) and have a few issues and so aren’t quite modeled properly.
The R-24x has practically all the advantages over the AIM-7E-2;
- Faster off the rail (180 vs 204 m/sec)
- Significantly better better Delta V(580 vs735)
- Unlocks the control surfaces faster (.5 vs .7 seconds after launch)
- Has a longer battery life (40 vs 45 seconds)
- Seeker warm up is shorter (1.0 vs 1.4 seconds)
- Larger gimbal limit (40 vs 45 degrees; is erroneous, they should be the same at +/- 45, existing bug report)
- ASE is larger (Sparrow constrained to 25 degrees, vs ?50? for the R-24R)
- Greater average power illuminator (200 vs 270 Watts)
- HPBW is the same( at +/-10 degrees, Sparrow should be +/- 7)
- Flies for 10 additional seconds after lock is lost before self destructing (5 vs 15 seconds)
- What is there of the speedgate has been implemented directly as m/s not kts, should be basically half what it is currently (150kts is ~77 m/s)
Also can’t forget about the R-24T which also happens to exist, its a shame that the AIM-7G, -7R & -7Q are never going to turn up.
So please, where is the parity? the closest counterparts, sure but equivalent not anywhere near actuall counterparts. The AIM-7F and R-27R are far closer.
Please point out where I even implied this?
2 Likes
Eh, R-27 is just flat-out inferior to the R-24 except in maneuverability. It’s slower and shorter-ranged.
I dispute the idea that MTI is inferior to PD (In its current in-game implementation) at it’s BR. Early PD is super limited and throws a hissy-fit if the target isn’t closing with a decent amount of velocity. MTI is just PD-All Apect (MPRF) with a soft altitude limit as far as gameplay goes.
They’re notably better than 7e2, primarily in range, but notably inferior to 7F too. If anything I’d say the base R-27s are closer to the 7e2 because their motors are atrocious.
And, to get back on track with the whole R-60M thing, they’re worthless against anyone using flares. They’re extremely short-range (I won’t fire at more than 1.4km, no more than .7 if they’re aware of my presence). They just aren’t that fantastic, and I would prefer 4x R-13M1s if that was an option. Now, at 10.0 with the Su-25s? Yeah, that’s BS but so are all the 9L carriers. It’s like the AIM-7C on the F3H Demon. Sure, it has a fairly unique capability, but that doesn’t mean it’s any good.
IRST doesn’t add that much lethality, especially with the IR missiles are so easily flared. Granted, you might not know how to use IRST.
It’s not like they’re R-73s or R-27Ts.
R-27R and R-24R are equivalent to Skyflash, E-2, 530D, etc.
AIM-7F and R-27ER are still superior to all those missiles.
Again you are wrong
R24r is better than any AIM-7(maybe except supertemp)
None of the AIM7 is comparable to r27r
R27er is out of the competition, its the best
You mean the standard 530 and/or 530F? D is slightly better than the 7F iirc.
7F has better range and slightly more G-pull. 24R is slightly faster in close range.
Standard R-27R is hot garbage. Its really quite bad. Basically a 7e2 with way more G-pull but god-awful range.
Correct, this is the missile that no AIM-7s are comparable to.
R60M are pretty easy to decoy,… jokes on you if you just flaring recklessly while keeping your burners on.
Want to see how wrong that statement is?
1
Almost noone uses missiles in long ranges, so we can say it’s faster always
Played a lot
Friend also played a lot
Both of us didnt face problems
Strange