Yeah go ahead R-77-1 but also AIM-120 C-5 since it on the same league
2 Likes
From memory, lattice relies primarily on speed for the benefits. A higher mach number improving the performance.
Then you should have no trouble linking us to it.
Yes, but if missile turns - it will lose speed, and get worser
You mean like every other missile introduces drag in maneuvers? Shocking.
Planar and lattice are, unless you have documentation contrary to what I have read, comparable at subsonic in performance, quite notably different with planar having the benefit at transonic, and lattice becoming more effective at higher mach numbers compared.
1 Like
Sadly now i cant use NASA website(temporarily)
Yes, but R-77 it matter more, because of fins
Yea not even sure why you tagged me, i wont read anything you post as you are wrong. If you cant have a conversation with out insulting people then there is no need to ready anything you post.
How stupid are you? I am referring specifically to the fins.
Except i am not wrong and you are. But sure.
1 Like
I sent link above.
Right, this is exactly what I’ve heard too. And this is not modelled in the game currently from what I can tell, same drag value all around.
I’m not sure if any missile is modelled accurately, most of this stuff is still classified afaik. I try not to make claims about IRL, I’m just pointing out range is worse in game, from in-game tests. This is why I asked the other guy for his source since he made the claim that it’s “Modelled properly” and accurate. (In which he told me to google it)
I’m not exactly sure what French missile you’re referring to, if it’s not correctly modelled then it should be corrected unless it causes some massive balance issue. Right now the balance issue is blue-team being better than every single aspect of BVR. Much better radars, Much better missiles, Much better high altitude climb and speed performance. Red team is back to ~10% win rates in sim due to this.
4 Likes
Not taking shots at you. Taking shots at the thread. MICA is still not meeting known capabilities and has had a hatchet taken to the range. Not even the limited known capabilities. It would arguably crush most of the other additions that could be made in all aspects but range, however, still should be accurate if they’re going to claim it is MICA.
Magic is wrong as well in IRCCM. But that’s an issue that will never be addressed.
Feel free to read sunshine’s link. I’m likely not going to bother with them if they can’t grasp terminology.
1 Like
For 120 already was few reports about underperforming
1 Like
No worse than the yanks. Arguably the yanks are worse.
8 Likes
Its always lovely seeing you being US main and calling everyone Russian mains while they actually play other nations too,unlike you.
13 Likes
Well there is no point discussing with you cause all you are is just die hard cope US main. Its absolutely pointless talking to you.
11 Likes
This is simply untrue and a silly thing to argue
5 Likes
I’d need to see the sources, could be the case. I don’t know. I’ve also heard AIM120A has the C5 performance atm, but I don’t go around repeating that since I haven’t actually seen the source for it.
This thread however, is about possibly adding the R77-1, due to R77 being horrid.
The R77’s are horrid, they don’t have much better pull as the stat-card would suggest, they even have worse initial pull compared to AIM120 - And the R77-1 would from my understanding, still be beaten by AIM120 at longer ranges with how drag is modelled currently for both R77’s.
In my opinion, one nation having a worse missile is definitely not enough of a reason to start adding more powerful missiles to compensate - however when that nation also has the worse radars, and worse high altitude/climb performance, and worse missiles all together… I can respect that opinion.
8 Likes
