R-77s are horrid and the R-77-1 is needed

Review it carefully again, and also look at the reset devices

It’s not modeled properly. The drag on the grid fins varies greatly depending on if the missile is supersonic, transonic, or subsonic. The game doesn’t model those differences and gaijin has just kind of handwaved an average value to make it behave more like the standard finned missiles but with more drag.

1 Like

The western nations had the superior Fox-2s during the age of the game when the meta was fox-2 due to strong multi-pathing making all SARHs defunct. Now the western nations just have the best everything, so yes it is a problem now.

6 Likes

“Work on the R-77 began in 1982 by „Molnija OKB“ in Ukrainian SSR. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union the R-77 (Izdelie 170) missiles were produced in Kyiv’s “Artem” plant”

If you want to quote wiki, quote the right part. The general overview doesn’t tell you which version of the missile is meant with the russian flag.

The initial version R77 the obe we have in game is from Ukraine

The R73’s still work better even at 2 km’s all aspects or everybody that i shoot at is brain dead

Radar lock, missile slaved to my radar, 1km, R-73 does booom

AIM-9M and especially AAM-3 can’t do that

AIM-9M’s IRCCM works beyond 1.5km. R-73 can’t do that.

6 Likes

I looked very carefully, but I still don’t understand what you were trying to say with this drawing.

Adding 27M will be mistake - near to paper plane, not even serial
29m - might be some better vy flight characteristics, but worser/same by radar
And not sure that it got L-150

You act like people don’t have eyes? you can’t actually think that the roland 3 is better than the vt-1

Btw MG3 is better

1 Like

Why do they need 260, when they have 174, which in same time unificated with Navy SAM (lesser types of missile - better for logistics).

Aim174 is NAVY, USAF might not accept that.

Aim-174 doesn’t exactly fit snuggly inside the bays of the F-22 and F-35.

And Aim-260 is whats keeping F-35 buyers from demanding Meteor integration schedule to be sped up.

1 Like

I would prefer the D version Smokeless engine (if that’s what it is) it’s just the power

All amraams MUSTbe smokeless
Even pre serie

3 Likes

AIM-174 size means it only fits on pylons that can take 2000lbs bomb or droptanks, so it’s severely limiting in terms of ability to be carried alongside ground attack loads and aircraft range. Also it will have a hefty performance impact. Super Bug might actually struggle to be supersonic carrying them.

Also, the AIM-174 would likely be added at the same time as an item like the R-37 (original variant).

One problem with AIM-174 not mentioned here is how it has more kinematic range than the radar of the F/A-18E, so it cannot be used without a forward aircraft (likely a flight of F-35C) providing datalink information to the missile and launching aircraft.

Speaking of, there were some ex-US pilots discussing it recently, and all generally seemed to wonder why tf they stuck it on the Super Hornet considering its a relatively poor aircraft regarding the BVR role and would struggle even more carrying a massive oversized missile.

Granted the answer to that was “back in the ol’ days, the US government and navy did something really REALLY stupid, and decided to retire the fleet defense interceptor role and AIM-152 ACIMD program, effectively killing their long range fleet defense capability. This was not a problem at the time, as terrorists in the middle east dont exactly pose a threat to a carrier battle group, but now that the US has a legitimate adversary that they will have to fight largely over the sea, they are scrambling to patch/correct their previous lack of foresight”

At the same time though, I STILL dont understand why they chose the SM-6, or continued producing the AMRAAM when the seemingly most obvious solution (which was even offered to them) was to just start using the RIM-162 ESSM/AMRAAM-ER…