I think the general point was more “this is the wrong plane to put this kind of thing on” with the general answer to that being “its the only thing the navys got that can carry it ever since the F-14 was killed”.
The ESSM is a much more reasonably sized missile for such a slow draggy plane, the other important point being that the ESSM can be carried internally by an F-35…
Only S-75 missiles that approach SM-1ER are V-759/5V23 which is a 70’s weapon.
And no, S-300 early P or V is not equivalent to SM-2ER. 2ER has 180km range, but 5V55R only has 90km range, 48N6 150km, and 9M82 100km. All significantly shorter. And 48N6 is a 90’s weapon.
In 1983 you had SM-2MR Block II which has 150km range but on a much smaller 700kg missile with no booster.
S-300 would only just beat this with 48N6D in 1997, but 1999 SM-2ER Block IV would come with 370 km range.
I was just testing R-Darter missiles at low altitude with a friend. It turned out that they mostly go for chaff (target altitude > 60m). Then we tried the same with SuperTEMP missiles – they didn’t react to chaff at all. Is it supposed to be like this? Do other Fox-3 missiles behave the same way?
Trying to fly stable
But doing a lot of corrections
On F-15 thats really matter, you just losing spees by straight flight, where with full control you will not.
And also, turn isnt smooth with instructor, it simply over G you, making for example 7G, where 4 will be enough to turn and save speed
In our experiment, there was no notch; the aircraft was flying with a slight bank and wasn’t maneuvering. SuperTEMP ignored the chaff under the same conditions.
I was under the impression it was not too great BVR wise and that’s why the R-27ER was developed in conjunction. Besides, it provides asymmetrical gameplay - the Western planes and AMRAAM are good at BVR but worse up close, and the Russian/Eastern planes are worse at BVR but good if distance can be closed.