One way around multipathing I know is launching SARH from high above, so missile physically connects with the airframe, or flies close enough for proxy fuse to work when guiding towards multipathed location. Obviously its rather risky strategy, but effective nonetheless.
Also it might be reason why ARH missiles in dev test two months ago had such aggressive lofting, to “bypass” multipath when launching them at long range.
100% agree. Never should’ve been implemented this soon in the first place.
As a total Soviet aviation fanboy, whose all-time favorite jet is the Flanker, I must say that there is no debate or even a question. The R27ER is overperforming and in no way consistent with real life. Neither is it a question of it terms of game statistic of kill probability. The R27ER (specifically ER) is overperforming in flight performance at close range.
The R27 has 6 variants to cover a multitude mission setting. There was never one variant of the missile that magically performs better than all others in every mission setting, ranges and altitudes without having to redesign a new missile altogether.
The ER version of the R27 sole purpose was to extend the range of the R27R, not ever replace it.
Furthermore, the ER was a missile designed and carried specifically for one aircraft.
The Su27’s design and primary mission type is in long range intercept. Specifically targeting the vast numbers of strategic bombers (both supersonic & subsonic) of the US Airforce’s Strategic Air command. This was the principal aviation threat of the USSR and OKB-51’s primary design focus in the Su27. The ER was designed for that mission and that specific aircraft.
Extending the range of the R27R has drawbacks. Extending the range of any missile while staying within the same design specifications has drawbacks.
The ER is larger, heavier and equipped with the same exact control surfaces that are designed and rated specifically for the smaller R27R. The ER cannot be given a massive thrust as we see in game that is able to go Mach 3.5 in less that 6 seconds off the rail at ANY altitude (even vertical at 90 degrees) without having to design a new missile altogether.
The ER performance at close range is fake. It is not possible that it be heavier, accelerate much faster off the rail but still perform better than the R at close range.
In order to achieve extended range, but limited to stay within the same missile design, Vympel opted for a long burning motor. It is also why NATO simply referred to the version as the “Long Burning Alamo”. It never received the additional thrust to push it to such speeds immediately after launch as it does in game. Because if it did, it would require a need to design an entire new missile all together with new aerodynamics & control surfaces to compensate for the insane acceleration and additional weight to maneuver. Long burning motors are designed to extend the range of a design and allow the missile to stay effective within all the range in between.
This design principle and philosophy that went int he ER is the same one that went into extending the range of the Aim7E in the F variant. Its sustainer motor was given to extend the range but extend the range & remain combat effective against targets at all ranges in between as much as possible. Strapping too much thrust, along with mass and weight into the same exact missile design without upgrading its aerodynamics and control surfaces has limitations that are universal. It’s no different for the R27ER.
These ER is simply not designed to accelerate at close range and still maneuver better than the R without a drastic redesign of the missile. A bigger motor and thrust does not solve this. An entirely new aerodynamic design would be called for.
The reason the ER performs as it does is because of how it was added to the game. GJ implemented the R27ER solely to increase the game efficiency of the Mig29 even though they knew the model would be buffed anyway.
The ER would not be as effective in increasing the Mig29s efficiency if it did not perform as good at closer range, that is why it performs insane at all ranges.
The R27ER of War Thunder is modelled and implemented for the Mig29, a jet that has no business carrying the ER ever from a technical, historical and even a Soviet doctrinal one.
Now, the full effects of the ER are felt in the Su27 and its probably why GJ has still not modelled the Su27 radar, its precision and additional modes nor is able to model the full range of alpha in the Mig29 and give it the R73 as it deserves.
The Entire Soviet aviation tree at top tier is defined and limited by a single missile’s overperformance.
It’s affected less due to other characteristics of the missile.
Right away - you’re wrong. The missile was updated to align with primary sources from Moscow aviation institute. It is one of the most accurately modeled ordnance in game at this time in regards to kinematics and performance.
Also kinda useless cuz people just skim the ground and make it useless.
The MiG-29 FM already has the full range of alpha, up to 60° true AoA (90° in relation to ground for usual ‘Cobra’ conditions).
No? I think it is defined more by unique designs all capable of a decently high sustained turn rate and AoA if managed properly but with risk of high energy bleed or loss when not taking too much care. The high accelerations and top speed with hard hitting guns and fantastic short range missiles cued by an HMS allows them to be true menaces in the furball meta. The real hard counter being the AIM-9M’s…
Anyway I see no reason to remove the R-27ER… Just prepare yourselves for fox-3s by continuing to skim like y’all already do. Make yourself immune.
ONLY on kinematics its accurate, the rest is wrong
Guidance is just wrong. The guidance laws for it exist, a variable PN constant with a quite sharp rise at the transition phase from radio correction to SAHR.
If you drop lock(or is lost), the missile is trashed as the radar stops the illumination mode.
On the initial target locking phase, the missile has a ± 150m/s speedgate. (±292 kts). It’ll lock the strongest doppler return Mach 0.5 above the expected target return or Mach 0.5 below. TO give you an idea the sparrow E is ±150kts(77m/s). If a Mach 1 target is doing more than 60° from you in a lookdown situation, the missile will straight up lock the ground. Possibly an even smaller angle if it got fired at long range and the missile leads the target.
You can only guide TWO through radio correction. If you fire the a third it’ll just launch but not acquire the target if RCS isn’t big enough for the seeker.
Yes but that squarely puts it right up there as far as accuracy is concerned with the rest of the SARH missiles. The overperforming datalink issue is something that could potentially be addressed but I was only discussing the erroneous claims made above at the time.
Nah bro, its like saying remove the AIM-54C
Also why remove it, there literally making the R-77 soon it’s gonna be more op then the R-27ER
Being more OP is a stretch, it was good in the dev test and other missiles have some hefty buffs coming their way.
Everything is updated to align with some primary source to one degree or another, this can be said about anything. This means nothing, neither does it confirm anything. Additionally, you already stated several times prior that the R27ER is the most accurately modelled feature in all of the world.
So… for one, The R27ER in WT can go Mach. 3.5+ at sea level almost immediately off the rail even maneuvering. It can be fired at 90 degrees straight up from sea level shoot up to 15k feet, change targets and maneuver into a hard 70 degree turn after a target and still continue to gain velocity. No air-to-air missile is going to do that.
Even If the ER had an insane thrust on top of a long burning motor,
It does not explain the missiles hyper maneuverability at close range.
The ER has no upgrades in its aerodynamics over the R27. There is nothing different in the ER’s aerodynamic design and control surfaces that would allow it to maneuver as it does in close quarters and disregard the additional weight, mass and stored energy of immediate acceleration, hyper velocity of the ER’s additional thrust.
The ER is aerodynamically worse than the R27. It has more mass from the long burn motor and more weight. It also still uses the same exact control surfaces of the R27. They are interchangeable and have same overload limits. “Massive thrust” would not allow the ER to magically cancel out its weight and mass penalties over the smaller, lighter R27 and somehow enable it to maneuver better in close quarters as it does currently in game in almost all scenarios.
the long burning motor, massive thrust, immediate acceleration, additional weight of the ER should make it noticeably worse than the R27R at close range maneuverability, not better.
The ER has no legitimate technical reason that it maneuvers better in a dogfight/close quarters than almost every smaller SARH in the entire game.
Additionally, the ER was NEVER designed to be used in close quarters or in a dogfight from a Soviet design or doctrinal one either.
The R27ER was specifically designed for one aircraft, the Su27 and its primary mission, long Range Air Defense against United States strategic bombers.
The vast numbers of US Strategic bombers were the principal aviation threat of the Soviet Union. The R27ER was designed specifically for Su27s primary role, targeting bombers at range.
Lastly, the ER is a very large missile. It cannot be fired ever in a dogfight. Its G launch limit is pretty much anything outside of level straight flight especially when loaded on wing rails. So, it’s already overperforming the moment it flies off the rail in a dogfight.
Again, the R27ER was originally brought into War Thunder to overperform by intention. The R27ER was implemented exclusively to increase the game efficiency of the Mig29. A jet that has no business carrying the ER anymore.
GJ’s goal of bringing in the ER was to increase the efficiency of the Mig29. Nothing else.
It needed to fit the Mig29s playstyle and capability.
The Mig29s (except SMT) have poor radars historically as well as in game. Lack of function, range, modes and FOV. ACM is the mode predominately used.
Therefore, they increased the close quarters performance and low altitude speed performance of the R27ER to match the Mig29’s play style, capability and radar limitations.
If anyone noticed, the R27ER is most deadly in ACM ranges because the missile was tailored in game for close quarters by design and its heavy reliance on ACM. Everyone uses the ERs predominately for close quarters and ACM ranges. That is completely contrary to the entire reason the missile was ever designed.
The R27ER current overperformance is most definitely why we are still left with a with a placeholder Mig29 radar in the for the Su27 and J-11. Modelling the radar of the Su27, a powerful intercept radar, designed specifically for long range engagements, equipped with more modes, fovs and precision would highlight further how overpowered the ER is.
that is not what I am talking about. Full range of alpha is not available for appropriate speeds. In War Thunder alpha is artificially limited depending on a few parameters. Predominately depends on Mach number. This is true for every single jet in game and varies.
The Mig29 is missing full range of alpha and some roll rate in certain speed regimes. has absolutely nothing to do with cobra conditions…
I mean, that could very well be one of the reasons AMRAAMs loft.
They don’t get multipath filtering until the C6 or C7.
@Ziggy1989
The alternative was placing Mig-29 9.12 and 9.13 at 11.7 with the Mirage 2000.
You either give them an AIM-7F/M/P equivalent missile or you put them at 11.7.
Also… Su-27 and J-11 don’t have placeholder radars.
Really? Well, whatever the radar is Its identical to the Mig29 radar and rwr still registers as a Mig29. Unless they changed the RWR.
The Su27 is much more powerful and sophisticated over the Mig29 radar.
R27R exists and that missile is already plenty capable. Not as long legged as late Sparrows, but also quite bit more maneuvreable, fitting for “dogfight” fighter.
I wouldn’t mind removing 27ER from early Migs-29 and pushing them down to 11.7 tbf. SMT probably is going to get ERs replaced by R77, dunno what to do with German 29G.
Why would you do anything. Mig-29 are good as they are. F-15, F-16, Su-27 etc are a thing.
R-27R is Skyflash, 530D, and so forth equivalent.
Also Mig-29SMT will still be able to carry R-27ERs.
@Ziggy1989
That’s cause the Su-27 and Mig-29 radars share most parts, it’s largely a larger antenna and power source for its longer range.
I believe that is actually realistic, the RWR for NATO aircraft cannot determine the difference between the two radars even though the Su-27 is more advanced and powerful than the MiG-29.
DCS (which prides themselves on systems functionality accuracy) has the same thing happen, last I checked.
It would not surprise me if Su-27 radar has similar radar identifiers for RWR to recognize as MiG-29.
29G would just stay where it is with what it has. It only ever carried R-27ERs, no R77s. I would keep the 29 9.12 at 12.0, give it R-73s, and remove the multipathing radar missile nerf so that sparrows can be a viable counter to the R-73. Think it would make for more interesting and certainly more realistic gameplay. More interesting since Eastern and Western bloc would actually have their own advantages and seperate areas to dominate in, and each would have to play carefully to their own strength. MIG29s would have to fly low and use terrain to their advantage to avoid radar missiles until they merge and F-16s would have to do all they can to avoid dogfights with MIG29s and if they do get into one, wrap it up fast before they run out of pre-flaring flares, since that is the only real way to stop the R-73 once you’re within its envelope. Much like they would have had to do for real in that time period (mid 1980s.). Also would be good if these changes extended to the SU27 and F-15A. Removing SU27’s R27ER/ET and F-15A’s AIM9M for them to fit into this bracket too.