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.
Well this will make R-24/R-27ER more op what now
The obvious answer would be to raise the airframe’s BR or remove them as is appropriate for it to provide an option at a given BR, like many other aircraft that also have their access to stores arbitrarily reduced.
For example the US’s F-4E can’t get access to All Aspect missiles (AIM-9P-4, -9L, -9M, etc.), the EOTS (AN/ASX-1 TISEO), or even one of its Targeting pod(s) (AVQ-23 PAVE Spike, or -26 PAVE Tack) and SALH ordnance, and other Electro-Optical and remote control options, IIR Mavericks even though the Kurnass 2000 which sits at 11.3 has them.
All simply because Gaijin want it to sit at 11.0 and they don’t want to have to replace it, even though options like the F-4B, F-4D or Early F-4E remain as a yet to be tapped distinct possibility that could just as easily be adjusted to sit at 11.0.
I am pretty sure that is only true with the instructor and is also true for all aircraft.
It is also dependend on the planes stability. More unstable planes are more restricted since the instructor has to deal with the instability of the plane and still work.
The trade-of is that you don’t have to think about the stability if the plane while using the instructor.
From my experience the AoA is working fine on full real controls. And thats what matters.
Yeah, thats why im saying to remove the R-27ER. R-24, while outspeeding the sparrow at close range, is far outranged by the sparrow. So that wouldnt really be an issue. Other thing is that Russian radars, such as the MIG23s, are much worse than their Western counterparts.
I wouldn’t agree with Super 530D being bundled with Skyflash and R-27R
While, at least according to stats, it is inferior to 27ER and 7M, it’s still nothing to sneeze it.
It can engage longer range targets. Skyflash (DF mode one) should be fired below 5km to score. Super 530D could score a kill up to 10km even.
530F yes, it can be bundled with aforementioned missiles since it appears on F1s which are 11.3, same BR where 7E-2DF and Skyflash DF appear.
All missiles would benefit from removal of multi-pathing. We don’t “need” to remove R27ER to make it happen. What needs to happen is that people have to adapt and learn to defeat missiles in other ways, it’s not hard to break lock of a Mig29 or Su27… Why can’t one nation have a better tool than another nation? By that same logic we should remove Gripens and F16’s since the MIG29’s or SU27’s doesn’t stand a chance against them in WVR fights, and currently RUS have the advantage in BVR. I don’t think it’s a bad thing that one nation is better in an area than another nation… It’s what makes the game diverse and interesting.
I still stand by the fact the R-27ER could EASILY be balanced by making it impossible for the MiG-29’s and Su-27 currently in-game to use both their RWR and radar at the same time (as is realistic).
This would give russian jets the best SARH missiles, but degrade their situational awareness when using it, giving lower performance missiles like the AIM-7’s, Super 530’s, and AIM-54 an actual chance in a BVR fight.
Gaijins already said they wouldn’t do this though, because god forbid russian things are modelled properly if doing so would be detrimental to them
I know that, but the other guy was saying that if we don’t remove the R27ER then it will be completely busted if multipathing was removed. Which, in all fairness, is not a sentiment I disagree with.
Also, as it stands currently, WVR and BVR are both dominated by Russia. I stand by the fact that R73s are better than 9Ms if both are employed correctly.
R-27ER doesn’t have the same min alt as some other NATO missiles either. IIRC its min alt is 20m, still reasonable to use MP against, just much harder than currently seen in-game.
The 7M on the other hand gets as low as 5m, as does the AIM-54 iirc.
(obviously there’s variance based on ground composition, im speaking optimal stated values)
You seem to be entirely right for the most part unfortunately.
OKB NIIP Tikhomirov’s ran into the same serial production issues implementing the N001 Mech radar of the Su27 that design team Rubin of OKB Phazotron had into when implementing the N019 for the Mig29.
Both OKBs suffered from severe limitations of manufacturing technology in the Soviet electronics industry in the era of 1970 to early 1980’s.
OKB NIIP Tikhomirov made the decision to revert the original capabilities and technologies of the Sukhoi N001 and redesign it based on the obsolete MiG-23ML’s Sapfir-23ML radar. The physically enlarged the antenna to suit the Su-27’s nose. The rest of the redesigned N001 is similar to the N019 and even uses the same Ts-100 radar processor and similar transmitter.
Even the transmit power of N001 and N019 is the same at about 4 kilowatts at peak power with a duty cycle or “period when the radar transmits signals” of 25%.
Both initial production radars for the Su27 and Mig29 were forced redesigns of the obsolete Mig23 Sapfir radar. It was the only alternative to meet serial production than having no radar at all.
I can see why Gaijin limit modelled them exactly the same, though the N001 can detect at further ranges, primarily bombers and it does have more modes and can track 10 targets (just cannot fire more than one R27).
I get that, however I think you also have to realise the reality of BVR combat. If you position yourself in a way where you are at an energy disadvantage <15KM from a Russian jet carrying R27ER’s, then you should rightly so be in big trouble, the R27ER should be busted in this situation, just how a nimble aircraft like the F16 or Gripen is, and should be busted in a merge… This does not mean the end of the world however, people are going to adapt to this and it might actually do some good as it will likely make the whole “fur ball” meta more pleasant as everyone isn’t bum-rushing each other in complete safety anymore by flying low at the beginning of games…
As of right now Russian radars are much slower and clunkier compared to western ones, and we’re on the brink of Fox 3’s which will level the playing field. I think only good can come out of removal of multi-path.
I’m strictly a sim-player since about a year back so I have some bias due to 9M’s being completely invisible in sim of course, however I find the R73 incredibly easy to flare, Su27’s merging with me pose little to no threat with their R73’s to me as I can pretty confidently say I can flare off roughly 7-8/10 of them… Thrust vectoring opens up a few possibilities of course but 9M is not bad by any means, and the Magic 2 is almost on par with R73 now after the buffs. The western flight-models are also vastly superior… It’s a HUGE stretch to say Russia is “dominating” in WVR in my opinion.
That’s not true, the F-5E is modeled after a tertiary source.
Can you demonstrate this? I don’t believe that is the case or it would overperform according to documentation.
The hyper maneuverability? I wouldn’t say it’s particularly good. The design is well suited for decent turn radius off the rail. Maybe you have something to show that shouldn’t be the case besides baseless assumption?
The additional rearward weight could reduce stability margin and improve instability - decreasing turn radius when propellant has not yet burned off. Just an assumption, but it does point to it.
Empty weight isn’t much higher, the higher thrust gets it to peak turn radius and maneuverability speeds immediately… I’d say this is beneficial towards that notion.
I wouldn’t say so, even the Phoenix was said to be capable of dogfight use in a congressional hearing iirc.
Just my take on this.
Yes, I personally have plenty of videos of the ERs wacky performance.
Of course, you are inclined not to believe, because for one, you have on multiple times without any solicitation sworn by God the R27ER is the most accurately modelled feature ever forged by man without providing a single source of its precise specifications. You are just biased for your own reasons.
You cannot explain in your own written word what actually makes the ER better for dogfights, even maneuvering better at close range than the lighter and smaller R27R, though its heavier, larger and has a massive amount of thrust (supposedly) and a much longer burn time all the while it is still equipped with the exact same aerodynamics control surfaces and overload limits that are rated for the lighter and smaller R27.
You cannot offer any technical explanation for it other than:
“it’s updated based on a primary source” & “it’s the most accurately modelled missile ever made.”
Additionally, you do not play enough game battles these days to provide any real valuable perspective to me. You do not know what is overperforms in game efficiency & to what degree without actually playing the aircraft in question and the ones it faces. You haven’t played any of the new fighters you continually speak about that came to the game in the last 3 updates more than around 10 games upon their release.
The Meta changes every major update, and some minor patches can have effect. Balance is always being tilted back and forth and not easily observed in Datamine. Of course, you would not understand this because the forum is where you reside. Not in active continual gameplay.
Additional weight on any portion of a missile has zero positive effect on a control surfaces ability to actuate efficiently under an extreme prolonged thrust like that of the R27ER of WT. That is why short-range IR missiles outside of thrust vectoring have very short burns. A missile does not maneuver better under active & additional prolonged thrust.
Physics is not the strong suit.
Empty weight has nothing to do with it and neither missile operates on empty weight.
I was not talking about the Aim54 whatsoever. Yes, the Aim54 can dogfight. It has more recorded kills in a dogfight than any version of the R27 of all nations who fielded it combined.
Because of its own massive length and launch rail, R27ERs do not have the capability to separate from the rails at launch when maneuvering. It has a very low G launch limit just like the R24. Both are overperforming in all BFM scenarios.
The R27ER was never used in dogfights. Its technically incapable of being launched while in BFM and not at all reason for the design in the first place.
We are talking about the specialized R27 extended range variant that was specifically designed for the Su27 and its PRIMARY mission in defense against US Strategic Bombers. It was never optimized for dogfighting and it was never used for dogfighting.
This belief that the ER was designed to magically dogfight is a made-up War Thunder fantasy placed in your head because the missile was originally modelled for the Mig29 and artificially increase its game performance.
You are conflating the R27 and the ER as if they are the same exact missile and it somehow magically retains all of its maneuverability in its entire flight envelope of the original version and even more. Your only answer is because the ER is heavier?
Extending the combat range of any design without touching its aerodynamics comes with sacrifice. But I cannot expect you to ever understand this.
That would change nothing.
It’d at most be a placebo effect.
And the reason I know it’d change nothing is cause I faced F-4Js and F-14As in my Mirage 3C… and never died to their radar missiles.
A player that uses air doctrine will not perish to radar missiles anywhere close to easily.
You do get that without the crutch of multipath it would make accurate Defensive BVR maneuvers near impossible, since you can’t shoot back and find the Notch simultaneously, let alone get a Track / Launch warning and determine threat range (accurately). So you get stuck with all of one defensive option (turn cold, which again probably won’t be optimally deployed since the RWR heading isn’t strictly accurate for the SPO-10 / -15 anyway).
As they shouldn’t but the issue is that there are easy work arounds that would otherwise require significant energy / positional expenditure to achieve and so assist in skewing balance since they don’t currently ever have to respect a launched missile and so devalues them significantly.
It doesn’t help that Sparrows should also completely ignore chaff(Won’t lock-on to incoherent signals), but don’t.
