My apologies, but it is You do not know anything about the Su27. Soviet doctrine, priorities, history or culture.
The Su27 is kind of my favorite jet btw. I am Soviet main and fanboy. I also actually have played both flankers in WT each a number of actual battles to form a logical assessment on the performance of the R27ER, R27ET & R27 current, unlike you. The SMT as well.
The principal aviation existential threat to the sovereignty of the USSR was strategic nuclear bombers.
Not the F-15 lol!! This is not video games my guy. Sure, the Flanker was required to be able to compete, but it was not the actual threat and why the design exist. Vast numbers of very capable Strategic Nuclear Bombers of the United States of America.
Additionally, the ER was designed exclusively for the PVO Soviet Air Defense Forces role. A branch of military that the Mig29 NEVER served. The Mig29 is a Frontal Aviation asset and has no business carrying the ER, a weapon system designed and optimized for long range over dogfights while out patrolling and defending the vast territorial coast of the USSR hunting for American strategic nuclear bombers.
It was added because it is a higher performance weapon that would assist in increasing the efficiency of the aircraft… yes. That wasn’t them making up the performance.
You’re spreading misinformation constantly. It’s obviously just bait / trolling.
The Mig29 is a close quarter point defense fighter. A real R27ER is optimized for extended range engagements (already explained why, physics of the new motor) it designed for PVO missions of the Su27. The ER was further artificially modelled to fit the Mig29 and capability of the Mig29.
The missile cannot even be fired in any high G maneuvers from the wing rail pylons.
You do not know what you are talking about.
You cannot tell what mechanical force LIFT is, how can you determine what is misinformation?
You have a block feature & you already know how to use it.
Just stop, learn a little on aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, rocket science and Soviet history & doctrine first, then come back.
That’s just not true… Su-27 never was primary bomber interceptor, it’s fighter designed to eliminate any enemy airial vehicles with high autonomy, work in system with ground control stations or AWACS, orginized work with other planes including MiG-31. Primary bombers interceptors were MiG-25 and 31 (in less degree). It wasn’t a fighter like MiG-29 designed primary for frontline combat, yes, but that doesn’t mean it got range just to fly for intercept of bombers that are far away…
I know it’s a shocker, but remember, we are talking about the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The Mig25 and Mig31 do not have the capability to patrol the vast territorial coast of the USSR though they too are PVO assets. The Mig31 is a point defense rapid response unit.
That is why in almost all incidents where a NATO aircraft run into a Soviet Aircraft way out in the black sea, Pacific Ocean & Alaska are exclusively Flankers.
They were designed in the Soviet Union, to cover the range to patrol and defend the vast territorial coast of the Soviet Union.
The looming immediate threat of the Cold War was nuclear annihilation. The Su27s primary role as shown above is designed to prioritize Cold War threats that flew supersonic both in high altitude and low altitude. Insane bomber performance the US was only capable and still only nation that is.
The Soviet Union did not have a supersonic terrain following Strategic bomber. This terrified them and why all B1 lancers no longer has nuclear deliverance capability and are evaluated every year by the Russians to make sure.
The US was equipped with vast numbers of strategic nuclear bombers that can come in from ANY direction completely unannounced and unpredictable.
The F-15 or any fighter does not have the range to threaten the USSR. Neither do they have capability to deliver Strategic nuclear weapons, only tactical. The USSR was never worried by a ground invasion, or the fighters that would support it, but a nuclear First Strike strategy.
The XB-70 and its escorting F-108s may have, had they been put into service. Also having a B-1B pop up out of nowhere or a flight of B-52 / FB-111A dump their payload of Nuclear armed cruise missiles (AGM-28, -69, -131, etc.) from long range it definitely something they would be dealing with, the MiG-25 / -31 doesn’t have the missiles to spare to intercept them and any missiles that may leak.
Considering that they have terrain following capabilities and so will reduce their radar horizon(altitude) on the way to the target so the use of SAMs to intercept aren’t a safe bet since they may not overfly their threat radius, and that they have Self Defense (Anti-Radar) capabilities so may present significant problems since static sites would likely be well cataloged by (via EW / ISR means and serve as part of the target planning) and so would be pathed around where possible, or could even be themselves the target to reduce the risk involved for follow on flights / missiles.
He’s back to the same antics that got him warned / suspended temporarily on multiple occasions already. Best to just not reply at this point and let the staff deal with him later.
what is your deal with handling any disagreement? You are actually derailing the topic and trying to shut down any discussion of the R-27ER over performance.
@_Fantom2451 knows a tremendous amount on the Flanker. I am talking about initial design during a time of the Cold War. That is where we disagree and does not take a single thing away from what he knows. The Flanker has evolved as threats and priorities change after the Cold War & nuclear proliferation has subsided.
Many people agree with my takes like above & some do not. People can disagree on the forum. Yet just you like to report those who disagree and think it’s with trolling & misinformation. It’s not that extreme & No one is offended but you.
In life people will disagree with you often. You need to come to terms with that.
No amount of complaining behind closed doors will shield you. You decided to unblock me, look for my post and reply over and over. Why did you unblock? The feature can be used again.
Better yet, I will actually use it and block you. Since you offer nothing of value to learning about Cold War weapon systems, cannot determine what lift is & do not even play the game outside of test flight to have an opinion based on competitive game battle experience.
No relevant number of game battles in any new fighter at top tier to come out in the last several updates. You just exist here on the forum demand constant attention and must control the narrative of every single active topic in the forum.
Please, post your proof of overperformance. This will require a real world reference or (source)… and then testing under the same conditions in-game to validate. Let me know when you’ve done that and I’ll show you how to write up the report.
Also, looking back I don’t see anywhere where @Smin1080p stated this as you claimed;
You’re purposefully claiming that Gaijin purposefully made the missile overperform so as to improve the performance of the MiG-29 in-game. That’s absurd.
Can you really call it a “take” if what you are saying is true? Who in their right mind genuinely would think a R27ER can perform just as good at Mach .6 as it can at Mach 5+.
Thanks & true. I am just trying to be humble about it.
It is definitely also not going to have 40 degrees of alpha available at Mach 5 either like dude said, that was wild.
I just want to conclude and highlight my main point that the ER is overperforming there is no question.
The ER is confirmed to never have received a single upgrade in aerodynamic control over the R27R & No one, not GJ has been able to show a source showing the thrust that was placed in the ER’s long burn motor would push the missile at this immediate extreme acceleration shown in game in above video on the deck.
Even if the ER did receive this acceleration off the rail, it still never received a single upgrade to aerodynamically manage & effectively maneuver while the massive forces of this continuous acceleration are applied by the motor.
To do so means the missile would have a maximum overload limit well in excess of 35Gs like that of the R27R.
The R27ER must greatly reduce the insane acceleration or must lose the ability to maneuver while the motor burns. It is technical and physical impossibility that it retain both.
So which airframes were used by the unit(s) responsible for interception duties then? I’d imagine it was spun off as its own branch considering how important it would have been and the sheer scale of the border(s), i know that the they would have used the Su-9, -11 & -15 due to the number of airliner (and MiG-15) interceptions that have been attributed to them.
Weren’t they what was preferentially used to shadow SR-71s and other ISR airframes(A-12, U-2, RC-135 etc.)? Due to their high altitude capabilities, long range missiles and on-board radar.
One of the MiG-25 manual’s I’ve read keeps making reference to a target with a ridiculously large RCS of 19m^2 I guess the Tu-16 could be a surrogate target used as a benchmark, but I’m struggling to come up with any non-bomber airframes that have anything even resembling a RCS that large.
So the pilot, GCI and engineers would be able to tell at what range a target could be expected to be correlated and engaged, since a theoretical kill chain starts with detection via the onboard radar, and so could effectively be handed off to the pilot after the target was detected to then complete the intercept reliably without further input from the GCI freeing them up to correlate more targets for other airframes.
The engineers care because it puts in place hard limits on the design specifications of the radar since it would need to have some level of detection of a test target to be able to be certified and work as expected, otherwise why include a radar if GCI stations were good enough.
A pilot could need to know what the expected detection range of a target may be since they may have to operate without support or in a dynamic environment where they lack critical oversight and so need to think on their feet, or come across a novel return which they may need to identify or engage and so knowing these thing allow for information that could be useful to be asserted, they might for example need to tell the difference between a B-52, B-58, U-2 and SR-71 or E-3 Sentry and Boeing 707 some of which may rank much higher on the threat matrix than others.
The reason you have multiple options for this kind of thing is to reduce overmatch and so avoid effectively wasting the high performance airframes on things that could be accomplished by cheaper, more numerous airframes, and don’t hand out tasks to lower performance airframes that can’t be completed sufficiently.
