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.
Bro has skill issues
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.
She received not a small engine, but a dual-mode one
The minimum launch range is 3 km
The MiG-31 and MiG-25 have never been bombers interceptor .These are fighters
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.
What does the RCS and the purpose of the aircraft have to do with it
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.
Where RCS appears in the phrase bomber interceptor and fighter interceptor?
How would you suppose that you find out what you are intercepting in the first place, before detection occurs?
You don’t segregate interdictors for different targets (e.g. tanks and trucks), in the the same way interception is a mission set that tends to attract specialist airframes since they may have to fly under specific conditions that other airframes may not be well suited for let alone be capable of.
Actually, I do.Since there are no bombers- interceptor .And there are fighter-interceptor. And they are armed only with A2A
So then what would you send to intercept a B-52? or Classify the Yak-28?
MiG-25 MiG-31,Su-27
One interesting thing I found when looking at the flareflo missile chart is the effect of the longer time an AIM-7M takes to fall below a certain speed than a 27ER. Despite the 27ER covering a longer distance total once a missile falls below a certain speed the probability of kill goes down, and if a target is hot the distance will close in the extra seconds it takes for the 7M to fall to a certain speed.
With a 1000-meter altitude and 350m/s starting velocity the 27ER falls below 350m/s at 16 seconds having traveled 9500m, and falls below 300 at 18.2 having traveled 10500m.
Same launch conditions the 7M falls below 350m/s at 17.8 seconds having traveled 9000m and below 300m/s at 20 seconds having traveled 9500m.
Against a hot target the extra time the 7M takes to travel is 1.8 seconds in both scenarios so a hot target moving at 350m/s could cover an extra 630 meters with the missile still being very maneuverable.
Flareflo website that I used Missile comparison
Of course once range shrinks to a certain point time-to-target will matter a lot more than keeping a missile fast for a few seconds, but it seems useful in sim where long-range missile shots can just be energy bled by cranking a few times.
There was no russian plane downed by a Ukrainian fighter in the conflict let alone with an r27.
Ghosh of kiev is fiction
This isn’t the place for logic concerning Russian weapons and platforms.
Russia on paper numbers are truer than real life studies. Even by their primary operator.
I’ve noticed that no matter what evidence, source material, video, or otherwise is provided. The Russian platforms will be whatever the developers want them to be. We’ve seen IFVs chewing through Russian tanks in Ukraine. We’ve seen that they overpressure and blow their tops with RPGs…
We’ve known for decades their air platforms are held together by ducktape. Even today the Flankers never got their intended engines and the rear end looks like shit. In addition analysis of the cross sections show that it cannot maintain the stealth as advertised.
The impossible to intercept hypersonic weapons have been shot down by old patriot systems.
This game has a definitive bias. The R-27 is not and never was half the missile that other nations carry. Yet here we are with an instant death weapon that will not get nerfed due to ego.
Early war (not ghost of Kiev obvious propaganda but countries at war gonna do what they do) there was. But I don’t know if it was with a R27. There was a former Ukrainian air show pilot who downed 4 aircraft (if I’m not mistaken at least 1 of those was an actual jet) before he got shot down. The Russians lured him into their air defense range and he got shot down and died.
Can you explainnyour logic to me here.
I am not denying your claim, but whem recording this, why did you think it was a good idea to disable tge tactical view?
That gives speeds so everyone could even validate your claims. That is much easier than just saying “look how hard it accelerates” because we would actually be able to put a number on the acceleration
This seems so illogical.
