Besides the armament and FM? What makes the MiG-29G suddenly top BR? Why is the F-16C top BR?
Certainly the only logical common factor here isn’t the armament of 6x IRCCM equipped infrared missiles?
If the R-27ER was this insane meta shaping missile like the few of you claim, it would not have been retained on 12.0 fighters whereas the AIM-9M instantly makes aircraft with worse FM’s a whole BR higher.
Few? Everyone across the internet. It’s pretty widely known that the ER is way too spicy for a radar missile that was really guided by grossly inferior jury rigged Mig-23ML Saphir radar dishes.
it is only you who does not play top tier but lives on the forum & another dude @BBCRF who does not even have access to a single Mig29 or the Su27.
You guys think its actually underperforming in WT.
Yoooo.
No one flies the Mig29G with 6x R73s without equipping the ER as their main loadout. Additionally, no one is flying the Mig29G much at all these days.
You came to that conclusion from the 15 games you played in the Mig29G at its release too?
Cannot disagree with that whatsoever, actually.
My apologies & condolences.
Can you compare in tacview mode?
Tac view or not, the missiles are all doing the same thing
It is, I showed you it’s not reaching the correct top speeds and falls short on head-on range conditions at medium and higher alts.
The fact of the matter is that a weapon currently able to be completely ignored is not shaping the meta. You want it removed? … Well cry for them to fix the overperforming AIM-7 and underperforming R-27ER. That might legitimately make them rethink it.
@Ziggy1989 has already made it clear he doesn’t think it should be removed entirely. Just from a few of the MiG29s and that it should be nerfed to make it more realistic….
We established that it is underperforming kinematically, nerfing one specific missile based on real world maintenance reliability would not be a fair solution as practically all equipment in the game had a reliability lower than 30% leading up to 80s era and newer equipment.
As far as I know, it performs as it should kinematically. Did testing a while ago and it performed acurrately to known shots. Down to the second. The missiles hit repeated nonmaneuvering and maneuvering targets at specified ranges down to the second and a half.
That report casually just takes the 76 CS but ignores the 77SMC and 84 weapons files which also give the values of 5750 and 1018 lbf. If you just reduce drag thrust you’ll need to increase to account for the reduction in drag. You might aswell ask youself, are the values given peak or average? Because if the values given are average then you’d be scaling down.
According to the same user there were discrepancies with known shots or scenarios that needed to be addressed as well. If you or @Flame2512 or maybe @Gunjob have recorded tests using known scenarios that say it is accurate then I’ll recede the statement. Fact of the matter is that it will not perform to all known data or charts due to the discrepancy in thrust even if it was adjusted via drag. It could be more accurately modeled in regard to this and it would be detrimental to performance in certain areas.
With the R-27ER, it is underperforming slightly at medium and high altitudes (intentionally).
Tested a couple of cases several times on those specified in the tornado manual. Quite accurate, I tried to look the recordings up before I did the post but I deleted them a couple months ago when I organized my files.
Again how can you say they are peak and not avergare values when those values are repeated in multiple documents and why would someone state peak values of an instant for a values that represents a certain larger amount of time in a technical document. There’s no formula.
The sparrow also matches charts ±5%.
It is clear they cannot be anything but peak values. The total impulse is also given so if you do the math it equals more than 37,000 lb-s when the documents state 30,000 lb-s. Thrust and drag should both be reduced, maneuvering energy retention will also need to be adjusted somehow. The in-game model currently matches some specific scenarios and is off by quite a large margin in others according to that user. I would recommend DM’ing him for more information as he was the one who ran the tests.
And do other documents not hold any value? what if its an error in the document for impulse. Its less likely for the thrust numbers to be wrong wrong on 2 and much much less likely for 3 documents. And why would you put a value of a peak at an instant when the value you want is over a space of time?
With charts, was the impact speed higher than 0? Higher so that the required doppler to activate the radio fuze. And higher to actually pull G’s and hit a maneuvering target and not just fall out of the sky when fired at that range?
Measurement of total impulse gives us a better idea the performance of the missile than peak thrust values. The total impulse is the same in several documents as well. The thrust values are clearly “peak”.
Obviously the best option for trying to model the missile is a thrust and speed over time chart for various altitudes. We have such data for R-27ER.
But then again it won’t match any the charts performance, time of flight for specific engagements nor have enough energy to reach a target that could maneuver at last moment at Raero. Motor alone wont get you far, thrust changes for altitude and on the case for the Sparrow a long burn will reduce the Cd. Right now they match the TOFs I’ve done with nonmanuevring/maneuveing targets, I don’t see the need for more tinkering. Specifically as it could affect maneuvering targets. More rework would throw the good job to the trash only for it to match “in paper” engine thrust but not match any of the performance charts which do as of now. Basically a whole rework to end up the same thing ±5%. I don’t see the point. Guidance/electronics would be a better use of the time and energy, specifically when one in particular is a magically and totally different than its IRL counterpart.
Gaijin already stated they only need to match performance to a specific altitude (0-5km) for missiles. There are few exceptions to this… But amending the missiles’ overall impulse and correcting range or time to target with drag will bring it closer to matching all the available data points than having erroneously high thrust and overly compensating drag.
So basically to end up to the same thing ±5%. The Time of flight shots were up to the 60s territory. Quite enough after burn for the overcompensating drag to actually have its effect. They were not close range shots. And they were at 20k ft, so well within atmospheric modelling limitations.
EW/ guidance fixing will be much better use of the time
Different devs working on electronic warfare or radar modeling… also not a waste of time because @piiot found discrepancies worth reporting for certain range scenarios that matter more.
There is no Mig-29 in War Thunder besides the SMT that is technically capable of using the R-27ER.
GJ knows this & why the R27ER was not provided in the Mig-29’s release in Update: Apex Predators.
R-27ER (AA-10C Alamo C) – a modification of the R-27R missile with the installation of a new rocket engine, which has a larger supply of solid fuel, inside a modified rear part of the fuselage, characterized by a greater length and larger diameter. As a result, this model has a greater long-range range. The guidance system of the R-27ER missile cooperates with the N019M Topaz (‘mod. Slot Back I’) radar of the MiG-29S light front-line fighter and the N001 Mech (‘Slot Back II’) of the Su-27 heavy front-line fighter. This model, along with the R-27ET and R-27EP missiles, officially became operational in 1990.
Source: R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) :: Ruslet
The R-27R is the only variant that can be guided by N019 Rubin & is specifically differentiated by type & variant in the same source.
R-27R (AA-10A Alamo A) – a modification of the R-27 missile with the installation of a semi-active radar homing warhead of the RGS-27 type (9B1101K) inside the ogival tip of the fuselage made of dielectric material. The guidance system of this model cooperates with the on-board radar type N019 Rubin (‘Slot Back I’) of the MiG-29 light front-line fighter and N001 Mech (‘Slot Back II’) of the heavy front-line fighter of the Su-27 type. The R-27R missile, along with the R-27T and R-27P, officially became operational in 1987.
Source: R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) :: Ruslet
This is because the R-27ER does not operate by the same X-band channels that the N019 Rubin of the Mig-29 (9-12A), (9-12B) (9-12G) & even (9-13) use to guide its R-27R.
This is by intentional design on behalf of Phazotron-NIIR & Mikoyan.
The Soviet Union’s largest developer of military radars and avionics Phazotron-NIIR Chief designer Adolf Tolkachev, became an American spy and over the years between 1979 & 1985, supplied a great deal of information about such projects R-23, R-24, R-33, R-27, and R-60, S-300, as well as about air intercept radars used in the MiG-29, MiG-31, and Su-27 and other avionics directly to the CIA.
The United States Airforce & the entirety of NATO knew everything there is to ever know about the R-27R & the N019 Rubin that guides it. Everything down to the exact High & Medium PRFs used for detection & tracking as well as the specific X-band guidance channels of the R-27R.
The Americans were also given the entire State Recognition system of the USSR that was put into service in 1982.
To undo the damage done, the Soviet Union ordered Phazotron & Mikoyan to perform massive upgrades to existing fighters & weapon systems. Newer weapon systems such as the R27ER would not be NATO corrupted & by compatibility with the N019 Rubin. Thus, the N019M was born.
That is why there is not a single NATO country (yet) has the R-27ER & why you will never find an original Product 9-12 or 9-13 with R-27ER unless upgraded to the N019M Topaz standard either.
The appearance of the MiG-29S modification is associated with the betrayal to the West in 1985 of one of the leading specialists of NPO Phazotron. Adolf/Alexander Georgevich Tolkachev passed on detailed information on the radio-electronic equipment of the A-50, MiG-31 and MiG-29 planes to adversaries, repeating to a certain extent the “feat” of the traitor Belenko, who hijacked the MiG-25 to Japan. This event required the adoption of urgent measures to modernize a number of Soviet fighters, including the MiG-29.
The information provided by Tolkachev saved the U.S. government billions of dollars in defense expenditures, a coup that prompted some intelligence historians to call him “the greatest spy since Penkovsky.” The primary value of the source’s reporting was that it provided detailed data on new Soviet weapon systems that would not be available from technical collection sources for many years, if ever. The complete documentation on these systems, which the agent provided even before the systems were fully operational, was described as “of incalculable value.”
“The SW messages contained useful intelligence on such subjects as a new Soviet airborne radar reconnaissance and guidance system, the results of performance tests of new Soviet aircraft radar systems, and the status of work on the weapons-aiming systems for various Soviet aircraft under development.”
An April 1980 internal CIA memorandum called Tolkachev’s information on jam-proofing tests for Soviet fighter aircraft radar systems “unique”—such data, sought for many years, was not obtainable by national technical means.
In particular, the MIG firm was instructed to create modifications of the MiG-31 interceptor and the MiG-29 fighter with improved weapons control systems, while it was assumed that according to their model, previously released combat vehicles will also be modified (in a similar way, in the early 80s, at aircraft repair plants, most of the MiG-25Ps were modernized into the MiG-25PDS version, and several hundred MiG-23ML - into the MiG-23MLD version).
The MiG-29S was an attempt to eliminate the consequences of betrayal. The modernization consisted in the refinement of the radar to the level of the N019M Topaz radar, the improvement of the Gardenia station, fuel tanks.
Modified radars allow missiles to fire at two air targets simultaneously, RVV-AE missiles are integrated into the weapon control system. The range of admissible angles of attack has been expanded to 30 degrees, the payload mass on the pylons has been increased from 2000 kg to 4000 kg. The range of outboard weapons has been expanded with guided air-to-surface weapons - anti-ship and anti-radar guided missiles, air-to-surface guided missiles with television and laser guidance. Most of the above modifications are associated with later versions of the MiG-29S. Thus, guided weapons of the air-to-surface class were introduced into the range of suspended weapons in 1995.
In 1992, the Russian Ministry of Defense decided to stop purchasing MiG-29 fighters - in the conditions of the economic crisis, it was deemed inappropriate to build two types of front-line fighters simultaneously. As already noted, in the first half of the 70s. The concept of a promising fleet of fighter aircraft of the country’s Air Force was based on the principle of its construction on the basis of two types of aircraft: 70% - MiG-29 and 30% - Su-27. It was assumed that the cost of these types of fighters would be 1: 1.9.
In practice, it was not possible to make the MiG so cheap: its price was only 40-50% less than the Sukhoi (the cost of the Su-27 on the world market is estimated at 30-35 million, and the MiG-29 - 22-24 million). As for the quantitative ratio of these types of aircraft in the structure of the Russian Air Force, then, according to the data published in the press, it was even slightly exceeded in favor of the MiGs: by the end of 1990, at the time of the conclusion of the CFE Treaty, 648 MiG-29 aircraft (82%) and 138 Su-27 aircraft (18%) were based in the European part of the USSR, not counting the fighters of the Navy and air defense forces. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Air Force transferred about four hundred MiG-29s (80%) and just over one hundred Su-27s (20%).
MiG-29S (9-13S) Reg: RF-92242 Code: 28 red
The following MiG-29S are known: board “404”, board “405” (later became the prototype of the MiG-29SM), board “406” (formerly the first prototype of “product 9-13), board” 407 “(previously prototype” product 9- fourteen). In general, estimates of the number of aircraft upgraded to the level of the MiG-29S range from two dozen machines to two full-fledged regiments of a three-squadron composition, that is, up to 70 - 80 aircraft. It is obvious that the combat regiments of the Russian Air Force are not armed with a single MiG-29S, modernized to the full “depth”.
MiG-29S (9-13S) Reg: 407 blue. Manufacturer Serial Number: 2960507682
Thus, 16 MiG-29S fighters produced at MAPO in 1991 became the last aircraft of this type to enter service with the Russian aviation. In this regard, 30 MiG-29S fighters that were not bought by the Russian Air Force were converted into an export version of the MiG-29SE.
Sources
MiG-29S FULCRUM (globalsecurity.org)
Tolkachev-Successor-Penkovsky.pdf (cia.gov)
Product 9-12 (N019 Rubin)
Standard model of the Soviet Union (NATO Compromised).
East German Product 9-12A (N019EA)
Warsaw Pact Export N019EA. Lacks “SP” mode (NATO Compromised).
Hungarian Product 9-12B (N019EA)
Warsaw Pact Export N019EA. Lacks “SP” mode (NATO Compromised).
German Reunification Product 9-12G (N019EA)
Warsaw Pact Export. Lacks “SP” mode. Modified to NATO & ICAO standards (NATO Compromised).
Product 9-13 (N019 Rubin)
Standard Soviet Mig-29 radar (NATO compromised).
Fitted with a bulged and extended spine, which reportedly houses both fuel and avionics, and which may also be applied through retrofit. Internal fuel is increased by provision of larger No. 1 fuel tank.
The first ‘fatbacked’ MiG-29 was 9-13, the second pre-production aircraft, which first flew on 23 December 1980, in the hands of V.M. Gorbunov. At one time the ‘Fulcrum-C’ seemed to be slowly replacing the ‘Fulcrum-A’ in VVS service, but the two types continued in production alongside one another and often serve in the same units (occasionally with the very early ventral-finned MiG-29s). Pilots report that apart from endurance, there is no difference in flying/operating characteristics, although some sources suggest that the ‘Fulcrum-C’ has an enhanced ground attack capability and/or provision for an active jammer. Certainly the 9-13 has redesigned wingtips which appear to accommodate new RWR antennas. No ‘hunchbacked’ ‘Fulcrum-Cs’ have been exported yet, though Malaysia’s MiG-29s may prove to be based on the ‘Fulcrum-C’
Military Aviation (sirviper.com)
Product 9-13S (N019M)
The MiG-29S was an update of the original 9.13 model retaining the NATO reporting code “Fulcrum-C” and featured flight control system improvements; a total of four new computers provided better stability augmentation and controllability with an increase of 2° in angle of attack (AoA). An improved mechanical-hydraulic flight control system allowed for greater control surface deflections. The MiG-29S can carry 1,150 L (250 imp gal; 300 U.S. gal) under wing drop tanks and a centerline tank. The inboard underwing hardpoints allow a tandem pylon arrangement for carrying a larger payload of 4,000 kg (8,800 lb). Overall maximum gross weight was raised to 20,000 kg (44,000 lb). This version also included new avionics and the new Phazotron N019M radar and Built-In Test Equipment (BITE) to reduce dependence on ground support equipment. Development of this version was initiated due to multiple systems being compromised to the West by Phazotron engineer Adolf Tolkachev. This was the final version of the MiG-29 produced before the collapse of the Soviet Union and only limited numbers were produced.
The N019M Topaz is an updated version, developed as a response to the compromise of the N019 radar by a US spy. Tested from 1986, it entered limited production in 1991. Slightly lighter than the N019 at 350kg. Topaz has increased ECM resistance, new software, and a more advanced built-in monitoring system. A new Ts101M computer eliminates the processor overload problems of the N019, more than doubling capacity to 400,000 operations per second whilst weighing less, just 19kg, and with doubled MTBF of 1000h compared to the 500h of the Ts100. N019M allows two targets to be engaged by active radar homing missiles simultaneously. Range increased slightly to 80km. Originally intended to be fitted to the existing MiG-29 fleet as an upgrade, about 22 aircraft with N019M are thought to have entered service with the VVS.
N019 Radar | MiG Alley Military Aviation News
The MiG-29S introduces revised radar/weapons system algorithms and software (and it is believed that processing capacity has been increased) to allow for the simultaneous tracking and engagement of multiple targets. The modified radar is redesignated N-019M. Operational capability has been enhanced by fitting a new sighting system, and more recently by making provision for the active homing AAM-AE ‘AMRAAMski’. The first MiG-29S made its maiden flight during 1984, and three prototypes were followed by new production aircraft and conversions. Two polk (squadrons) are in service.
Military Aviation (sirviper.com)
The only Soviet Mig-29 Products 9-12 & 9-13 that are upgraded to N019M standard can equip R27ERs & R77s.
No NATO country has the technical ability to guide the R-27ER. It is a great disrespect to the Soviet Union & a slap in the face to the Russian Federation to give any NATO aircraft the R-27ER.
BTW the R-27ER is grossly overperforming here is proof.
You are absolutely correct & that is why the R27ET peaks out & immediately drops at 1,000 meters a second (Mach 3.1) at 1km altitude (3,280 feet).
No missile in game is capable of just reaching Mach 3 at 1km altitude either.
The R-27ET has the R-300E extended range solid bipropellant dual mode rocket (same as ER) & is slightly lighter. However, after its motor goes out it rapidly loses energy at low altitude AS IT SHOULD.
Because the R-27ET is modelled correctly.
The R-27ER is not. The ER violates every limitation that other missiles are forced to abide by. The R-27ER is modelled to continue accelerating, fly twice as far & maintain its speed twice as long over the R-27ET. The ER is the only missile in game that can easily surpass Mach 3.1 & still accelerate at insanely low altitudes.
The ER is overpowered & keeps going with its magic motor. Because it was modelled intentionally to overperform and was given to the Mig29 first. The ET was not. The ER is not a Mach 5.6 missile at high altitude either, it is a Mach 4.5 missile tops.
It can only reach 5 if launched in a bi-sonic dash (Mach 2+) at very high altitude. Which means nothing because missile is completely combat ineffective at those speeds. At low altitude, it’s a Mach 2.5 - Mach 3.0 SARH just like everyone else.
The ER drastically out ranges ET with much more energy to maneuver long after the motor has gone out long out.
ER is intentionally launched second, it quickly out accelerates, catches up & surpasses the ET to target.
Additionally, the R-27R & ER cannot ever be fired when the aircraft is maneuvering at overloads greater than 5G & also cannot exceed more than 50 deg/s of roll.
The R-27T & ET can be fired up to 7Gs & full roll rate.
Source: Russian Su-27 Flight Manual 2001 Book 1, page 129 & the English translated Su-27 Flight Manual 2001, book 1 page 91. I have both.
