You shoyld try the Tornado ADV in a match where there’s Phoenixes and MiG-29s. Can’t evade Phoenixes at high alt because you’re so terrible at turning, can’t do any sort of BVR because you get outranged by R-27ER and AIM-7F(HOW??? AIM-7F is literally the worse missile out of it and SuperTEMP. More to the point it should be garbage at low alt but it just isn’t) so you’re forced, like everyone else, to go to ultra low level and hope/pray that someone is daft enough to pop up and give you a chance with Skyflash. It’s infuriating to not have the separate countermeasure buttons as that might do something about it.
1 Like
Because IRL it’s worse due to seeker reliability issues and poor radar performance of the launching aircraft means most of the time it is being launched beyond the maximum range of the seeker.
I assume that the The IOG+Datalink is terribly inaccurate because it cannot accurately triangluate the estimated positon of the target aircraft and results in the seeker being unable regain the lock.
The missile and launch aircraft radars are highly susceptible to jamming and interference, but in game this doesn’t exist.
The combination of these factors results in a very poor hit rate for long range shots.
Whereas in game it works perfectly and the seeker and radar performance is for some reason way better than what it should be.
The same goes for the Mig23 radar and R23/R24. IRL the radar and misisles were absolutely garbage, but in game they work flawlessly.
1 Like
lol I think everyone is latching onto the F-4 example. It’s the same for any 11/11.3 plane really. It’s just not something we should be facing in those BRs. If I chose to take out my F-16C or my F-15 I can expect to see these more capable missiles and planes. Being in the lower brackets coming up against promised kill missile here is redonk.
1 Like
A potential issue is that the AIM-7P can only be equipt by a narrow selection of specifically configured airframes, none of which are actually modeled in game, the only two I am aware of (pictographic evidence) is a mid-life F/A-18A, and the F-14D to have actually used it in service at least and none of the existing airframes(as per the current configuration did so).
For the most part they stuck the the AIM-7M or jumped to the AIM-120 as was available.
I know this is a bit of a late reply, but I think it should be pretty clear that balancing purely based on “efficiency” often leads to really weird BRs that overtiers planes with easy ergonomics and undertiers harder planes ergonomically, not to mention the playerbase influences on efficency. Look at the entire A6M line, look at how the 3.7 P-51C is better than the entire a6m line and is probably .7 br too low, the Spit mk 24 at 7.0 being generally worse than the P-51H anyway, etc etc. I will say its a bit less of an issue at the higher BRs since gameplans are more homogenized but you still have questionable BRs like the F-104 and MiG-19, or the F-15 being 12.3 for some reason.
1 Like
I didn’t say it works, I just said that’s how it’s done.
2 Likes
The R-77 has better range and compatibility with the Su-57, while the R-27EA was ruled out as unsatisfactory for the evolving climate of missiles.
Why doesn’t the Su-57 carry R-27ERs to begin with? They’re some of the fastest missiles out there at the moment… Oh, it doesn’t make a difference anyway.
Relying on semi active homing is obsolete. Signal is easily disrupted due to distance, atmospheric etc from aircraft’s radar, target and to missile and it is highly susceptible to jamming.
Soviet radars
Exactly. the R27 in its entirety and missile pattern is obsolete and has been for some time. It just was never this good irl.
Mig 29 rwr would get jammed by its own radar irl
3 Likes
because r27ea is not mass produced(iirc) and r77 is lighter, smaller, fit inside the weapon bay and can be improved upon unlike the r27e
The Su57 has outer pylons and is used for R77s and even larger ordinance.
That still does not answer the question.
If the EA was so impressive (The R27 was never and actually a pretty terrible missile in all forms), why is it an obsolete missile not relevant in 5th generation fighters? The Su57 is more than capable of carrying it.
The Russians did not mass produce them because the missile series as a whole has always been inferior and is vastly obsolete.
Again cost to effectiveness.
It’s the same reason we never did further developments on AIM-54, and outright ended its service despite its range advantage over AIM-120C.
R-27EA is longer range, 35Gs, and faster as well.
This is a reminder that R-77 standard is already AIM-120A/B equivalent, and R-77-1 is AIM-120C [up to 5] equivalent. C6/7 stops seeing ground reflections while R-77s continue to do so until R-77M.
1 Like
You are also forgetting that the R27 was completely compromised. There was absolutely nothing secret about the Mig29, Su27 and Mig31 radar to the Americans. They knew everything there is to know about these fighters’ radars before they were even put into service thanks to Adolf Tolkachev who provided the CIA everything there is to know about them for years.
Even everything on missiles such R-23, R-24, R-33, R-27, and S-300.
The Russians needed to completely wash their hands with the R27 series as fast as possible after Tolkachev was found out and went great lengths to do so.
It may have not just been cost alone, but simply the entire missile’s design, its variants and how to defeat them along with their guidance frequencies was already known to the Americans.
3 Likes
This is not totally correct. The Aim54 was without a doubt hyper effective, the cost was worth it, and the Navy did not want to retire the Tomcat at all.
It was the changing combat doctrine of the US that drove the F-14 and ultimately the Aim54 into retirement.
The Soviet Union dissolved. There was no longer a peer to peer adversary for the US. China had not yet emerged as the new principal threat.
The War on Terror shifted combat doctrine elsewhere to small unconventional operations with no real air to air contest.
There was no longer a need for aircraft such as the F-14 Tomcat and the Aim54, an Air superiority Mach 2 capable fleet defense fighter. It had little to no use in the War on Terror.
It has never even finished trials.
Because the EA never entered production, it’s a pretty big missile that can’t really fit in the Su-57’s bomb bay, and much more capable and advanced versions of the R-77 have been developed. The EA is only really better (and not by much) compared to the base R-77, which is comparable to the AIM-120B. Meanwhile, the Su-57 is equipped with the most modern R-77M which is (probably, info on either is hard to find) equivalent to the AIM-120D and Meteor.
2 Likes
proof
1 Like
The Su57 has outer pylons for R77. If the R27EA was better, why was it not produced?
Why was it not produced for aircraft that certainly could have used them and benefited tactically from them? Such as the newer Flanker and Mig31s?
How would the R27EA cost more over designing and producing an entirely new missile, that is the R77? Because it’s simply inferior to the R77.
R-77 is older than the R-27EA, vastly older.
2 Likes
Ok, so why would it not go into service being that it’s built off an older design (cheaper to produce) and superior to the R77 as you claim?
Are we sure the EA never went into service btw? It even has upgraded variants of it if I am reading correctly.