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.
That’s the thing, no multipath exists… in arcade battles, as multipath is a real thing and no multipath entirely would be arcade.
Very few SARHs defeat it IRL, and fewer ARHs [well the newest variants defeat it].
AIM-120A through C5, and potentially C6 all see ground reflected signatures.
R-77 and R-77-1 see them.
The first MICA EM likely sees them.
Of course they had less volume for electronics and processing than SARHs, which is why Skyflash and AIM-7M had electronics to filter out the ground reflections, and R-27ER did not.
However, ground reflections are just a dumb method of defeating missiles. Terrain following and notching are superior methods.
I will repeat myself on that one, but Mica EM does have multipath filtering.
Not to mention “first MICA EM” doesn’t make any sense, as only one variant of this missile currently exists
Did you forget that multipath effects were recently removed entirely from SPAA in GRB, or does that not align with your memory?
The same impact would occur even if it was reduced to realistic levels for relevant missiles and also that points to the fact that you didn’t actually read the excerpt(s) about low altitude performance.
The Narrow Sweep Selection will prevent sea or ground main beam clutter from entering the Speedgate if the target ground speed vector is towards or away from the missile is great enough to displace the clutter doppler frequency outside the Narrow Sweep frequency limits of +/- 5 kHz (150kts [~77 m/s , ~278 km/h]).
The issue with low altitude performance of the Sparrow(AIM-7E) actually comes from the reflections(glint) from the active radar proximity fuse, not the seeker
Would you mind posting the example you specified?
On the flipside of this, you have done precisely nothing to justify your stance that it is erroneous besides some relatively baseless assumptions to which I have provided sound logic against.
I did explain this though…? You just replied to me explaining this.
I did just elaborate on some potential reasons it performs similar above.
That’s tough, I guess.
Sure does, but I don’t recall the R-27ER being particularly meta. Not the same way the AIM-7F was.
That’s not necessarily true at all.
The initial added rearward weight places the center of lift much closer to the center of mass. When you have a pivot point and a fulcrum… does it have an easier or harder time when the pivot point is closer to or further from the mass that is being moved?
Yet the country still using the AIM-54 had attempted to mount the R-27 to the F-14 before abandoning the notion due to low inventory of the missile.
I’m fairly certain the R-27ER has been used in what could be considered “WVR” fights… though I’d expect them to simply drop a 350kg missile in real life for the inverse reason that people will pull 12+G sustained in War Thunder.
Yes, we are talking about that variant. My statement stands.
No one said this, it can be designed for something entirely different than what it is useful for in-game. Look at artillery pieces for example.
That’s not what I said, but if you refuse to acknowledge my points and point to lack of a source… but you’re doing the same exact thing… seems kind of like I’m talking to a wall.
That was from SPAA radar systems, which is an entirely different system to SARH missiles, airborne radars, and of course ARHs.
So you think you can’t find radar equipt SPAA in GRB?
I disagree with this assessment specifically in Sim. While yes, the 9M is oppressive as a first engage weapon, being invisible and passive so generally beats an unaware target an resistant to a random flare, it is worse as a WVR weapon.
In my experience, both the 9M and R-73 are resistant enough WVR to generally avoid CM. The only reliable defeat against both is preflaring. This tips the scales in favor of the R-73 as it’s engagement envelope is far more favorable WVR, particularly on HMD equipped aircraft, and as such is much easier to force people to run out of CM just by threatening a high off bore shot that the R-73 makes a credible threat, compared to a guaranteed waste of a 9M in the same scenario. Once the TVC logic is finally figured out, I think the R-73 jumps far and away above the 9M, even in Sim.
Well, if it does get to the merge, where WVR is at play (I’m assuming you mean dogfight scenarios with ‘WVR’ as 9M beats the R73 in pretty much every other scenario in sim), you do not want to be sitting in the Su27 or Mig29, I believe having the FAR better airframe makes a bigger difference than a TVC missile will. Western jets like F16 and Gripen run circles around them, it’s not even close. And given that you can pretty consistently flare 8/10 of the R73’s (not pre flare, just by flaring right as you see them get fired) it’s just a lottery to see if you can get one to track whilst you’re shitting away all your speed just to get the enemy in your FOV for HMD… After that, your energy retention is so bad that you generally won’t get another opportunity. This is why I find it ridiculous to call Russians “dominant” in WVR right now. Of course this doesn’t take into account that everyone isn’t perfect and every player will make mistakes, perhaps offering the Russian jet another opportunity in a dogfight. I’ve flown every single top-tier airframe except the F14 in sim and the Russian jets are just miserable across the board right now and it’s clearly shown in the use 80+% win rate and red team ‘player retention’ issue we have.
The R-73 is not the better WVR weapon. It’s the better GUNS range weapon. There’s a huge difference between WVR ranges and Guns range. R-73’s IRCCM doesn’t really start working until ~1.5km and doesn’t really get amazing until within 1km.
I mean, stating “entry to service” or “start of production” dates doesn’t matter much imo
Things like Su-27S/J-11 and MiG-29 9.12/13 served well into the 90s and early 2000s in some cases, so at some point they would’ve gotten R-27ERs
(Also that SMT date is incorrect, there’s 3 separate SMT variants irl, the date you posted was for 9.17A, but in game we have the 9.19R, an upgrade of the MiG-29SMT 9.19 from the 2010s)
And for the Yak-141, they’ve given it R-27ERs because it’s what it would’ve used if it actually went into service, being a mid 90s aircraft it obviously would’ve used 27ERs, and of course there’s also a loadout sheet provided by Yakovlev
(for what I assume was for an export proposal of Yak-141?)
Yes, that was for Farnborough expo
