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.
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.
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.
Spoiler
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.
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.
