AIM-7F/M is much better than people think here,it just lacks speed. Do not enter “jousts” vs a R-27, this is not a medieval tournament. And the SU-27 radar is extremely janky, it cannot even lock in places where a mig-21 radar would be enough.
i will try to get some AIM-7 footage to post
Well, its ok on its own, its just terrible the moment you introduce ER into comparison.
Just like how R-24R was horrible when compared to AIM-7F, before the AIM-7Fs drag was made realistic and it had non existant drag.
Or just like how R-3R (lol, aim9b) was fighting AIM- 7Es and AIM-7E2s for so long
Nations did not mirror each other so everything has their time to shine
The difference in 7F and R24R was R24R would win up to approx 6-8km headon and 7F was on terrible plane (F4J), tomcat was borked but it was ONLY missile bus and 9G/H were broken and absolutely useless, MLD was still able to dogfight it and win.
Then ER came, i understand that 29 with only R was bad, i was advocating for ER myself. But 6x ER on flanker is absolutely bonkers and unbalanced. 2x ER on 29 was perfectly fine so they went and introduced jet with 3 times more of them while being on better platform.
7M cant win against ER at range, close range or pull. Its worse in everything. R27 gets datalink too so it wont detonate after losing lock. Not to mention 7M is still working in CW on F15… it should be pulse and employ its own filtering with way better sensitivity on seeker. It still acts according to 200W CW from F4E.
But the R-24R is on a platform that does not have a PD radar, and the radar has much less range and the radar is also very easy to chaff in headon conditions, unlike the F-14 radar
As it has been implemented in game so far, ACM MTI down low is absolutely disgusting. It is very reliable. It coupled with the kinematic performance of the 24R in the head on beats its contemporaries no problem.
MTI mode on MIG-23MLD for so long was not as good as it is right now, especially during the F-14A release period.
It is pretty good RN, that is true. But for the longer part of its life in the game it wasnt this good
I flew the MLD, had over 5.0 KD on it before all new crap came in. Its radar was far superior for WT meta. 30KM acm mode that insta locked, MTI worked fine and R24R was far superior to anything besides 7F at long range. It dumbstered 7F at shorter ranges easily. Pretty much fastest jet with best acceleration and best - comparable maneuverbility to tomcat which came like one year after MLD destroyed top tier.
Fact stays, russia had best missile / plane combination for WT meta from MLD onwards which at that point is what, 2-3 years?
Just wish the ACM mode on SU-27 was as good as MIG-23 or F-15 ACM mode, cant even lock headon targets at 7-8 km range half the time RN, HMS mode included
Russian ACM modes are trash, just use helmet but its not that reliable anyway. Way better than vertical scan though. SMT might be only russian top tier with boresight ACM mode.
They are actually very useful if the radars actually were not as janky as they are right now, i think there is something wrong with radars right now…
And also if we did not have spamfest counterstrike 1.6 team deathmatch 16v16 mess, causing you to lock random people because everyone is in a 2km2 furball
In close range dogfights they are extremely useful, and i think their ACM modes are made for that
Btw, you can use vertical on 16/15/gripen too, just gotta switch between them. They usually get narrow bore, wide bore and vertical scan.
one thing most people tend to agree is that 16v16 was a terrible idea for all concerned.
Didn’t expect you to be the sort to resort to pulling stats from individuals malekitth. This is a concerning development indeed.
16v16 would be fine if they changed the maps and modes to reflect it. Ramming more people into the same maps with the same number of objectives was doomed to be a failure.
Regarding the turn rate discussion, I just posed this on the bug report and thought I’d reproduce it here for discussion purposes. @MiG_23M
I would be very cautious to draw conclusions from that source. The graph in the pdf is reproduced with really bad resolution, and more importantly, the number is classified.
It is common practice (certainly in the Swedish defence, probably in other places) to replace sensitive information with approximate curves. That is probably why the graph also has no axis labels. It is not made to extract exact numbers of turn rates for the new fighter, because presenting that information would be committing a crime.
Here is the graph Imgur: The magic of the Internet (my annotations). It seems to indicate about 20.5 deg/s, which you are contrasting with your in-game measurement of perhaps 22.5 deg/s (you are losing airspeed when it spikes to 23).
With the curve probably being approximate in the first place, I would certainly not dare to say that 22.5 deg/s is wrong.
Currently on 30 minutes fuel load the Gripen is accelerating with full stick deflection at 200 knots. This is absurd. The sustained turn rates at speeds as low as 250 knots are already 20.4 deg/s. This curve is flat and increases with speed. This is also absurd.
There isn’t an aircraft in the world with this kind of performance according to publicly available data. It makes sense that it can sustain 20 deg/s as shown by the chart and affirmed by the approximations of the other data. It just doesn’t make sense that (especially with the low speed T/W) it can sustain this ridiculous amount of energy.
At 10 minutes fuel you can go ahead and add nearly 3-4 deg/s or more across the entire speed envelope.
It gains a lot of thrust at speed though considerable amount upto 24000lbs of total thrust once you hit like 1200kmh between 700 to 800kmh it’s thrust to weight is significantly over 1:1 this is probably why it sustains speed to much
I am not making statements about any other behaviours of the flight model. I am just saying that that Saab graph is not a good source for 22.5 deg/s being too high. I am pretty sure the curve is fictitious.
Static T/W on 30 minutes fuel is 0.82
The optimal picks up to as much as 1.19 in these conditions… at 1250 km/h.
The sustained turn rate at low speed is significantly overperforming for some reason, that much is obvious but I haven’t really investigated the FM to see why.