I personally think that it shouldn’t as the R-27ER is already batcrap crazy and is an IRL contender to the AIM-120B
What? The R-77 is extremely comparable to the AIM-120B. Nations that use it should absolutely get it. Besides, R-77 and R-27 are mounted on the same pylons, so you pick one or the other. Even if the R-27 was an AMRAAM equivalent (it’s not) there would be no reason to not add the R-77. Worst case scenario Russian/Chinese mains pick between one of two equally capable missiles.
I don’t see why it shouldn’t be added.
when better fox 3 comes everyone should have them
I’d say something like the 27EA/EM would be somewhat 120A equivalent, especially with the very first motor it used.
Yeah, perhaps a bit better (I’m not familiar with the seeker but the kinematics would be great) but those also never entered service.
Both used the same seeker, though the EA performs a lot like the 120A, while the EM performs akin to the 120C-5 with the WPU-16 motor.
As for the seeker;
The EA was primarily used as a testbed for the later EM, as there was a lot to improve.
The EM itself was supposed to enter into service, but by the time it was upgraded to a feasible point the R-77 had already overshadowed it.
No. R-27ER’S were designed to be so stupidly fast it could hit the AIM-120 launcher before the missile went Pitbull.
R-27ER should’ve been an AIM-120A equivalent, the AIM-120 gets ARH but the R-27ER gets an extra 1.8M.
There is no equal in that matchup. You’re basing a singular stage ARH missile to a sustaining SARH missile.
What next, SACLOS and IR are equival?
Fuck no. Gaijin has found every fucking way to fuck the U.S. in implementation of vehicle features and in B.R.
Literally every other stat are equal (assuming Gaijin will balance unknown/classified details of the AIM-120A) besides maximum velocity and seeker type:
Mig-23’s AIM-120A Stat Card (using stat cards purely as a "this is what they should be capable of if implemented correctly, since the AIM-120A isn’t in live servers/game yet):
R-27ER Stat Card:
“Every stat” does not envision flight performance or actions during use. They use two entirely different propulsion systems, differ entirely in means of tracking, and aren’t similar physically in any way, shape, or form.
There is no similarity.
They both use solid-propellant rocket motors, and both of their motors are boost-sustain.
Yes, this is one of the two differences I mentioned.
Potentially? I mean in this case they have the same-ish lock range, launch range, they both get IOG and DL, and the guidance time is still extremely long. The literal only differences between them that will effect how they are used are the guidance type and maximum velocity, hence why I mentioned the AIM-120A would be an equivalent for the R-27ER: better seeker for the slower speed. The R-27ER user just needs to launch it within the first 32% of the AIM-120A’s flight time and then it wins.
What does pitbull mean?
When you launch a fox 3 it has a certain lock range but you can fire it further if you have a lock
so it acts sort like a SARH until its in range and then i will lock on to what you fired it at and won’t need assist anymore
properly explained it terribly
Nah I get it. It needs you to guide it with your radar up until the arh seeker is in range
Yeah that what Pitbull is
Of course you want American bias.
R-27ER and AIM-7M were NEVER AIM-120B contenders. NEVER.
They did come out around the same time but it took a while for russia to get its fox 3 so at most it could be a stop gap