Yes it absolutely would? R-77s are not that bad at all… they just lack range
they do have quite good range, compared to MICA, Derby
they don’t, all of these missiles have poor range, r77 is not worth firing past 12km or so, same as MICA and the rest
r77 is superior to the aim120 below 10 miles and it is definitely worth launching at 12 miles lol
Su-30 as well as the 35
Also the su-35 wasn’t produced untill 2007, your thinking of the su-27M. the plane that tested the ea’s was the su-30 from what I’ve read and the su-27M. The su-37 was built of the 27M not the 35
in very small ways yes, if the target is farther than like 3km out they are effectively the same missile. Firing it over 12km is not worth it in my experience.
it’s way better because you pull cracked off boresight shots with the 50g overload and while mica might have more overload it lacks your range, honestly people who say dogfights don’t happen must just not have my experience or are the players who die because a solid amount of games end with me dogfighting 1 or 2 people at least and I would much rather have a missile I’m confident will be able to pull into him at the extreme angles of attack.
that is… not how the r77 works
you clearly have far more experience with the r77 and it’s totally bad, it’s so bad at high boresight shots unless you didn’t intend to ignore everything but a typo.
idk what you’re saying rn ngl. Are you trying to imply you’re right because you got two good games?
what point are YOU making, the r77 is incredible for high boresight shots sorry we don’t agree it’s bad so you feel better about dying to a missile you should know how to defeat (aim120), and two games bro that’s just what’s on my phone lol
thats a lot of assuming!
For the many many r77s I’ve fired, I’ve only scored a few kills.
In fact I found myself using R-27ETs more
Aim-120s seem to keep better lock of target over the R-77s.
I think they are all the same regarding tracking
Rather than make changes to the current Su-33, I’d perfer they learn and folder a different variant of the Su-33 with the SU-27sm and give it the R-27EA but not the R-77, likely in the same quantity of R-27ERs the current Su-33 can carry, that way we get a top tier variant and the current one exists as a just below top tier squadron vehicle.
Su-30 was never used for the R-27EA’s tests.
The Su-35S was produced in 2007, the Su-35 was produced in 1988.
It really isn’t hard to read.
I am thinking of the Su-27M. What you fail to realize is that T-10M-1, ever since its first flight and even procurement in development, was designated the Su-35.
It wasn’t the Su-30 either, as the first ground testing of the missile took place in 1989 with the first live-fire happening in 1990. The Su-30 hadn’t existed for another 2 years AFTER that, and yet the Su-35’s procurement just so happens to coincide with the R-27EA tests, get pictured on multiple occasions at various international arms expos with R-27EAs attached, and yet a single Su-30 had never had the same.
The Su-27M IS the Su-35, and the primary differences were in avionics and powerplant.
The Su-33 is exactly where it should be. Other planes should be ranked higher, but Gaijin is too lazy to make the necessary changes.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.