Incorrect HPRF minimum range for Russian Radar (N001, N010, kopyo-21, kopyo-25 and every Russian Radar introduced after 1985):
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0moTpQycHb9F
13 Likes
You know, I’m genuinely curious; what reason does Gaijin even give for refusing to buff the flanker?
In this community we have done so much to prove that it is underperforming, but Gaijin always handwaves it away. Is there like some rogue bug report moderator that just wants the flanker to stay in a gimped state, because I just find it hard to believe that Gaijin would actively go out of their way to spin the narrative, despite multiple sources claiming otherwise. At this point there is a mountain of evidence against the aircraft’s FM being wrong…
At this rate, I bet if someone was ballsy enough to go ask Sukhoi themselves to give a statement regarding it to Gaijin, they would refute it saying that their modeling of the aircraft is more accurate than what the Sukhoi OKB themselves have access to… It’s getting borderline ridiculous at this point.
Has anyone tried contacting technical moderators on the forum, because I really think that this is starting to get childish at this point.
3 Likes
Possibly laziness but they did improve It after ppl discovered they were using T-10 documents to model it ingame, it’s a lot better now
I think gaijin dont love USSR anymore or the NATO main give them much money and they dont want to messing with them :))))
6 Likes
I think money are main reason. NATO mains give them more money. Thats reason why USA got first top tier premium jet (and then GB and Sweden).
3 Likes
Isn’t the bars the same Radar has the mig29smt just with more power and bigger antenna?
ps confused it with the N010 Zhuk radar instead of the N011 bars
Bars should be better than the one from the current su34
Only 45 degrees electronic steering to each direction (+25 degrees mechanical steering in azimuth, but that creates some limitations),15 tracks and 4 datalink channels is not that impressive though … Given what we already have in the game … (AESA Rafale and Typhoon FGR.4)
TBH they should just jump straight to Su-35 or Su-30SM2, and add the Su-30SM as a gap filler later on … (Probably not gonna happen)
2 Likes
I think it would be more reasonable to have su30sm with AL-41F1 and Bars radar, AL-31pu might be a bit weak
2 Likes
Nope. Even developed by different universities
1 Like
What I’m worried about is the missile… R-77 is kinda mid i hope they give it R-77-1
2 Likes
We tried to prove this to the developers for a long time.
3 Likes
The devs seem quite egocentrical tbh, it’s hard for them to admit that they’re wrong sometimes.
3 Likes
Typhoons Radar is very poorly modelled
Then that goes against Aim120C.
There isn’t a version of R-77 that is superior to the Aim 120 variant
1 Like
That is F-15E late and advanced eagle counterpart
Is not. The counterpart for that thing would be a “Su-35sm” with Su-57 avionic if that ever exist.
F-15SA then I guess for the Su-35S, from similar time. EX with SM, cool to have more flanker-eagle focused trailers
Technically the early F-15EX has only 12 amraam slots until it certifies the other possible layouts so they can easily modify this to make it a functional Su-30SM / Su-35 (base) counterpart.
Depending on what missile ordnance they want to add be it R-77-1 or R-77M they could move the Su-35 up or down in BR comparably to the Su-30SM.
1 Like
Pretty sure how many missile a plane can carry is not a balance factor. If that would be the case the F-16c won’t sit on the same BR as F-15c.
But idk. It don’t feel right putting the Su-35s vs Late F-15 variants… I would like to wait for gaijin to add the Su-35s first and see how they model IRBIS radar. If we go with Stealthflanker calculations that thing is stupid and its better than a lot of AESA. At least on range. But if it get gaijined…meh.