here a better one
off topic but love your vids bro
Yeah he’s one of the best su27sm players I’ve seen
@DirectSupport
Currently, the su-27sm in game is an amalgamation of seemingly all the su-27sm variants, su-27sm, su-27sm2 and su-27sm3. su-27sm2 from what I can tell was supposed to be basically su-35 but domestic (su-35s). It carries the same number of missiles as su-27sm3, but doing it with the double racks of su-27sm2. su-27sm3 gets extra pylons that the normal sm doesn’t get on the wings, which is why it gets 8 r-77s, but the way the su-27sm gets 8 r-77s (in game) is through the double racks. irl it doesnt get these extra pylons and is stuck with 6 r-77s.
su-27sm, notice how it doesn’t get an extra pylon inside on the wings (2 pylons under wings)
but, su-27sm3 does get an extra innerwing pylon (3 pylons under the wings)
Spoiler
su-27sm3 does
from World air shows №5, 2006. published on NIIPs website, they refer to the su-27sm2 and the su-35 interchangeably.
Spoiler
mention of twin suspension underneath su-35
su-35 with real dual r-77s
Essentially, su-27sm2 is supposed to be = su-35, and that’s where gaijin may have gotten that su-27sm can carry the double racks, because the su-27sm2 can, because it’s literally su-35.
I wouldn’t mind if the SM lost the double racks but gained the extra wing pylons, thus becoming the SM3
I don’t get where are the additional pylons on the Su-27SM3
Ah nvm I got it
Well I was today years old when I found out that early flankers didn’t have inner wing pylons
also didnt the SM3 get a upgrade to its FCS to integrate the R-77-1?
The double racks of R-77 are also cited on one of the oldest versions of Su-30 [not MKI] by someone else’s evidence posted somewhere.
It’s entirely likely that they’d be compatible with MKI as well, but that’s if India wanted to continue using R-77s with their MKIs to begin with.
Also the year for MKI is 2000 for manufacture, which includes the final avionics and store positions.
Ayo someone find me that evidence
Please bring that evidence because I could tell you that the earth is flat and just say that the evidence is posted somewhere
Specifically I believe it was an Su-30 test bed for the base avionics that are used on all current Sukhois, if my memory of the paper is correct.
After all, a universal operating system being used from the late 1990s makes sense since most manufacturers have been using such things from the early 1990s.
And outside Su-27SM, these double racks are typically on the worst flight performance Sukhois; no this is not a claim that Su-27SM can use them, this is a statement about flight performance.
The Su-30SM is like the Soviet F-18E. Really good avionics, but probably the worst flight performance of that nation’s fleet.
I really do not understand why people are opposing Su-30SM’s AAM count. It isn’t from realism standpoint, because Su-30SM and Su-35 share the same centerlines and likely the base requirements in the operating system for that amount.
Both were developed after MKI, and so the lessons of MKI would’ve been implemented.
You can belive in the church, we want hard evidence here
only thing i’ve seen is some misleading ass photo of the su-30sm taking in such an angle that it looks like it had double racks when it really doesn’t
but upon closer inspection
i’m not sure, probably. su-27sm should also be able to use r-77-1, both planes use n001vep
We don’t even need photos of Su-30SM with them because we have photos of Su-35, which is the same exact center-line as the Su-30SM and MKI.
The only difference the Su-30SM/Su-35 may have over MKI is a more robust version of the operating system used for the avionics.
Which is the same as having photos of Gripen A with Skyflash and Gripen C getting them.
@Zannafrancy
export r-37m has 8g target overload:
domestic r-27er has 8g target overload as well
Spoiler
Don’t be surprised if r37m itself hits 30+ gs
theres more to it than sheer kinematic capability, and we’re also discussing starting from the page on the marketing site, afaik 35gs is significant kinematic overkill in the case of the r27 series. for a 8g maneuvering target, its not farfetched to point out there might be other factors limiting it rather than sheer kinematic ability, american’s aim7m’s are also rated for an 8g maneuvering target for example and on another extreme end the mistral is also rated for such targets afaik
edit: do you happen to have the original sources for that page on hand?