the russian mercs seemed to have a bit more skill in that situation, I even read about them coming out on top in a 2v4 where they still managed to shoot down a mig 29, but like you said too, they used a bit more strategy to make it all work out and sadly I cant read other languages where there’s more data on this, but it’s probably safe to assume the migs got caught in an ambush anyways
what I meant is that the concept of the missile wasnt actually that bad, the idea was to deliver a lot of performance and be a relatively smarter missile, bringing that revolutionary vibe, but then the project got too advanced for the reality of the country that made it and for the people who operated it, thats why I brought up some of the challenges the ground crews faced to keep it running… in the end we see this kind of disaster, and thats something thats happened and still happens with a lot of weapons that look excellent on paper but end up giving us terrible results in practice
No clue. But the devs should have access to an R-27 book by the Moscow Aviation Institute (it is only available in a few libraries in Russia, no online copy).
@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)
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 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
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.
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
