Bro! lol I didnt see this. Get it!
Since the R-27ER greatly outperforms the R-27R in situations where any maneuvering is happening then it should be like that in game too. Again, it should be recognized that in combat situations where the missile has to maneuver, the R-27ER will accelerate way more stronger compared to R-27R than what is shown in the charts.
If the straight line acceleration is somehow highly unrealistic you can make a bug report about it. Attach some sources and results of your testing and you’re good.
You still have not showed why there is a disproportionate amount of performance in both missiles in WT.
You are arguing over two missiles performances you do not have in a video game with a graph from an entirely different video game.
Lets take a break. Get the missiles and we can discuss in appropriate, topic, yes?
Why would a heavier & “much” faster accelerating missile outperform a lighter & slower one in maneuvering??
You understand this is completely contrary to physics correct?
You understand why the R73 is slower than other missiles off the rail yes? You understand why aircraft can turn better going 500km as opposed to 1000km right?
If the R27ER accelerates MUCH faster as you say according to DCS over the R27R, even being much heavier with the same control surfaces.
Why would you declare that it be more maneuverable?
If the difference between performance exists in real life then that is why it exists in game.
Higher thrust to weight ratio, being able to sustain higher speeds for maneuvering at low altitudes
Maneuvering burns energy. Higher thrust to weight ratio means you keep more energy while maneuvering. You need energy to maneuver.
I think the minimum distances for engaging targets was translated from the su-27sk flight manual which proves that the R-27ER and R-27R have practically same turn performance right off the rail despite R-27R being lighter.
]
Your logic is missing physics.
Acceleration and gained kinetic energy have nothing to do with thrust to weight. An accelerating object gains energy. You know what momentum is correct? Thrust to weight is a non issue. We are talking about missiles whose output is many time it’s weight. The faster an object travels the more energy is required to changes its direction.
When you drive a car, accelerating at 100mph does it turn better if you slow down or continue to accelerate?
Does an accelerating car at 100mph turn better than a car traveling at a solid 50mph?
A large transport truck accelerating at a 100mph. Why can’t it turn unless it slows down?
1 Like
Wanna know why this does not apply to missiles?
Because Missiles turn worse at Mach 1 than at mach 2.
You need to accelerate faster to turn stronger until you reach your G limit.
Cars will always turn better at lower speeds unlike missiles. Missiles are launched from mach 1.
And R-27ER is able to output more energy than the R-27R compared to weight.
Because we live in a world where physics exist all around us. It’s present in your daily life as well as supersonic missiles.
We’ve shown they were wrong about AMRAAM, AIM-54, and R-27 series. The only thing they are mostly correct about is the drag on the AIM-120C-5 and they found sufficient data to correct their performance of that missile after they had already added it to their game some time ago… not sure if it was corrected or not based on the new data but they are VERY slow to correct things in comparison to War Thunder.
Gaijin’s data for the R-27R/ER is based on primary information the DCS devs do not have access to, I’ve not looked at the DCS data but based on the past experiences I don’t think they should even be mentioned or as a footnote of any kind when discussing real world performance vs war thunder. This isn’t even relevant to this topic and I’m not sure why it was brought up.
Once again certain users are derailing a topic with nonsense (and if I were to guess, no sources)…
1 Like
Cars use tires to change their direction, missiles use control surfaces.
Control surfaces work best between their optimal speeds instead of always working better at lower speeds. Car tires always work better at lower speeds.
Your analogy is false.
How so? The most maneuverable state of the r73 is not Mach 2. It’s capped at Mach 2.5 for a reason. It’s less maneuverable any further.
The joys of turning radius vs lateral acceleration.
1 Like
That’s almost as bad as saying SARH missiles don’t have a “seeker” and then deleting the comment later.
Additional sources have been used other than dcs (if you actually read).
I will reply to any arguments that are flawed, overall our first points of talk were about the phoenix.
1 Like
Are you trying to deny the fact that missiles can’t reach their max G thresholds at low speeds?
I deleted it because I, as well as the entirety of the community are aware that you do not really know much about anything.
I was trying not to be mean.
Yes semi active missiles do not “seek” or look for signals.
Radio/microwaves are transmitted by transmitters and received by radio receivers. Or for a word you can understand “antenna”.
Radar frequencies sent by a transmitter and received by receivers. The Aim7 is not equipped to send out a signal to seek for a target.
It is armed with only a signal receiver. If the the semi active missile receives no signal, or it is disrupted, It does not guide. Simple as that.
LMFAO!!!
This is a common misconception for people who do not understand radiolocation and only pop culture.
I see that certain users are typing away whom I have blocked and have had a history of derailing these threads. I’d ask for the sources but there already exists a thread for the R-27 that would be far more appropriate in which I have shared most (if not all) available sources on the topic anyhow.
We should circle back to the Phoenix, then. It is okay to compare missiles… but the discussion should not gear itself towards other points of the discussion or continue feeding trolls unless you want to learn the same lesson I did and put 500+ comments not relevant to the thread here arguing with someone who cares nothing for the argument itself.
The person who made the wheel vs fin analogy makes incredulous claims all the time. Such as SARH missiles have no ‘seeker’. (A seeker is anything to looks for a signal… not just something that can produce its’ own signal)…
They often delete these comments later or edit them. This is what I was referring to. I’m on the same page as you regarding the argument I’d just like to push it back on course.
1 Like
It does not “look around” for a signal. It’s an antenna that literally sits there. Once it’s stuck by a specific radio signal it guides to it.
LMFAO.
A seeker is actively looking for something independently. The sparrow can do nothing independently without some midcourse update and definitely needs a signal from the launch aircraft for terminal guidance.
The issue with SARHs is not because their “seeker” (antenna) is limited on receiving a signal lmfao as said below.
It’s because the signal path that travels from the launching aircraft to the target and then off to the missile is easily disrupted.
That is why they are phased out in favor of active radar missiles who have the ability to produce their own radio/microwave signals and bounce back directly to them and cut out the range and duration these signals must stay secure.
Anyway bro, I am not trying to discount you or anything. Get the R27 and let me know your thoughts, ok?
Thank you for reminding me the Aim54 is a lot heavier that the ER, I give credit where credit is due.
My mistake, I did not read this carefully! lol.
Don’t know what I read at first.