This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
The R-77 isn’t terrible but I would like to see it get its drag reduced
2 Likes
That’s exactly what “The R-77 isn’t terrible” is. According to the characteristics of the R-77, it should at least not be inferior to the AIM-120
What I mean is, in practice even with its high drag, its still an effective missile. Also in game statistics are meaningless, they don’t show the important stats of the missile like drag, impulse, etc…
Yes, it’s true, so it would be nice to hold a vote just the same. I will also clarify that the P-77 is good in a head-on collision at close range, but the AIM-120 or AIM-54 can be launched long before the enemy detects it, which makes the P-77 worse in comparison than its NATO counterparts.
1 Like
That’s true the AMRAAM is a much more effective missile overall but the Flanker has options with missile selection like the R-27ER and R-27ET, both of which are very effective when used correctly and can out range even the AMRAAM.
I think so, and in practice it is, but there is one nuance for the R-27R and ER, they can only be launched one at a time, keeping the enemy in the radar capture, but the NATO analogues are up to 6-8, which is quite important when approaching at the beginning of the match.
(Again, if we compare with AIM-120 and 54)
If you manage your closure rate, it doesn’t matter if they send 3 missiles at you. Your R-27ER will hit them first (provided you manually loft it) and you’ll have time to evade.
2 Likes
This is logical, after all, mach 5.8, which is faster than the R-77. Here’s the question: Then why is the P-77 in the game?
If the P-77 fully justified itself in the game, then the P-27ER would not have to be used at 13.0 and higher
Because its an ARH missile so you can turn away and the missile will keep guiding itself. I use both the R-77 and R-27ER. R-27ER for long range targets and R-77 for closer range targets.
2 Likes
I understand perfectly well that you are right, but then one more question: Why was it necessary to add the P-77 and a whole new aircraft to them (which is not much different from the previous one) if the P-27ER are performing well?
The question is rhetorical, of course. I want to say that the developers, as always, wanted to do well, but it turned out as always
Because the R-27ER alone is not enough. R-77 compliments the R-27ER and they make a good pairing. The Su-27SM is not as good as its NATO counterparts but its a decent aircraft. It can do well in top tier but it could use some buffs like giving it a proper flight model and reducing drag on the R-77.
3 Likes
You forgot an everything is ok option.
2 Likes
I understand that my playing skills are quite low and all that, and the Su-27 is an excellent aircraft, so much so that it sends aerodynamics much further, but if you turn to analogues again, it turns out that the AIM-120 is not bad both at long and short range, and if you consider that its The opponents of the F-15 and F-16 are also good, then there lies the problem. they can carry a lot of AIM-120s and not worry about which missiles they need to use, so in the game they can act faster, but this is how my thoughts are already sooner.
Well, if everything was OK, then I wouldn’t have started the topic, but if you think about it, then not voting means that everything is normal. plus, I suggested an option with the providence of large-scale voting in the game.
If suddenly I wrote something wrong, then I’m sorry, I use a translator
If you ask us for our opinion you should give us a everything is ok option otherwise it’s not representative.
2 Likes
Well… SU-27 radar must be even worser
broke a lock with bank angle more or equals 90