Double racks are a universal thing for all modern Russian flankers.
1 Like
Not really. R-37M finished development in 2018, PL-17 entered service 2022.
AIM-174 has been around for a while, it was only revealed recently
it isnt in service
the r37 was around for a while as well for example
What’re u talking about? It’s in service rn no?
Russia receiving a competitive top tier since the original Su-27 was always going to produce weapons grade butthurt from US mains who got too comfortable ignoring Russian Radars on their RWR.
4 Likes
That’s a good way to put it
It ain’t competitive, it’s literally superior to any nation can offer at the moment (talking about GRB)
That’s not really the Su-30 then, that’s just the Kh-38 being the most demented addition to the game since the Vikhr.
If we got the F/A-18E super hornet it can improve US CAS with 6 AGM-65E which are definetly better than 6 AGM-65Ds that suck.
I don’t really play ARB so i can’t comment, but the aircraft in GRB is totally fine but its armament is superior at this moment especially KH38.
1 Like
the aim174 not that i know
i only know about tests
EDIT:
best i could find is this news article right here
seems like it is in service?
but i think that the hornet isnt the best launch platform compared to the r-37m on the Su-35 or the Pl-17 on one of the chinese flankers
Isn’t AGM-65E the shitty laser guided one? I would rather have 6x 65F if possible.
1 Like
Well said. Kiilfeed mainly consists of Kh-38 kills these days. Sometimes acutally you’re indeed spotting a ground to ground kill…wow…it became a rarity in GRB.
1 Like
Last I recall the R-37M is usually taken into the skies on the MiG-31 Foxbat as part of it’s interceptor role- as for the AIM-174 on the Hornet… There’s not exactly another plane that would be able to carry 3-4 of them at a single time other than, maybe the modernized F-15’s but at that point you’re talking about moving a naval asset (AIM-174) to an airforce platform which, as far as I know, doesn’t usually go well in the US armed forces due to in-fighting between branches. That and the point is the Hornet can carry a decent few, and get up to decent altitude and airspeed after being launched off a carrier, and fire these missiles to let AWACS guide them into a target well past the Hornet’s radar range.
As for the testing- I believe there was some dated pictures of the tests taking place even back in 2022/23 but I don’t know those details off hand so take that more with a pinch of salt. The missile itself isn’t even really new per say, the SM-6 first fired in 2009 and the biggest change over when considering the AIM-174 varient is the booster being removed and the mounting hardware being changed a bit- I don’t even think the radar necessarily was changed being as both models would be an active seeker nose.
it can be carried by the Su-57, Su-35 and Su-30SM2 as well
The flankers (as far as i know) can carry up to 6 r-37M
Acceleration is a big problem on the Hornets and is even worse on the Super Hornet because it has a lower TWR compared to the legacy one, so even with the extra speed from the catapult takeoff the hornet with 4 Aim-174 (max number it can carry, i think) would probably lose in time to climb and time to speed against the Su-35 with 4 R-37m
same applies to the R-37M
I think the seeker was changed so the Aim-174 has an easier time tracking smaller air targets
Biggest thing I’m seeing when it comes to the R-37M is the CLAIM of upwards of 400km of range but, a minimum listed (at least as far as a quick wiki search) gives 150km. Minimum range listed for the SM-6 when fired from a boat is given as 240km. The AIM-174 is listed as the same minimum range, however, being as the missile is having it’s main rocket lit at (optimally) 30-40k feet instead of around 20k, I’d imagine the range would be greatly increased due to the significantly lower air-drag. The missile is also only around 50% heavier but is a few inches thinner, though the supposed wingspan is larger- again, quick wiki numbers.
The top speed of the SM-6 is also still only listed at Mach 3.5 compared to the R-37’s listed Mach 6 but… I’m taking both numbers with a pinch of salt given Russian tendencies to overstate performance and the US typically understating them. For a missile base on the SM-6, I’m wagering the top speed is probably more akin to Mach 4-5 at minimum given the missile is just over 300kg heavier with a similarly sized warhead so, my guess is quite a bit more propellant than would otherwise be stated.
I’m fairly sure the AIM-174 can also be guided in via datalink from stealth aircraft as well given how the US is datalinking kit and already had proven the ability to fire Patriot from an F-35 track back in the 2010’s (I’ll have to dig for the video, it’s referenced by the person who fired the missile but it’s one line in an hour long podcast-)
Given Hornets are carrier based aircraft, I’m not entirely surprised if they’re going lose out for things like that from a ground based aircraft that does not have the extra reinforcement for CATO operations and landing, or have to max out range and endurance due to the nature of carrier-based doctrine in the US, or the need for compact/folding nature for ease of storage. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Army is trying to get a few AIM-174’s for the F-15EX program figured out but they could just as well stick to their new AIM-260 in development and keep the branches separated, I’m not sure.
By the looks of the hardpoints, if the flanker is taking 6x R-37M’s, I’m going to guess it won’t be able to mount practically anything else, where in the Hornet can at least have 4x AIM-174’s, 2xAIM-9X, and potentially up to 3/4 AMRAAMS all in one sortie
looked at the source wikipedia used for the range and is this:
it isnt even about the R-37M but the base model (source being from 2009)
would make sense if you have ideal launch conditions
For Mig-31:
- Mach 3 at 30km ( ~ 100,000ft)
Here 400km range seem realistic with the missile being able to climb up to 40 or 50km alt, where
there is basically nor air resistance
For Su-35:
- Mach 2.5 at 20km ( ~ 65,000ft)
Here i would estimate a max range of around 250km, with the missile not being able to climb as high,
at these lower altitudes it naturally wouldnt reach mach 6.
the 250 km somewhat line up with the longest Air-to-Air kill which was achieved by a Su-35 with a r-37m at 217km (about 140 miles).
the r-37m would be mounted on the 2 centerline pylons, below the air-intake and on the inner wing pylon,
it is still able to carry 4 missiles (with jamming pods) or 6 missiles (with out jamming pods)
AL-41F-1S engine, N-035 Irbis-E radar, MRAAM R-77-1 and long-range Air-to-Air Missile R-37M from Su-35S
Su-27SM3 & Su-30M2 retain R-77 ?
Maybe Su-30SM2 with engine, radar and Air-to-Air armaments as Su-35S
10 R-77-1s
1 Like
even then ppl would cry about it
i didnt knew it gets the irbis
tbh 174 is just an ERAM used for air as a bit of desperate measure since JATM was so delayed. Could have argued that this was a 2013 missile.
1 Like
Same, laser guided ones are pretty poor, just like no one brings even the KH38ML. 6 mavericks isn’t like great at this point cause of things like KH29TE/TDs flying around, also AASMs. I would really not want OP missiles in game if possible, and I would insist on deletion of KH38MT before spaa upgrade rather than giving everyone OP CAS, cause similarly, not every nation has same ability to get CAS.
1 Like