I did, it probably flew right past you as you had someone question your claims. Instead of getting your emotions under control and forming a coherent answer to the question, you decided to have a meltdown over a simple thing which is quite funny to be honest.
I have enough decency to answer the questions in a legitimate way, not framing them as apologists in my first reply to them.
I hope for your own sake that you’ll eventually grow past that infantile behavior you’re presenting in this very thread.
The MIG 29 should have the R73, and its flight model should be comparable to the F16, as IRL it was very close in performance.
What we have instead is a flying brick, Russia gets the WORST Mig 29 in game (SMT), and the earlier version doesn’t even have the missiles its supposed to.
Buff the Mig 29, give the SU27SM the R77M, making it on par with the AMRAAM. Easy fix.
Sure, but similar to how various other things have been nerfed for the sake of “game balance” - Gaijin can just add the missile and copy paste the AMRAAMs stats in game. An AMRAAM with the skin of a R77M.
This is still a game, realistic accuracy for the sake of realism sucks, some nations are just out of luck if thats the case.
And thats no fun. We all want to have competitive flight models and missiles.
this is a game, designed to be balanced. For a game to be balanced if something is good at a thing it also has to be bad at another thing. You can’t just ignore the things it’s good at (4 more missiles than competition, low speed pull, best fox 1), point at the downsides, and then ask for a buff.
The real answer is probably because they’re near(or are) the cheapest to buy and maintain, get more control over them, not so many strings and there isn’t exactly many modern jets to choose from in the first place.
That said, I think garbage or whatever he called it is a bit hyperbolic. They’re just inferior, not garbage. It’s not as if they wouldn’t score kills in a hot war, they’d just be at a disadvantage depending on the engagement.
You didn’t, we all know where you stand because you live in these threads. Asking if he was gonna “latch on to r27er” was sarcasm and eye roll at best, it wasn’t genuine curiosity. It was baiting someone.
Really it’s just an opportunity for you to run in circles with chicken and egg arguments that are past beating a dead horse that happens in every one of these “discussions.”
Edit: seems my comment was redundant he said the same thing in response a few down.
The fact is, after the Cold War, it became obvious that F-18, and F-16C, were no match for a MiG-29, using low afterburner.
It slaughtered them in exercises, and unlike F-16C at the time had BVR.
Because it wasn’t a cheap coffin that started it’s life without even IFF.
I don’t even really understand what you’re trying to say to be honest.
How much does an f35 cost?
How much does an f-22 cost?(not that they’re for sale)
How much does an f-15 cost?
How much does a eurofighter cost?
How much does an f18 cost?
How much does a rafale cost?
How much does an f16 cost?
What does a mirage cost?
Now how much does a mig29 cost if that’s your example?
A faster plane, doesn’t mean better, it just means that. We we’re flying an sr71 years before the mig29. Clearly it’s no match, we didn’t need to the Cold War needing to figure that out. So I don’t really even see what it is you’re trying to say.
That it’s no match because in one aspect you picked it is better? All this said I’m not trying to get in some nationalistic d-measuring contest with you.
The USSR avation need buff then mayby you should suggest to replace the Mig-29SMT and SU-27SM by new planes Mig-35 and SU-30SM in USSR top avation tech tree and instead buff that make people crying about powerfull R77M missile.
I asked a genuine question, instead of getting a genuine response I was met with a personal attack that didn’t even try to form a coherent answer to my question.
Only after that happened, genuine discussion was over.
So once again, you not seeing this is quite concerning.