AIM-7M/H is what should have been added instead of AIM-7M as R27R1 is the equal to the AIM-7M
Personally. I think it’s the IOG just as much as it’s DL. You can defeat the radar, but it’s so fast that the IOG will probably still kill you
R27ERs broke the game about the same as when the AIM54A was added
if that was true you would have trouble avoiding the 7p, but that’s not true. the notch angles on sparrows are simply much higher than they are on the er/r. iog doesn’t do much unless you lose lock literally like 1 second before impact or if the target flies in a straight line
I do get killed by them more than aim-7M, but they are way easier to kinematically defeat
1 second in an R-27ER is still like 5+km?
7P it’s like 1km
My experience with in-game testing has been around 19.5 degrees per second. However getting correct trim setting to maintain perfect SEP 0 is basically impossible due to it also being a crossover point where the game wants to give you more AoA than necessary.
I think you are missing the point. I am saying that all countermeasures far exceed real life performance. Why should planes with the most countermeasures also have the most effective per pop of countermeasures? Do we really need to have BOL-Periodic made into an invincibility shield for everything?
The only plane on that list that suffers IMO is the Tornado…and that is because it’s a Tornado. You ever seen the planes EM diagram? There is a certain speed where just pulling harder doesn’t shrink radius or temporarily increase its abysmal turn rate…it just slows down quicker.
And maybe I am missing something about the Viggen.
Why should the tornado F3 or sea harrier FA2 or Viggen Di have massively nerfed CMs?
I don’t see the mig23 restricted to standard calibre CMs because that’s the standard size at that BR. I don’t see the F15s CMs being reduced in size because they have 240 or the A-10s being nerfed with their 480 CMs.
Why is it BOL and BOL only that is being artificially nerfed through the floor.
And? You are just proving my point even more.
It’s trading FM for defensive suite. It should have full strength BOL and maybe even a Phimat pod. (13.0 one should get both Phimat pods). It has neither.
And again, artificially nerfing an aircraft that is already underperforming quite a bit with it’s FM because another aircraft is “okay” with the artificial BOL nerfs is just a stupid argument. It’s like saying the F4s don’t need any SARH because the F16A does fine without them
It has BOL
Unless you consider 48 CMs on one of the weakest aircraft at 13.0, balanced
- name of the topic sounds countroversional already
- reads like it was written by 4 year old
- topic is only 4 hours old
- theres already over 200 responses
Not really. The US wanted out of the FoW MOU (the agreement to procure ASRAAM) largely due to political pressure within the pentagon to procure domestic weapons. When Germany pulled out of the MOU (on financial grounds) America then used that as an excuse to call for it to be cancelled entirely. There was then a whole bunch of politics over whether the MOU still stood or not (legally America couldn’t unilaterally cancel it) and in the end the pentagon essentially declared it was doing its own thing regardless.
The pentagon went on to start developing the AIM-9X, but then a bit later on congress told them that they had to at least evaluate the ASRAAM to see if it was a more cost effective option before they would get more funding for AIM-9X. So the US Navy ended up getting told to carry out an evaluation between the two (which seemed to be somewhat weighted in 9X’s favour - IIRC the US team were allowed to use simulations, while the UK team were forced to back up their simulations with live firings), after which they sent a note to Congress basically saying “we tried ASRAAM, we don’t like it, now give us the money you promised”.
So really the pentagon never wanted ASRAAM in the first place, they just got told they had to look at it if they wanted funding for AIM-9X.
Ironically when the US originally wanted out of the MOU in the late 80s they claimed it was because ASRAAM would enter service too late for their liking and it’s general performance would not be good enough for them. They then went on to develop the AIM-9X which:
- Entered service almost 2 years later than ASRAAM
- Has worse / equal performance in every aspect apart from minimum range.
That’s it guys add the F-22A (late) and all three F-35s. USA clearly suffers. Also Super Hornet with AIM-174b to be safe.
I guess grass is always greener on the other side. No surprise there is little green to be found here.
PL-5EII is an even faster magic 2
TBF to them, the ASRAAM did enter service fairly late relative to the initial project start (Me when the AAM-3 was originally intended as an ASRAAM alternative, but then the ASRAAM was stuck in development for another decade).
Am I missing something here? It says large caliber countermeasures.
What is the maximum number of large or standard caliber countermeasures carried in the game? How long does it take to drain all of them with periodic turned on?
It takes 1:47 for the Gripen to deplete BOL Flares if they are set to the shortest possible time in periodic. Gripen actually shoots out 8 per periodic instead of 4. Eurofighter will last 1:44 with half as many because it consumes slower. Same story for Tornado. Keep in mind that for BOL equipped planes I am only counting the BOL portion here and not the integral countermeasures.
Under the same parameters the Su-27SM will sump all of its countermeasures in 30 seconds. The F-2 will go through it’s countermeasures in 38 seconds. Presumably the F-15 would last double that and make it 1:16 seconds with its countermeasures.
So basically if we take Flames suggestion at face value and make BOL equivalent of large or medium caliber countermeasures then we basically double to triple the countermeasures endurance of that a lot of relatively strong planes have and could very well return to just spamming periodic countermeasures for the bulk of the match and turns planes like Eurofighter and Gripen into something that flipping a switch effectively makes immune to IR missiles.
Personally I think just returning the reinforced flare option or ability to deploy 4 BOL per button press would largely solve the issue.
Hello
If you believe a missile in game is underperforming, reports are always welcome with factual evidence to support the claims: Community Bug Reporting System
Sadly we cant do anything with claims alone.