RU is biased because they have pretty poor ARHs, hence they need to go up in BR.
One of the best takes in 2025 so far.
3 Likes
Su30 can get r77-1 but hornet cant get aim120c
If thats not bias then what is
1 Like
Well which Aim-120C are you referring to? Theres quite a few variants with dramatic performance increases between variants. Keep in mind the R-77-1 is on par with the Aim-120A/B ingame right now, despite the fact those are underperforming. It’s quite a proper and balanced choice really.
su33 doesn’t have fox3s
1 Like
Not rly r77-1 has the long range prformance of 120 with being the second best fox 3 for short range
The only fox 3 to have both good short and long range performance
And for 120c lets say the first variant for now
Yet the flight model the missile is on is still pretty mid for BVR. The Aim-120A/B on NATO aircraft still outrange the R-77-1 quite easily and even have better platforms, but yes it’s slightly worse at close range and they have less missiles. It’s more of a tradeoff than an imbalance as I see. If the Su-30SM had something like the Su-27SM engines, I might see it a bit more as a threat,.
That would be the Aim-120C-2, with only an improved seekerhead. The Aim-120C-3 is the same but with clipped find and less drag, the Aim-120C-4 is same as C-3 but has a better warhead, and the Aim-120C-5 is same as C-4 but has a much better motor and much further range. Goes on beyond that too.
1 Like
AIM-120C (mostly C-5 or C-7):
Increased launch range (realistically up to ~30–35 km).
Improved resistance to jamming.
Faster transition to active radar homing.
More reliable behavior when maneuvering against targets.
AIM-120D (if added later):**
Significantly better range and active radar homing.
Almost instantaneous response to target position updates via two-way data link.
Extremely high resistance to EPR decoys (flares) and jamming.
1 Like
Su30 is much better then f18c
U confused me here ngl i didnt knew there is so many versions
I think the c5 which is in the files will do the work
And ofc on the f18
We dont want f15e or typhoon with c5
Agreed, wish the F/A-18C was at 13.7 really (or the F-18C at least), or we get some decompression.
Yeah lol, I’m always confused myself when someday says just add the Aim-120C. I guess you could say in a similar fashion to mentions of the Aim-9M (which gaijin has yet to differentiate and label correctly), as some of these go up to really late variants with the 9X seekerhead and 35Gs of pull.
3 Likes
Some simply won’t stop until every aircraft carries AIM-260, AIM-95 and AIM-9X block III.
I really hope we reach some kind of asymmetric balance soon and that the balance sticks.
I don’t want a game where F-22A and F-35A of 2024 specifications are flawless planes with no weakness that isn’t over compensated by overwhelming advantage, but I feel great consternation that this is the future of Air RB/sim/jetstrike/duels.
Current indications are that ‘redfor’ nations will not receive planes with superior flight performance, rwr or radar anytime soon. They should at least have better missiles or something as an edge to create interesting asymmetrical dynamics.
Right now we have missile parity, but huge radar, flight performance, rwr and maws disadvantages for redfor vs blufor.
Rafale is still basically flawless and lacks basically any counter or check.
block 3 was cancelled
very old cancelled missile probably didn’t even have irccm
Why are the Su-7’s still at 9.3? They fight Mig-21’s and other vehicles with superior speed, agility, and weaponry
The bomb CCIP was removed, the bomb load is insufficient to destroy 1 base in ARB, and only has 160 ammo.
Because 9.3 is the lowest a supersonic aircraft can go. It just can’t have it’s BR changed until Gaijin decompresses 9.3.
Gaijin can you please lower the Tu-4 to 7.7 it already there in Realistic ground battles and Simulator mode but not in Air battles
Gaijin with what logic does the Tu-4 actually makes sense being in 8.0🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
1 Like
Is it just me or anyone else noticed that the Gripen engine sound is identical to the Hornet. A bit odd, given that the Gripen does neither have the same engine type, nor it has two of them.
they both use the GE F404, though the Gripen uses the Domestic License-produced version called the RM12
much like the P&W Cyclone and Shvetsov M-25
Or the RR Merlin and the V-1650 (“Packard Merlin”)
the real question is why the F-15 and F-16A have very different engine sounds despite both using the same model of the F100
Can someone explain to me how a 35mm AP shell hitting the bottom of a vehicle at a tangent from more than a kilometer away can blow up an M48??? What the ******* is this???
Moreover, in the tester you will not destroy the crew in any way and penetration is possible at angles of almost 180*, but in the game there is some kind of separate reality with some other laws of physics.
nice
LIterally every 35mm SPAA has this ability, I think it’s unfair, but why suddenly the outrage with this one.