It isn’t? It can hold 20dg/s sustained at low/medium speed and still be able to accelerate.
this was before the recent buff that corrected the thing
1 Like
Eh, with the current maneuverability changes to the Su-27SM the extra FOV isn’t needed.
Ah, didn’t notice that
Nothing.
The previous iteration of the flight model was not good…hence why you and basically everyone I’ve dueled Su-27 vs F-15 has lost by large margins.
4 Likes
Not really… The Su-35 preceded the Su-33 in development, being based upon the same airframe though with the obvious enhancements to the airframe such as wing geometry.
The MiG-35 would indeed be an upgrade, but I’d much rather take a MiG-29 9.31/9.41 over it.
Do you mean su27m?
Yes?
CAESAR SPG, Panzerhaubitze 2000, MLRS (US)
PAC 3 Patriot
IRIS-T SLM, NASAAMs and ASRAAM
ATACMS
GLSDB
STORM SHADOW/SCALP
GBU 39
SWITCHBLADE FPV
STRV-122B
CV-90
BARACUDA THERMAL REDUCTION NETTING
there are more but these are what comes to mind.
1 Like
In “most countries” good or even great military gear still gets delivered even if over-budget and past due date, and can be seen in service by the hundreds of thousands of units often in multiple countries.
Wow this forum is full of delirious NATO fanboys…
Please refrain from going massively off-topic and stop the discussion here. Simply point out what options Russia might have and call it a day. No need to involve politics and ongoing conflicts, since it is clearly against the rules.
3 Likes
Good to see that you admit that you cant find a “Near peer” PACT aircraft that has been used against a near peer since Vietnam.
Last I checked the Syrian Air Force does not exist, the Gulf War and the GWOT was won by NATO, and Israel still exists.
Seems like those Mig-29 kills occurred, because since the nations and groups that fielded them don’t exist anymore.
Maybe they should not have installed grid fins on a missile.
I see no issue with adding such, as long as the missiles present are the same as they currently are Russia will get another Sukhoi that does the exact same things as they normally do, but can now be more of a low speed UFO, like the SU-33 which can currently break physics and handle like a RC plane.
1 Like
All seem pretty right except for GBU-39, that’s old gen glide bomb
Correct one most of F-15 kills are from IDF.
Same thing with China. But China at least has more options of stuff to fake
several decades behind NATO IRL
Source: trust me bro
China is NOT decades behind NATO, I have no clue how you’ve came to this conclusion? Are we going to forget about aircraft like the J-10CE which beat the Eurofighter 7:0 in a mock up engagement both WVR and BVR.
Or how the US is upgrading their E/A-18G Growlers as China has figured a way to bypass their current jamming equipment?
Russia isn’t behind technologically, they just can’t mass produce modern vehicles and China for sure isn’t decades behind as well.
5 Likes
How is talking about the advancement of nations technologically and especially in aviation not relevant to War Thunder?
Yeah bro, War Thunder isn’t a game about vehicles but rifles and helmets!
Relavent? Yeah, you could call it that. Unfortunately, any proper argument about said aircrafts capabilities is going to simply degrade into needless arguments about whether russia is a corrupt country with an obselete military or not.
I’ve made my position on 'em clear anyways, and it benefits y’all, since I am fine with them being added with capabilities matching NATO aircraft’s.
(Simply due to obvious balance concerns)
In our game, Russia gets the most modern weapons, and the United States flies planes from the 1980s. And so it is in everything. Russia essentially has nothing to introduce other than its parade aircraft like the Su-57 and Su-75! And the United States still has F-18, F/A-18 F-15EX, F-22, F-35, and many modern modifications of the F-16 ahead. I’m not even talking about the weapons that the gaijin kindly does not provide in the name of balance.
2 Likes