A citation for this claim, if you please.
1 Like
“They look similar.”
Gaijin Devs employing the Stinger Missile Logic. Probably
1 Like
You don’t need a citation for this, just look at them adding the R-27ER, but not adding the AIM-7MH or P for what, more than a year? Even when the MH/P are still massively worse than R-27ER
2 Likes
We don’t have AIM-7MH or AIM-7P
Conversely the R-27ER is not equipped on any planes with a lower BR than 12.0.
Neither is the R-27R which is definitely worse than an AIM-7F in many ways.
AIM-7F can be found at 11.3.
I wouldn’t even complain about the removal of R-27ER, just that some planes would have to go down or have their loadouts re-jumbled since R-27R is really not great.
I refer you above.
I’m not really an expert on the matter of how radar missiles work, their development histories or whatever.
All I can say from my gameplay experience with R-27ER, R-27R, R-24R, AIM-7E, AIM-7F and Skyflash (Dogfight).
All these missiles seem really heavily radar dependent.
AN/APQ-120 and AN/APG-59 are dreadful, Sapphire-23ML/TP-23M is also bad and N001, N010, N019/OEPS-29 and N010M seem tolerable.
Probably also a skill issue since I’m not really a good player or very well versed in how to use the radars properly ingame.
Simply seems to me that all these missiles nuke anyone they hit if you can give them a solid lock.
Back on topic, probably ARH missiles will be braindead easy for even a player like me to rack up kills and I don’t have a huge idea about how I’m meant to defeat them besides ground clutter.
1 Like
R-77 won’t be stronger.
And I see Crazed Otter is accusing NATO fans of being flagging trolls again.
1 Like
To answer the thread question: No problem. AIM-120A is pretty much inferior to all other Fox-3s… on par with R-27ER.
Gaijin was simply waiting to add fox-3s until every nation could receive them at once based on their replies.
5 Likes
They should have just added it with the R27-ER then, I mean just because it’s called a Fox-3 doesn’t mean anything.
That would likely have unraveled a whole different can of spaghetti.
1 Like
R-27ER is inferior to all AARHs.
2 Likes
Seeker wise but not kinetics wise
I’d rather have a good seeker than a mach 5.8 missile, which BTW can’t pull as much as a 30G missile that “only” goes mach 4.
we will see if the ARH is better then the speed when it comes
ahhh, the missile that never left drawing boards. Wonderful
1 Like
Wouldn’t it just be better to add in the AIM7P to the F-16 and F-15 series then instead of opening that can of Fox-3 spaghetti? Baby steps rather than throwing a grenade.
Hell, give it to the tornado. God knows that thing needs help.
1 Like
The principle reason is that as cracked as you think R-27ER is, any given plane can only kill 1 plane at a time using such a missile. Even the worst ARH is massively superior in that respect.
I can’t wait to see how top tier air will devolve when each plane can sling missiles at 4+ different targets willy-nilly as soon as they enter guarunteed hit range.
We may find ourselves begging to go back before ARH.
1 Like
None of the mentioned aircraft could carry the AIM-7P in any shape or form.
You mean the AIM-54? It’s essentially limited to one engagement at a time regardless right now. Let’s not forget the R-27ER when launched from 60km would be smoking AMRAAM launchers 20+ seconds before the AIM-120 hits target… and from outside active guidance range. That means that a MiG-29SMT can launch an R-27ER… notch at nearly 90 degrees… and stay perfectly safe from any AMRAAM while guiding his R-27ER at the highest / fastest closing target…
And if he wants to do so stealthily, he can. He can shoot it into space to loft it… drop the lock… re-lock at a certain period of time after launch and the missile will find his way home with little warning. Go ahead, launch 6 amraams… won’t matter if you can’t even track the guy who is almost fully notching you from the start with an 'ER on the way already much sooner than you’re even able to launch your own.
5 Likes
Yes, I know that they never carried. The F-16C didn’t even carry the AIM-7 since it was immediately equipped with AIM-120s.
But there’s precedence with Gaijin adding missiles to planes because they “theoretically could”.
In this case, they could not. The AIM-7P was designed for use on the F-14D and F/A-18. They require specific HPRF-only modes and in the case of the AIM-7P block 2’s datalink it is required to use the F/A-18’s radar for mid-course updates.
“In theory” the other aircraft could use them. They simply wouldn’t have any benefits over the AIM-7M in those use-cases because the other features are practically locked behind the wall that is the Naval aircraft’s radars.
1 Like
German Mig-29s got R-27ER they couldn’t fire, because they never had them and therefore could not update the radar to fire them, but they get them for balance purposes.
AIM-7P should be given to all (US) top tier planes.
3 Likes