MiG-31 mentioned let’s go
If it ever gets added, it will probably be like a slow accelerating f-104 with decent radar missiles for whichever BR it gets, maybe around 11.0.
It will act like an IRIAF F-14 missile spammer for low-tier.
MiG 31 and MiG25 are not the same aircraft
they’re not even related except that they’re made for the same role
the MiG 31 could maybe have a place in Warthunder but the MiG 25 absolutely not, aside from maybe being an Event plane because it’s a very Inagile interceptor that’s only armed with 4(!) heavy 1960s Missiles
The PD could well be ingame if maps were expanded or it only played in the 100km airfield separation maps. R40s have a bit less range than sparrow F and higher than the E. Though the R40 is a bit fat missile with a 4-6.7s burn time. Delta V ranges from 540m/s to 720m/s.
You can also fire from longer ranges than what it would probably fight. A problem would be defending while still keeping guidance, you probably fire and put the missile at radar gimbal for a larger Fpole. On the mig 25 it wouldn’t be feasable. Unlike phantom’s and other planes that have the CW illuminator fixed with the antenna(or simple they home on the radar signal itself), the CW(horn antenna?)illiminator is fixed to the plane and it has a 20° beamwidth, so ±10° is roughly the max you can offset.
You also dont get rwr…unless you are iraqi
I imagine R-40R/RD would be pretty similar to the Sedjil Missile on the F-14IRAF in performance
it would not be a good missile most of the time
even if you take the IR version and the APU-60-2 Twin R-60 mounts too it’d be a mediocre plane
Oh no. Sedjill has much more range. It’s closer to between an F and E sparrow. R27R?
1 Like
Shouldn’t it have more range than the R-24R?
no, it may be a gigantic missile, it is infact the largest AAM to ever see service but the 1960s technology and the 100kg warhead onboard Significantly limit it’s range to the point where R-23/4/7 Rival (replace) it’s position as Air Interception missile
Then what was the point of developing and using R-40D when they could just use R-24?
there was no R-24 yet when R-40 was made
besides that, the planned Target for R-40 were B-70 Valkyries
this is why it has a 100kg warhead and also why the Interception procedure was to fire one R-40T and then one R-40R after it to ensure at least one Lethal hit
I am talking about R-40D (R-40RD/TD). It was developed ± in same time like R-24. Ruslet state that maximum range of R-40D was doubled compared to R-40 to 60km (for comparison R-24 have 50km).
Fire one thermal and one radar was standard practise also with R-23/24 to increase probability of hit.
It does, the problem is the chart has the nuance that you’re shooting up 1-2 kilometers each time instead of a regular DLZ, and Moran isn’t mentioning it to knock it down.
You can try this in the game with an AIM-7E (with obvious results)
In reality it probably outranges the AIM-7F, seeing as (from very low launch speeds) it climbed 1 kilometer and consistently blows away a target ~3.2 km rear aspect.
Unlike American charts, it’s not ballistic either, it’s got stuff like +200 m/s for fuse on target.
interesting
What 100 kg warhead? It had 38 kg, 52 kg, or 55 kg. It’s delta V is probably over 720 m/s.
It has higher impulse to weight than an R-24, which we know has more thrust than AIM-7F.
1 Like
Okay give me all world war two vehicles and inter war vehicles before adding any more cold war jets. I actually want this but it’s never going to happen, just showing you how flawed your argument is. But to answer your question, if gaijin can be bothered getting a model for it, then it will be added then.
80kg for version D1 I think.
I find it funny that so many people are so afraid of addition of MiG-25 type of aircraft, that they are so strongly opposed to the idea.
Probably the same people that are scared that their favourite jet will get eaten up by MiG-25 pilots.
I think some people forgot about the differences in aerodynamic principles between bodies moving in dense air at lower altitudes and sparse air that is characteristic for high altitudes.
Bottom line is, R-40 missile can maneuver effectively at lower altitude (although at the expense of range, due to higher drag) and especially at higher altitudes (thanks to it’s huge stabilisers and control surfaces)
This is not the case for R-24 missile, which while effective at lower altitudes, losses maneuverability at high altitudes due to reduced effect of it’s control surfaces.
5 Likes
make it accelerate slower too.
Because they needed it. the engine issues were NEVER fixed, and even the mig31 whilst it has better engines, theyre still absolutely terrible.
harrier had outrageously strong engines for the purpose for a reason(worse in war thunder.) f15a was a short run to say the least. me 262 was essentially a prototype pushed into service