Yep, but he was saying the F-15C was from 2007 because it has HMD (Despite that being the only 2007 upgrade)
77-1 would be equal to the C5, which would be a perfect place for this game to be at when more late '90s to early '00s aircraft are added.
Hell… Even my unit is still struggling to escape C5 purgatory with our funding. Many new aircraft can be added (F-16 block 52 when??) while keeping pretty modest weaponry in store, while others like the F-16ES-60/62 can come in with FAR more modern systems, especially its APG-80. You can also go with the 4++ route of the 83 on prior 50/52+ or 40/42++ models.
There simply isn’t a reason to look ahead to C-7s, though… So I see 77-1s as a pretty modest comparison.
As for the AIM-9X comparison, the 9X-II would be a 74M2 '760 equivalent. 74M2 came out in 2012-2016 to my recollection, but if you want an earlier missile the 74M-1 would be an earlier equivalent to the R-74M2 that would be a far better AIM-9X base model contender.
The original R-74M was back in '97, with the R-74M-1 receiving nothing more than a seeker upgrade in '01, making it a perfect equal to the 9X in both date and capability… The 74M2 that could come out with the 9X-II was mid '10s, I forgot if it was 2012 or 2016 though. Either way, both dates and capability would place it close / equal in terms of balance.
As for the aircraft carrying… That’s a WIDE spectrum. Where would you want to start?
and yet they want it to be an equal to Aim-120A/B
Russia’s best CAS missile does, in-fact, reach 30-40KM.
True, a large majority of F-15Cs would have had their AESAs at this point.
This is why I’m saying the 27SM and F-15 are decently capable together. Regardless of date, they’re equals.
If you want a true equal to an F-15C with its 63v3 you can look to the Su-27SM3, which WAS in 2007. You’d get more 2 more R-77s bringing up total missile count to 14, the possibility of better IR missiles for balance instead of using the 27SM for that, especially as it’s an an arguable analogue to the Su-35S.
Who?
Pretty muc hevery soviet main complaining abotu R-77 not being able to compete vs Aim-120A
3 Likes
Source?
1 Like
Isn’t the missile that came out in '97 the R-73M, the one that has similar IRCCM to python 4 (both FOV and tracking suspension combined)?
After the mid summer patch R-77 can definitely compete. At high altitude it can go pretty far, the main reason it performs worse than AiM-120s is because either radar or flight performance (firing a missile at barely mach 1 gives it far worse range than mach 1.5) in current soviet top tier are doo-doo.
There’s also the whole non linear drag thing (R-77 fins should have quite a bit less drag at high speed but more at very low speeds compared to game), but R-77 for the most part is fine.
SM3 has 2 extra pylons
2 Likes
I wouldn’t mind the R-77 in the competition pool if it didn’t have 60% higher drag than the AIM-120. That, and the best I can hope for is a physics redo to adjust FMs exploiting post-stall characteristics.
Blended body aircraft are so unbelievably overcompensated in FM, while the only artificial nerf they receive is obscene drag.
Fix that as a baseline xD
The Su-27SM[2/3] have their inboard wing pylons, unlike the current Su-27SM that lacks them.
The same holds true for the Su-30M and Su-33, where they can carry extra munitions on that inboard pylon. They would simply have 12 missiles, though, as they never carried R-77s and lacked the double hardpoints between nacelles.
If you’re legitimately asking for a source, though…
Here’s Su-27SM3 59 Red of the 6972nd.
You can quite clearly see the 3rd pylon underwing.
Here’s Su-27SM 04 Red of the 760th.
Starting to see it?
2 Likes
None of that I would mind, though if that was all fixed, Su-27SM becomes a very scary aircraft with its 12x AAMs and I really hope we get something even slightly equal sooner rather than later.
2 Likes
The 73M only has increased FOV, using the MK-80M seeker instead of the dual band MK-2000 on the 74M.
74M-1 was given the MM-2000 seeker, which then included further IRCCM capability with an FPA seeker.
What happened there? I was gone for a little bit and missed a bit.
Radar is now good, seeing as the Su-27 and MiG-29SMT have 20km ACM range. If you mean the ARH’s radar, I believe they’re modelled the same.
I’ve found the high drag of the R-77 insufferable, personally.
That’s what the F-18 would excel at. It matches the Su-27 in armament while giving a LOT more room for upgrades.
The Su-27SM2 or SM3 would be a perfect match for SOME variation of the 18C imo. Things like the Su-35S can be reserved for the F-15E or other 4++ aircraft.
In thinking about this, I am worrying about the Su-30… The Su-30M would be perfectly fine, as it’s nothing more interesting than an Su-33 would be.
The Su-30SM, though… Just like an Su-35S, it would be quite possibly one of the most maneuverable aircraft in existence. Things like the Typhoon and F/A-18E can compete in a way, but at any marginally slow speeds TVC on heavily uprated engines would be a MAJOR advantage over it.
Makes me wonder what possibilities there are for TVC demonstrators or aerodynamic testbeds.
Well, there was a proposed TVC Typhoon. But I guess the main counter for a Typhoon vs that is that the Germany and Italian Typhoons would be slinging IRIS-T and the British ones would be sitting at longer ranges firing ASRAAM.
1 Like
Are you sure about that? Long time since I’ve read about this stuff but I’m pretty sure R-73M has also got tracking suspension irccm.
Drag on R-77 lowered, better fin AoA management, better loft curve-
Su-27SM TWS sucks, it updates targets every 7 seconds if you are lucky. Most of the time it misses one update and cycle takes 14 seconds, leading to very inefficient missile trajectory (sometimes the missile is so far off that it misses the target when going pitbull) unless enemy goes straight.
MiG-29SMT radar is good but FM is horrible (especially at high altitude).
20km HMD radar was an extremely welcome upgrade thought.
It is more draggy than the AiM-120 but now it also has higher maximum top speed. Whitin relevant ranges for BVR (70km missile shots never hit if you know what you are doing) R-77 would be competitive if fired at similar speeds at which amraams are fired. For example at high altitude (10k meters) and mach 1.2 R-77s have no issue hitting targets whiten 40km, and whitin 30km they should be treated equally as amraams.
2 Likes
If you read it from Jane’s missiles and rockets, it’s wrong. Technically the 73M designation is wrong too, as the 73M was never a production name. I prefer it as the RMD-2 designation is usually understood only in context of the RMD-1.
The R-73M only received MK-80M over the original MK-80.
Ah, I see. Cool!
Yeah, I typically only wait for 2-3 updates then give a hard lock once the missile goes terminal. If any evasive action is taken and the missile eats some chaff, it typically gets steered in the right direction.
I haven’t seen any issues with it, especially when compared to the Su-27. It’s faster with FAR less drag.
I’ve found that, but on multiple launches from 25-35km an AIM-120 can still outperform even while I’m taking evasive action.
2 Likes
At low altitude it’s faster, but at high altitude if it’s faster it can’t reach the faster speed because of how slow accelerating it is. In general at high indicated airspeeds (1000km +) the insane thrust the Rd33s make can compensate for the shitty airframe of the SMT (MiG-29As are rockets above 1000kph), but at lower airspeeds Rd33 thrust is much lower (the Rd33 has one of if not the highest difference in top speed vs low speed thrust in game). Also, even if one gets to high speed in the SMT, any major turn will make it go sub mach 1 very quickly
1 Like
Yeah there’s a chance I’ve read it from there.
If R-74M already existed in '97 what kind of irccm did it have?