AIM-120 Vs R-77 | These Are Weird Results. (Dev Server) 

Lmao thanks man

TWS HDN aswell

If they are approaching headon that is, the problem with HDN is that when tracking it looses lock to notching much easier.

95km hdn, 89km all aspect for the F15A

​@@haxmalper3633In the f15 at least regardless of Pd hdn it will still lock in traditional Pd

Strongly depends on the radar

Ikr. Completely pointless, and incredibly smooth brain of him

You're expecting too much out of top BR players in WT. Everyone knows that the real pros play BR 3 to 8

They’re testing it lol

@@sztypettto No shit these guys really be on something. It’s actually quite crazy how often I get long range BVR kills with the R-Darter, MICA-EM, and AIM-120 Fox-3 missiles. They don’t respect the MAR at all.

@@SovietUnion_ You never know...

@@SovietUnion_ really depends, i would also run 2 27ERs along with the 77s

The R-27ER is only gonna be better past 30km where it’s range, energy, and speed advantages can be used. Even then it’s not gonna be all that much better. You still have to hold lock, and it will makes someone’s RWR and MAWS sound off. I can fire from TWS with any of the Fox-3s and be able to go cold and let the missile do its thing.

Wouldn't be surprised if they finally nerf the r27er to have people use the r77 as it's acceleration is over performing

@@SovietUnion_I rarely ever thought to myself « damn if only the 27ER pulled harder », it had enough pull as is, anything else is just bleeding more energy and cutting into the range. same reason the 27R has less range than the 24R. Pulling harder is not always better, especially after a certain point

The radar on the MiG-29SMT is a N010M Zhuk-M. This radar only had a scanning azimuth of +/- 85 degrees. I assume they were basing the scanning angle off of the first Zhuk, N010 model, which was never actually used on other than testing. The N010 model did have a +/- 90 degree azimuth sweep and all I can assume is someone went based on the first “research” model

@@TheConnorM I'm not arguing that this may be a more correct mode of radar operation, but let's then bring the rest of the airplane's performance (and not just the SMT, but the rest of the MiGs as well) to more realistic figures. MiGs still lack 3 degrees of AoA, for example.

@@Scorchluck I follow you on that, I have a sneaky suspicion that gijn purposefully doesn’t get aircraft correct until A. someone in the community brings light and it is acknowledged or B. so they can later down the road say they are “balancing” vehicles because they like to waste time and resources

@@TheConnorM The Russian-language forum has been flooded with bug reports regarding FM of MiG-29 and Su-27 for a months now - zero response. I don't want to be like the F-4S bombers from reddit, aka “conspiracy theorists”,but I have the impression that after the FM rebalance of F-16 and MiG-29 9-13, someone in the Snail's office declared a crusade against Soviet tops.

That british Mig-21 at 12.0 when it gets uptiered to AMRAAM carrying missile buses💀

F-4 remained in serviced until 2013... so it's realistic: Cope

@@agustinf1372 north korea still has the Mig-15 in service, does that mean that there needs to be a Mig-15 at the same BR as the F-22? Edit: what the actual hell is wrong with this community 💀

​@@borbduckyes.

​@@borbduckit would be realistic, the usas sair force is much kore advanced than North Koreas

That’s literally what my thoughts were and what I expected. Energy wise they’re actually real close to what the AIM-7 MH/Ps would have been. 25km and under for any modern Fox-3, and 30km and over for the R-27ER and the AIM-54s. That would be the way to do BVR.

@@gtmike916 if you get high enough the AMRAAMs are fine for BVR

Yes and no, if you somehow manage to have pets say 10k-15k altitude advantage on your target launching one or two may still kill but low probability. Personally the point of these missiles is to force my opponent defensive wasting countermeasures and I keep my altitude and speed and once I’m close enough clean them up with a sparrow or sidewinder

That isnt necessarily right I think, even with a low PK a BVR launch will force the opponent to go defensive, which means they cant just fly straight as you say. This is more important than you think, as these BVR fights are basically a balance of who can go cold and who can commit to fire more often and in more advantageous positions etc.

@@morimoriman4731 not in warthunder lol. Multipathing exists.... and i wont explain other reasons why what you stated doesnt work in WT.

Yeah with the thrust vectoring and short motor burn compared to the 120, as soon as it begins turning it bleeds speed quickly. With the longer burn motor the 120 has anything within 25km is a higher kill chance than the 77

@@TheConnorM The R-77 isnt thrust vectoring and the motor actually burns longer than the Aim-120 looking at the stats But the R-77 has grid fins which cause alot of drag vs conventional fins on the Aim-120

@@Elijah1573I line how people think that it has thrust vectoring because of how maneuverable it is. I find it super cool that it can pull like this with TVing, but I think ima stick with my more conventional radar missiles. BVRing in the F15C is gonna be super fun, because it has a great radar and fantastic high altitude high speed performance. I already have fun at BVR, and a Fox 3 is just going to make it more enjoyable

@@TheConnorM R-77 does not have Thrust Vectoring. It just bleeds speed that quickly as currently modeled. Though, given the fin angle on these new missiles, I don't fault you for thinking it has it. Just due to the energy conservation, I'd say R-77 has equal PK to Aim-120A up to 15km. But anything beyond is AMRAAM's ballpark as things currently stand. R-77 stops being a threat at 25km with a defending target, while AMRAAM is still dangerous at 40 against the same defending target (Assuming they aren't going cold)

@@Elijah1573 thank you for clarifying, I’ve been playing too much DCS and get my missiles mixed up.

Yup xD

For some strange reason

Yup

Yeah they need to make multipathing stronger

⁠@@patrioticpanda7618that’s true it is a simcade, but having a very easy answer to bvr defense (aka fly on the deck) isn’t good for the game, it makes games stale and planes that were designed to be “a missile bus” like the F-4, F-15, F-14, Su-27, tornado, etc Need this change so they can reliably defend/attack from far away this update is mostly about bvr so I think the rules of bvr need a revisit. Multipathing DEFINETY NEEDS TO STAY but turned down to about 30-40% so you have to learn how to properly defend. This can also help passively to make gaijin make better maps with more defined terrain.

This was tested. It was terrible gameplay in Realistic mode when the multipath was set to be more realistic due to the amount of players there are, they made a good choice in keeping it. In Simulator tough they should have made multipathing more real, that why the mode is there.

Wonder when will it be modelled correctly

as a USSR main, i believe i'll be using some R-27ER with my R-77s. I've noticed that the 77 tends to work as an R-73 that flies farther (up to 25-30 km reliably, anything farther is way too unreliable) so if i want to joust missiles from very far away, R-27ER it'll be. But hey, the americans get a reliable long range Fox 3 that has the same (or maybe lower ?) effective range as the ER, so i guess it is a win for them, which honestly i am happy to see.

Oh hell yeah. Thank you!!!

ok dad

I think the r-77 in the dev server is kinda garbage, it's supposed to go mach 6 but it goes mach 4

@@mobberrrno its not. It’s max speed is mach 4. The one you are talking about is a much more advanced variant

thats every devserver and when it comes live, they cry all the time

@@teariom456 ah ok thx for the info sorry for the misinformation

Look up f16 strafe. It'll pop up. Should be a video with a control tower in it.

Thank you!!

It varies by missile

@zacharymarino8926 do the dev server players know the different ranges yet?

Yes. It seems that way.

Yeah, but many people aren't smart enough to learn real life tactics on how to deal with these missiles or how to use them, all they want is a cluster of players in the middle of the map bcz they just skill less hug the ground

@@matheusdelimarodrigues4410 and to that point, let them leave to lower BR where ground clutter snd deck hugging was actually viable or let them learn the hard way (or just look it up).

Keep multipathing. Not saying the 27ER isn't broken, but the problem is modern radar systems can actually handle data from multipathing unlike older systems. On newer radars, multipathing can improve location and velocity calculations because the reflections improve triangulation; However, I can't confirm if this was discovered in early ARH missiles.

@@chish7690 Okay multipathing isn't a thing in any 4th gen radar. If ya need proof, look at the lethality of 4th gens compared to 3rd gens. In 3rd gens it was actually viable to stay low since it increases your odds of survival a good amount to have ground behind you from the direction the enemy's radar was facing. And ultimately that's what any Air Force takes into account when fighting against a bvr missile (be it SARH or ARH). They look at every possible way to increase the possibility if survival. Best way to describe this is in percentage. In 4th gen jets, before the invention of the Fox-3, the average missile's pk (probability of kill) was roughly 75%. We'll start off of that number and continue to lower it via known tactics however the actual math of this I don't think is very known or at least I haven't been able to get a good source for the math on this exactly so the numbers I'll be saying now are just to be an example of what happens in evading a bvr missile irl. So you're facing an enemy and you see on your TWS (Threat Warning System (also known as a Missile Warning System and replaces your Radar Warning Reciever since it's an improved version)) that a Fox-1 was fires you start with a 75% chance if being shot down. So let's start with something most people know, notching. You put the missile 90° to your left forcing it to take a longer path to reach you and shortening its effective range, this in turns lowers your chances of being shot down to 70%. 4th gen jets usually have ECM pods if expecting enemy resistance so let's say you have that on, well that lowers your chances of being shot down to 65%. You also deploy countermeasures and have chaff trailing you, lowering you chance of being shot down to 60%. As you can see each evasive tactic enacted increases your chance of survival. If multipathing was a thing on 4th gen radars, a lot more 4th gen aircrafts would fly low to utilize multipathing as another evasive tactic to increase their survival chances. Yet 4th gen aircraft tend to stick high, roughly 25,000-40,000ft high where multipathing has 0 chances to aid in their survivability. So that means that multipathing doesn't effect 4th gen radars at all, if it did they would stay flying lower to utilize it. The only recorded instances of aircraft flying low in 4th gen was to use the curvature of the earth and other geological features (mountains, hills, canyons, etc) to physically put something between them and an enemy radar (most cases ground-based AA defenses like SAM's), or to use the denser air in lower altitudes to slow a missile down enough to not be able to hit them. Multipathing shouldn't have been put in the game period, and Gaijin themselves admit that it's not for realism. They've openly stated multipathing was for balancing yet the use multipathing as a way to keep certain missiles above others by making some have higher multipath altitudes than others. The honest truth is Gaijin doesn't even know what they're doing in terms of keeping the game even somewhat realistic. Skipping entire payloads (recent example is the 4 Aim-120's on the F-15C and the 6 R-77's on the SU-27SM), skipping whole missiles (the R-27EA was the first Fox-3 of the Russians and went against the Aim-120A, the R-77 came 2 years later. That along with other R-27 variants that actually had similar performances to the in game R-27ER), lowering CM counts (this goes across the board), putting RWR's instead of TWS (again across the board in at least top tier (would have to research if 3rd gens had TWS)), and putting entire aircrafts in while skipping entire other trees (F-18, Su-33, A-10C, etc while they put in something like the Mig-29SMT and F-16C which are 2004 and 1991 respectively).

why are you crying so hard?

@@MintCalentine No ones crying except for you with your sad ass excuse of an insult, imagine still being so hostile to someone bringing up acceptable critiques of one of the most important patches in the games history. Instead of analyzing the facts, you just say dumb shit like that because you lack the brainpower for anything else. Womp womp

@@MintCalentine Says the guy who has nothing of value to add to any conversation except braindead retorts and attempts at insults while completely ignoring the context in front of them, you're insulting me for having valid critiques of the game. How stupid can you be. You probably just started playing the game and hear all the "Cool kids" saying this stuff, so you repeat it to feel like you have a meaning in the conversation. When in reality you just make yourself look like a dumbass with nothing to say.

Yeah, why are you crying so hard. You ask for aim120 for years, now you get it.

Just fly low to the ground if you don't wanna die to a mica.

dev server got new sounds, and probably low quality if didnt download HQ

Love is a long road by Baltic House Orchestra

Thank you!!

Nah, multipathing is OP. if you can just fly relatively close to the ground and be 100% safe, its bs. Thats why everyone just flies low altitude and the game feels like CoD with planes.

Thank you!!!

LET'S GOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

perchance

He might have an ultrawide screen

Noted. I'll get to work on it :D

BRuh xD

I have a wide monitor, so it adds black bars, but I'll remove it for videos like these.

The American got a new pilot model tol

this

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CxFOjViWvs8.html Right here ;D

@@AeroTurtle 🫶🫶🫶

In one of the updates after christmas, they made any PD radar/seeker be able to lock onto chaff for some reason. Before, missiles like r27er with mig29 radar couldnt be chaffed even if you notched. You could only notch it and then pull up/down to not let the missile hit you with Its inertial guidance while keeping the notch angle for it to not reacquire the lock. It was more difficult before, Now Its easy to defeat any missile if you notch and chaff before it hits you

@@argonautiyi4873 now that you mention it, i remember that change. It is very frustrating to deal with, being that the whole point of PD is to be chaff resistant with the down side of losing targets moving 90 degrees from you. All in all, i doubt it will change the meta much.

@@jedbedrock2944 i think they did this on purpose with having fox3's come. If we had to notch every single PD sensitive missile like the ER before the PD chaff lock-on change. It would be very difficult. Not impossible,just difficult. I think they did this for gameplay reasons despite it not making sense. Or maybe this Is realistic,idk.

Already have a recorded a multipathing video with some of the new missiles. It'll be uploaded soon.

@@AeroTurtle sick I’ll be there

Defensive how with that shitty flight models

Yes they got a new helmet and suit

Yessir!!!!!!!

you have shit wifi

video hasn't loaded correctly for you, give it a few mins

@zehi04 ya, it fixed itself when I reloaded

This

@@AeroTurtle that

Why not

If you use TWS it should delay the RWR pings

@@AeroTurtle but do the radars in the missiles set it off bc i know they do with the pheonix but in the video i didnt see any rwr pings with "MSL"

@@drafoonagainthey do set off RWR. 6:09

fr, it seems like people are expecting to be hitting 60 mile shots or something with these

@@mesobean only 60 mile shot will be from 35k feet up at a dump target at 5k not doing anything 😂

no xD I'm black

@@AeroTurtle ohh I saw the flag on the mig I thought you was Iraqi I was about to sub

@@winterlows3502 Oh ahaha. Yeah no it was for a cinematic.

Russian Bias

Because Soviet Union was collapsing and ruin all bureau and manufactures works and this influence for about 20-30 years as gap in technological development, so while R-77 was developed in 90s like AMRAAM, firs cariier for them was builded in 2002 as modificated Su-27SM and for all this time R-77 wasnt modificated from 90s like AMRAAM was cuz manufactures just dont have money and losed many engineers and etc. . Thats actually why wee see so many modern Russian biases while others only use some stuff from 90s

He's promoting a video he made, don't like it then skip it

Yessir!!!

@@lukereyes6266 Thats like me saying if you dont like the comment, dont reply. Its called criticism, deal with it.

o_o

Nah it has a new radar which isn’t fully put into the game yet but yeah it’s radar is now good

@@airlightshockZOV as far as I know the N001VEP is the same as the regular N001 but with more range. But the problem with the N001 isn’t the range but is that this radar has the slowest scan speed among all other radars, no memory (once the target goes outside the gimbal limit - the radar loses lock and you have to find and lock the target again manually, any other radar at this BR will keep the target’s position in memory for ~5 seconds and will reacquire the lock automatically if possible), no level adjustments in TWS mode so it loses soft lock if the target is changing altitude or you’re changing altitude and finally the radar very often just doesn’t see non-notching targets (especially in closer ranges) and also very often can’t lock the target on the first try and this radar is very easy to notch. So if I’m right it will be the same shitty radar but with 20km extra range

​@@user-jy6cn3jy8gabsolutely agree with you. Unfortunately other players see only max range and say or it's already good enough

@@user-jy6cn3jy8g it’s range actually stays the same, the gimball limit and scan speed is increased

@@user-jy6cn3jy8g I have to agree, the radar feels like trash - it picks targets faster, but the scan speed is beyond horrible, has no memory, is notched very easily, and has no TWS level adjustment. It's extremely frustrating to play at long ranges. Best way to play is to stick to the ground and chuck R-77s in the 5-10km range. Sad.

No. It was for a cinematic xDD

"a 50-50 of killing each other" thats literally what the game is now, just low altitude chaos.

@@Red_Lion2000 we are not playing the same game

@@kaidestructor7350 You have no idea how BVR fighting works, but I wouldnt expect anything more from a w33b.

@@Red_Lion2000 exactly, you are not playing the same game as me

xDDDD Perhaps, although I'm sure militaries have programs to simulate these.

We have more accurate simulators such as DCS and if I’m correct the US have a section within the Air Force for learning/understanding enemy armaments and coming up with counters that are then outsourced to companies for prototype equipment.

Ignoring overload mica is wayy more manuvrable

R-77's only real edge is agility. And MICA just does that but better... It carries way less speed over range than any other Fox-3 on the dev right now. Past 25km against a fast, defending target, you can basically kiss your missile goodbye. Aim-120 is currently better in virtually every aspect that matters. That missile is dangerous out to even 40km or more, and is still more maneuverable than R-27ER. Speaking of R-27ER, the missile says Mach 5.8 on the stat card, but will almost never reach it. In most practical launches, you can expect around Mach 4-4.5. For Aim-120, you can expect Mach 3.5-4. Stop claiming Russian Bias where there is none

Bro.. looks like you forgot about MICA, that thing actually a dogfighting missile but Fox3 with thrust vectoring like R73 and hard to counter

@@Registered_Simp wake up, the developers took 6mach for R27 and 50g for R77 out of thin air.

@@user-sw78tjm2ky Wake up, neither of those weapons ever reach those numbers

No.

Aim-120C-5/7 is the equal of R-77-1. The base R-77 is supposed to be the rough equivalent of the Aim-120A/B. The very forum you cited backs this up...

@@Registered_Simp beat me to it. cause the c-5 amraams wayyyyyy out performs the base r77 in every single category other than max g load, and the c-5 isnt far behind on that.

@@thekirby53 Yup. And really, the G-Tolerance advantage is meaningless. Cause both are extremely agile

@@Registered_Simp the one showing that the R-77 has better maneuverability, the same speed, the same seeker range, and the same range when manually lofted as the AIM-120C-5? And the same thread that shows the R-77-1 has the same (likely, the AIM-120C-7 is just listed as “higher than 16km,” or something like that) seeker range, the same top speed, the same range, but better maneuverability than the AIN-120C-7?

@@Iden_in_the_Rain Using the main thread as a source... Aim-120A/B: ~70km (15-20 when ground-launched) range, 35G maneuvering limit, 16km seeker range. R-77: ~80km range (Up to 12km when ground launched cause holy transonic drag), Can track targets maneuvering up to 9G (Likely 35-40G limit like Aim-120), 16km seeker range. Aim-120C-5: ~105km range (Up to 25km when ground-launched), 35G maneuvering limit, 16km seeker range (C-7 likely to be ~25) R-77-1: ~110km range, Can track targets maneuvering up to 9G (Likely 35-40G limit like Aim-120), 25km seeker range. 'Where did you find the source in there stating the base R-77 has the same range as Aim-120C-5 when manually lofted?

Probably

Cry more weeb.

Erm what the fortnite

Time to pack up shop

Why so many comments like this for every RU-vid just relax and stop the negativity. What's wrong with you maybe people that usually watch this channel don't have time to watch as soon as it come out.

@@pushkafreedomforall8887 its a joke bruh why are you taking it so seriously lmaoo

@@plazmaflare5199 stupid joke

@@pushkafreedomforall8887 stay upset over it ig 🤷🏾‍♂️

​@@pushkafreedomforall8887not even a joke anymore. Just plain annoying and unnecessary

I hope so