What do you mean by that?
US mains are by far the whiniest out of all nation mains.
9 Likes
The fins are the primary cause. They allow for higher G-pull, but At transonic speeds they are basically airbrakes. There’s a reason why SpaceX uses them to help land their rockets.
The air inside the fins bounces off the walls, and collides again near the middle, creating a ton of turbulence and thus drag. This is supposed to go away when at supersonic airspeeds.
1 Like
So if I’m understanding this right, when they are launched and under boost they will be absolute maneuvering monsters, but once that boost ends and the subsonic threshold is reached (upon terminal guidance in the last few kms if fired at longer ranges) then the missile is effectively slowing itself more and more until it cannot reach its target. Is that correct?
1 Like
Doctrine.
The Soviets and later the Russians are more than happy to strap a bigger and bigger rocket to their missiles. Technically, in this regard the AIM-54 was the first Hypersonic, since for a moment it can actually hit Mach 5 when launched under the right conditions. Either way, they can’t sustain this speed for a substantial period of time. Its like calling an ICBM a “hypersonic missile.” While technically true, its obviously not the concept people mean when discussing modern hypersonics.
The US, by contrast, is more interested in leap-frogging towards constant hypersonic flight (IE SCRAMJets) which allow the missile to sustain high-hypersonic velocity for the entire flight.
The only notable exception is Zircon, but everything about that missile is up for debate, especially since a Patriot managed to down one, which shouldn’t really be possible if the known specs are accurate.
2 Likes
Pretty much. It should still be maneuverable, but once it dips below mach it’s going to stall its self out quickly if it needs to manouver
1 Like
Neat, something to keep in mind when I reach top tier in Russia. Thanks.
The bigger concern is the horrendous radar sets, which IMO are the biggest reason why the R-77 kinda sucks
Can’t do much with an ARH missile if your radar barely works
4 Likes
This logic is terrible. “USA suffers” “Russian bias” the heck ever. It is NOBODY’s “turn” to dominate the meta. I do not want to be forced to grind/play a certain aircraft/tree to actually be competitive at toptier. Either way, R-27ER wasn’t overpowered or anything. Everyone just flew low and spammed their IRCCM FOX-2s in the pre-ARH toptier.
USA/NATO and (recently) China have superior missiles. Russian missiles are just designed to go fast and be launched in large volleys to have a better chance of breaching NATO’s outright better missile-defence systems. Also, Soviet/Russian ICBMs were fitted with larger warheads to compensate for their wider CEP (accuracy, basically) while American missiles could be smaller, lighter and more accurate. (yes i know ICBMs and ASMs are not AAMs but this is vague)
5 Likes
This would be solved if they would let us actually maddog missiles with the HMD
1 Like
I can’t say for sure what kind of capabilities R-77 had, but yeah.
I know AIM-54 should be guidable via IRST and the TISEO to an extent, for example.
yeah, againts F-16C and F-15 spamming AIM-120 from more than 40km this is very funny, are u joking right?
8 Likes
He whined again jfc
You are proving my point.
Also what’s this about?
Who is “you guys?”
1 Like
Wait you had to pay for college? We only have to pay after turning 18 year old and even then the government offers pretty royal assistance if you are from a poorer family, which can be up to 4x the tuition cost.
Now going for my bachelor degree did get me a little in debt, but did you do anything after going to high school?
Please do an experiment: launch a training battle against your friend and compare the distance traveled and time taken between the R-77 and AIM-120, flying in a straight line without turning. You launch the AIM-120 and your friend launches the R-77. Continue flying in a straight line; I can guarantee that around the eighteenth kilometer, the R-77 will start falling down on its own, and I’m willing to bet everything on that. :)
And here is tha ChatGPT answer of this
Technical characteristics and efficiency:
- AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile):
- Maximum range: about 20-40 kilometers (depending on the model).
- Max speed: about Mach 4.
- Maneuverability: Moderate drag when flying in a straight line.
- R-77 (RVV-AE):
- Maximum range: about 80-100 kilometers (depending on the model).
- Max speed: about Mach 4.5.
- Maneuverability: High G-forces during turns can lead to faster energy loss, as discussed earlier.
In the game R-77 never ever can shooted down a target on distance bigger then 18 even 17 km away
1 Like
Worthless
Wrong
2 Likes
Yes, different characteristics cause different performance. If the R-77 has larger fins then it won’t get as much range as missiles with smaller fins because of drag. Also, firing altitude makes a difference in performance because of air density, so your experiment idea is incomplete because (if I’m not mistaken), the optimal launch distances are for high altitude launches and not mid to low altitude launches.
2 Likes
Please to tell the class why
Using an AI to discuss anything, over actual sources is just a waste of time.
Any number of missile tests shows the R-77 is more than capable of hitting an 18km target. Now will it always hit a maneuvering target at that range? No, but neither will an AIM-120 always hit a target within 5km. Categorically saying the R-77 cannot hit a target at 18km is just wrong.
2 Likes
chatgpt pulls from sources itself, it’s not completely dismissable.