Well not exactly for Serial MICA’s, but if i remember correctly, M4K was used by DGA to trial everything new, and potentially the MiCa as well.
Some part of those trials remains under secrecy laws,…
However, creating a triple rack for trial purpose, seems a bit too coslty.
As the charts shows the 3 racks, a dual-rack maybe sharing similarities with Magic-2 one, is possible.
The Charts you showed up is for the serial model, whoch never came.
Well its an image from the maker of the plane… So yes it is.
but the dual rack for the magic 2 is a fuel tank, so if it shares some similarities to it, it should also be a fuel tank as well, and there is no evidence that the m4k was intended to carry 2 fuel tanks per wing, so you will also fall again short of those 10 that you claim.
IMO if it ever gets micas it should just be 6 of them, so you could get and 4 magic 2 and 4 micas, which should make it quite competitive.
Probability of kill doesn’t matter in War Thunder, if it did the R-27ER would be one of if not the worst missile at top tier. Unless the C-5 has got some actual seeker stats that are better than the R-77, your statement doesn’t mean anything (in War Thunder).
The C-5 has a similar range to the R-77 if you manually loft it, the R-77-1 just adds loft (no engine change) and its ‘range’ goes from 80km to 110km. The R-77 definitely isn’t lacking range.
You’re forgetting the grid fins which allow the R-77 to be more maneuverable. Should the R-77 really fight against the 120A/B because it has more range while being more maneuverable due to the grid fins? That logic doesn’t hold up.
R-77 will never reach 80 km range unless fired over M1 at 10km+ cause the missle itself is very draggy, and when launched at lower altitude its range rapidly decreases.
That’s the same with any other missile, this isn’t anything new. The maximum range is used as a metric to compare things and it is not assumed they will be reaching their maximum range in every situation. It’s like with prop/jet engines, no one is assuming an engine is producing its full power at all altitudes, but a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 (max thrust of 23,830lb) is definitely going to output more thrust at any altitude than a Junkers Jumo 004B-1 (max thrust of 1,980lb). To quote MiG_23M:
What is everyone trying to tell you here is,that R-77 fired in same conditions as AMRAAM will have significantly shorther range than the AMRAAM.
im saying that in any situation other than the target flying in a straight line towards you the r77 will bleed speed immensely in comparison to the 120. sure it technically has a longer range in ideal circumstances but the 120 is more versatile and retains energy better in situations where the r77 overpulls and bleeds speed. they balance eachother out.
R-77 generally reaches 80km with a subsonic 10km alt launch against a 0.9 mach target according to my data, what makes you think it should be inferior?
Grid fins are superior / less draggy than planar fins at high supersonic speeds. If launched from 1.3+ mach they have a huge advantage. They also allow extreme accuracy and maneuverability at much lower speeds, making them far deadlier at a wider envelope of speeds and at longer ranges when the AIM-120 simply wouldn’t have the energy to maneuver and hit targets.
120c5 with r77 would be a so much worse balance than we have now.
That’s literally not true, the R-77 without having to loft reaches 80km. The AIM-120A/B has to loft to reach 74km. The R-77 manually lofted can reach up to 110km, as seen in the R-77-1 (which just added automatic lofting). The AIM-120C-5 can reach 105km, which is still less than what the R-77 can, but being off by 5km is better than 36km.
Well i think they are also trying to match the great US radars and RWRs to the shity russian ones.
This is in comparison
That doesn’t matter though, the launch aircraft doesn’t even need to use its own radar - only the seeker radar matters. I’ve not seen anything suggesting the seeker radars have different performance. This is besides the point anyways, RWR and launch aircraft radars have nothing to do with ARH missile performance, nor should the answer to supposed underperforming Soviet radars be to make US-based missiles completely outclassed.
the 77-1 also had a improved missile body design and rocket motor. i doubt the base r77 can reach that distance in any circumstances
Just because it doesn’t have to have a connection with the radar doesn’t mean you shouldn’t. Let’s say you launch an r77 at a long distance without a lock so having it pit-bull it ain’t doing shit, but if you launch it with a lock and maintain that lock until it you lose lock or have to notch another ARH then you raise the changes. I’m not all caught up but i’m sure this is why the am aim120s have a shorter range becuase there effective range is close to the same, but when you think how far you can notch before you lose lock with an f16 or f15 you realize that even if you are effectively notching the missile you can still hold a lock. I can not say the same for russian radars with the exception of the YAK141. It is not going to be perfect but they are trying to balance too. Also most soviet documents about there older aircraft/missiles are wrong. Cough cough the Mig25 Foxbait apparently being the best fighter ever even though it was as good as the said, so take what ever document you find with a grain of salt becuase the power of most things were inflated in power during the cold war.
PSA: All this stuff is classified so there is no way they are going to be perfect comparisons. They have to use what information they have.
Im not saying i agree with what there doing im just playing devils advocate
I think MiG_23M made an educated guess a couple months back of 25-30% extra range due to lofting (going off of the R-27ER’s lofting versus non-lofting numbers), so 100-104km is still reasonable. The drag reduction of the R-77-1 seems to only really effect the transonic region as well, so at its actual speeds it won’t matter much.
I mean true, but within 16km the launch aircraft doesn’t need to (and shouldn’t) use its own radar, and at ranges of 16-50km the missile will still likely be able to detect the target without changing direction at all (but of course all of these missiles take inertia into account). At >50km the launch aircraft will need to guide it like a SARH until that 16km active seeker range, but again you don’t need to be guiding it at all times due to datalink and the like.
This is true, (imo) people need to treat these missiles (or anything with potentially classified or just unknown information) as fictional representations only backed up by publicly available sources. Do I think the AIM-120A/B is actually worse than the R-77 irl (factoring all of the maintenance, probability of kill, or just information that no one outside of the US Department of Defense has)? Of course not. But going off of publicly available information it is immensely outclassed.