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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes I completely agree. Just one more thing THAT THEY NEED TO IMPLEMENT is missile failure. It would help balance things so much. I remember there was a bug whe missile just went haywire which is something that happens in real life especially with early SARH and ARH missiles. Maybe only in simulator battles but it would help balance a little
Why only that?,… at your point of willing things,… let’s add failure probability of every systems on board,… → would be fun to Explode in Me-163B on the runway,…
Would be fun to have hydraulical and Engine failure on F-14B after a Maverick maneuver that everyone like to do,…
Would be fun to have your wingsweep losing power on 1 wing, because it fails on one side → and so you have dissimetric wings,…
If you can’t see that i was joking until now, then you’re too much looking for trouble.
→ the game is a game and the 100% non-failure system is a choice that have been made (outside of taken damage off-course)
It will not change because this is still a game, and not a Simulator as is DCS world.
We need more spreaded teams,…
Current maps aren’t fully used → let’s change maps with 2 main airfields per team in every corners and force peoples to spawn 50/50 on both of the airfields
Add secondary in the middle of that, slightly FOB.
And have Ground targets and Bases all over the place,… instead of regrouped ones…
Let’s create the need for the space that current community is unable to take by themselves, as they’re rushing mid-map full burners on,…
(Btw most of you guys are wrong using full burneres all the time → a cruising jet even today doesn’t need to use full burners)
Why USSR missiles are always better than USA ones? Russia already has the best missiles in the game for both IR and SARH. And now long awaited AMRAAMS is the second worst on one the list while ruski being again one of the best amongst them. If that’s not a bias, I don’t know what is.
