Thanks for the info! I’m not super well versed in brit planes tbh
2 Likes
No worries, you know where to ask if you need some info.
2 Likes
neat predictions (PL-12 one is prob dead on lmao) but I think its gonna be kinda reversed with the MICA EM, its gonna have great pull thanks to TVC but itll probably be screwed up in terms of managing that TVC, like using TVC when its not necessary for longer ranged shot which long term harms energy in terminal
Possible, not sure though. I think in general their power (all missiles) is gonna be toned down from irl, partly to handhold players (like the hypercrutch that is the current state of multipath) that couldnt be bothered to actually learn to do BVR combat, and partly due to be more in line with eachother across the board. I dont think theyd give france a HOBS capable 50g+ missile with AMRAAM range and a similar seeker yanno?
I think the only one that will overperform is the R-77 tho, simply due to the fact that its drag curve is non-standard when compared to all the other missiles, and I doubt gaijin would actually bother to model it or allow russia to have a missile that is significantly kinematically inferior to the AIM-7M when launched at subsonic speeds. The R-77 is likely to be modelled with its maximum range in mind at very high alt/speed and given the same cookie cutter drag profile every other missile will get, making it massively over perform at lower launch speeds while performing realistically at altitudes and speeds nobody actually fight at in WT.
2 Likes
R-77 will get same code as other ARHs thats a given, though I dont think it will significantly overperform since while yes at lower subsonic speeds the grid fins provide higher drag especially while maneuvering, they also provide significantly lower drag at high speeds so a higher average velocity and overall unless launched at ludicrously low speeds the R-77’s range will probably be fine its flight profile will be wrong but the overall average range should be fine if it does overperform it wouldnt really be out of any real margin of errors like how gaijan calculates drag and range based off the rear aspect range of missiles which leads to pretty much all missiles overperforming a little in terms of head on range.
TLDR: Probably wont be a big deal/significant difference
would be nice if induced drag wasnt constant for all missiles so the main disadvantage of grid fins (high induced drag when maneuvering) could be modelled but its gonna act like a normal missile most likely
Grid fins act as literal airbrakes in the transonic region, and their primary drag advantage only starts to show above M2-2.5. This has been talked to death already.
The missile is of similar dimensions to the AIM-7M and in surface launch only reaches 12km vs the RIM-7M’s 26km, hence why I said it would be kinematically inferior to the 7M in typical WT launch conditions if modelled properly.
Modelling it as having a similar drag profile to planar fin missiles would be a massive net gain, likely nearly doubling its kinetic energy in subsonic launches.
Average velocity for missiles in WT really arent that high either seeing as missiles are rarely launched at any real altitudes or particularly high speeds, making it dubious the R-77 would spend any real portion of its flight time at speeds where its grid fins high mach number drag advantages would come into play.
1 Like
not true at all R-77s quickly accelerate to a high mach number over the course of their burn and theyll hold at high mach numbers (like most missiles) the transonic region is only towards the end of flight when the missile is practically dead and out of energy, this is the region in missiles where if the target makes any significant deviations in course the missile lacks the energy to properly react.
So the transonic drag has nowhere near the drag affect you think it does, unless the missile is launched at such a low velocity and low altitude where it struggles to get to a mach number higher than 2 it wont really matter.
Also you’ve brought this 12km figure a lot but it fails to consider the fact the missile is a proposed SAM model, its pretty disingenuous to refer to this figure since R-77s dont loft (I believe RIM-7Ms would loft since AIM-7Ms have been described to have trajectory shaping) and the system doesnt use any radar beyond the missile’s own which could have its own limitations especially being an early version of the missile.
1 Like
I think we’ll be seeing F-15C/J this patch; the F-2 can only use AAM-4 for ARH which is MASSIVELY above AMRAAM A/B. Barak II can’t use AMRAAM, it’s only cleared for Derby which is probably too good to come, and the Kurnass 2000 never got AMRAAM either. I would expect this update to be just like Apex Predators, with F-15/Su-27/Gripen like F-16/MiG-29/Tornado was last year. Germany will get the F-4F ICE, and Britain a Tornado F.3 CSP or Sea Harrier with AMRAAM. I do think they’ll limit AMRAAMs to the 4 belly ones for now on the F-15, to match the Tornado, F-4F ICE and Gripen though.
1 Like
So, F-15C/J, F-4F ICE, Su-27SM, Gripen and perhaps fox 3 applications for existing aircraft.
1 Like
Derby isnt much better than AIM-120A/Bs but regardless the Israeli airforce does not use the Derby and it was only tested on a Barak I. Nothing in the Israeli TT will likely get Derby’s unless we get one of those export Kfir C.10/block 60s
I’d expect either an F-15 or the F-16I to come with amraams for them
Assuming they add BVRAAMs to all nations at once like was mentioned on dev streams, this is the tentative list that I put together:
New:
US- F-15C
Germany- F-4F ICE
Russia- Su-27? Maybe?
Britain- Tornado F.3 CSP
Japan- F-15J
Sweden- JAS 39C
Israel- F-15C Akef
Existing:
F-16C
Yak-141
MiG-29SMT
F-16A MLU
J-8F
F-16A ADF
AV-8B+
Mirage 2000-5F
JA 37D? Maybe?
I think Gaijin will add the Su-27 along with the F-15, but assuming they’re limiting the F-15s to 4 AMRAAM I think it’s possible they may leave the Su-27 with only ERs for now, and let the Yak and MiG-29SMT be the R-77 carriers. The R-27ER still outranges and is kinematically superior to the AMRAAM A/B, and it would get 6 of them; plus 4 R-73s to give the dogfight advantage. This would leave the Eagle with a BVR advantage due to being able to pull off early, and the Su-27 with the dogfight advantage.
Also, I have a suspicion that the D Viggen might just stay with 9Ls and skyflash at 11.3, since they recently moved it down in BR.
Isn’t this a Barak II testing Derbys? And yeah I agree, I don’t think it would get them, but they’ve done weirder before (SRAAM on Harrier GR.1 because it got mounted on a prototype) so I wouldn’t put it past them is all…
count the flare dispensers on the spine, 3 on each side, Barak II (Block 40s) only have 2 on each side. and since the number is visible 083 is also a barak I
Ah my bad, the first site I found the plane on said block 40, I checked F-16.net and it’s a block 30 lol, you right.
im starting to wonder if gaijin will let the mirage 2000 take 4 magics and 4 micas
that’s if they skip the first production models of the F-15 and Su-27.
We’re getting Gripen C this patch, which has no CW illuminator and would have to drop with either only sidewinders a year after the F-16 (which would really suck) or it’s coming with AMRAAM. I highly doubt that they’re going to add the F-15 with only sparrows in AMRAAM meta, especially since 2 nations need it for their AMRAAM carriers. I could be wrong ofc.
I wouldn’t entertain Mythics opinion on any of these missiles. He’s blocked me because he couldn’t handle honest discussion of this very topic.
The PL-12 isn’t as good as people suggest. On par with early AMRAAM and about as good as R-77. They just modified the R-77s seeker and combined the favorable and domestically producible PL-11 parts into a single missile which would fit the mounting points of their existing fighters with PL-11.
It has less overload / maneuverability (28G) than the AMRAAM or R-77. Range is similar, early models likely don’t loft. Early fighters for China can only carry two.
2 Likes
its 38g per manufacturer https://www.avic.com/sycd/ywly/jyhkyfw/qt/?PC=PC
and can hit a target 70km away in a mach 1.2 launch against a mach 1.2 target at 10km per an interview with the designer, same interview claims its a little superior to the R-77 iirc since they mention russians measure range at a much higher altitude and speed
1 Like
It can be taken with a pinch of salt, I’m going off memory so it may well be 38G but I very much doubt that’s the single plane number. 38G is 26-27G single plane.
We know the AMRAAM is at least 35G, likely 50G with combined plane.
The AMRAAM from 0.9 mach launch has ~74km range against a 0.9 mach target at around 12,000m+
So the PL-12 is a bit inferior as I said. R-77 is closer to 100km in the same scenario.