Proof .that the range of the R-77 is 12km
I mean, isn’t it still a bit iffy on whether the K2K also carried Python 4s? Like, it wouldn’t really be that bad to balance out in game but I assume getting any good, concrete sources to back it up would be a pain
Edit: at the same time, did Israel use AIM-7M/R missiles? Because if so the Kurnass could actually use them, but only because of the DL mode on the APG-76. Or am I thinking of the 7R?
It’s iffy, and the Python 4 has no place in War Thunder right now even if it could come on the K2K. We’re talking about a missile that has 60 degree+ HOBS capability, can do a 180 in 3 seconds off the rail, and has better kinematic performance than every short range IR missile ingame… while having similar IRCCM to that of the stinger. The Kurnass 2000 is better at 11.3 with Python 3 than it would be at a higher BR regardless. As for the sparrows, I’m unsure if they ever received the 7M, but the Kurnass 2000 never carried any radar missiles regardless so they’re gonna be iffy on receiving it in any case.
2 Likes
Good find. There are multiple explanations for this very short range:
-
Seeker Range: The SAM is limited by the seeker range of the R-77 missile, as it doesn’t use any external radar. The 12km range may be the maximum against a fighter-sized jet. Note: The 9B-1348 seeker is reported to lock on to a medium-sized target (5M^2 RCS) at 16km.
-
Kinematic Range: The lattice fins on the R-77 result in increased drag in the transonic region (0.9 to 1.2 MACH). Since the missile has to traverse this entire region, it reduces the overall range of the R-77. Unlike missiles that can loft, the R-77, when fired at low altitude, faces dense air, causing significant drag and a substantial reduction in range. A lofting missile can achieve greater range at the expense of time on target. For comparison, the MICA EM, also with a stated max range of 80km, can reach around 20km when ground-launched. However, it can loft and lacks lattice fins, minimizing drag at low speeds.
well, first of all, this is not a proven version of an anti-aircraft missile.Second, we are talking about launching from an airplane having some speed.So the source is accepted
- To be precise, the range is 20 km.in some sources …MICA EM
- The mass of the P-77 warhead is 22.5 kg (explosive-18 kg.)
- The mass of the MICA EM warhead is 12 kg.
- The starting weight of MICA EM is 112 kg…R-77-175 kg…
If launched from subsonic or transonic speeds, the missile has to accelerate THROUGH the transonic region. This isn’t simply an end of flight issue, and isn’t a complex concept to understand at all.
I have very much considered the missile is a SAM model, hence why I’m comparing it to the RIM-7M and mentioned that from a SURFACE LAUNCH the missile only attains a range of 12km.
Its not disingenuous not to mention that the missile doesn’t loft. 12Km is the range the missile achieves considering the launch conditions and flight profile, its irrelevant that one missile may lofts and the other may not as the stated ranges are relevant to all complexities of the missiles launch, flight profile and intercept.
This is a load of crap, and was used a crappy excuse as to a possible reason the missiles range may be limited in a ground launch. There is no actual information stating the 12km range is a sensor limitation, nor is there any reason to believe a fire control radar would not be used to extend the range of the missile if 12km WAS a seeker limitation.
There’s also the simple fact that having similar dimensions to a RIM-7M, while having SUBSTANTIALLY worse drag in the flight regime that a SAM launch would encounter (low altitude and HAS to pass through the transonic regime where its control surfaces act as literal airbrakes) its pretty obvious that the missile would have substantially worse range to that of the RIM-7M.
2 Likes
Its not the seeker range. The missile was stated to be intended to be used as part of an air defense complex. Theres also no reason to believe it would be purely operated on its own seeker as one of the launch platforms intended to be used was the 2k12 Kub which is a TEL and is supported by standalone radar for target detection/acquisition. It’d be silly to only use the missile as a standalone system seeing as they’d otherwise have to engage targets they identified visually.
Phobos’ link also states:
“does not require it to be illuminated by the complex’s radar station which makes it possible to effectively use the “fire and forget” principle” meaning there is a radar station station involved in the use of this missile but that the missile does not require guidance from it.
The myth that the 12km range is wholly due to a “seeker limitation” and that the missile can actually reach ranges beyond 12km easily from a surface launch was a random and completely unsupported argument when the aerodynamic penalty incurred by the lattice fins in the transonic region (M0.8-1.3) was raised as an issue, as the pro-russian players believe the R-77 and the lattice fins are some near godly missile design that only the soviets/russians were smart enough to identify, instead of what it is; a tradeoff in low speed performance in exchange for a lower hinge moment, improved maneuverability, and some drag advantages at very high speeds.
The issue here is that if the R-77 is modelled based on its max performance at altitude but given the same drag profile as a planar finned missile, it will effectively have all the advantages of lattice fins (improved maneuverability and reduced drag at high speeds) while having none of their disadvantages (choked flow in transonic region leading to control surfaces acting as literal airbrakes when passing through transonic region).
This is VERY relevant to WT as due to the altitudes and speeds players typically play at in-game, the R-77 would have (in many cases) terrible aerodynamic performance compared to contemporary missiles if modelled correctly. But if modelled incorrectly, the R-77 would likely match or exceed the performance of most/all contemporary missiles in most/all flight regimes upon introduction.
4 Likes
Anyone knows how the TC-2 compares to the AIM-120’s?
1 Like
We already had this debate. Mythic will drag it on forever.
The SAM system has no external radars that was proposed. The source says it doesn’t need a radar to operate, the actual mockups and proposals indicate no radar was present on the systems (similar to NASAMS). We are also giving that source quite a lot of credibility.
It’s simply not feasible that the missiles drag is that high, it would imply that it has less range from a subsonic launch than the R-24R/T. It’s absurdly low, if the drag was that bad it is absurdly high. Common sense would dictate it has more kinematic range than that. His argument is also based on the absurd belief that the R-77 is similar in size and weight to the RIM-7M which is 55kg heavier and a bit longer than the R-77. We know the AIM-7F/M has a theoretical maximum kinematic range of approximately 62 miles (100km). The R-77 is likewise stated at 80-100km depending on the source or scenario which would put it in the same ballpark range.
Mythic’s belief that the drag reduces the range by half for a subsonic launch is absurd.
2 Likes
what stupid nonsense you wrote.Also without proof.I advise you to study Belotserkovsky’s book about grid handlebars
4 Likes
My best guess for how they’ll model the R-77s drag is lower straightline drag, with higher induced drag than the AMRAAM. That would give the R-77 the higher theoretical max range it’s supposed to have, and account for the high drag it’s supposed to have in transonic flight.
depends at which ranges
MICA EM is thrust vectoring, so at close ranges, it’s basically a dogfighting missile (50+G)
at longer ranges i’d expect it to be more on par with the other missiles, and somewhat similar to the current 530D (somewhere around 25-30G).
Unless of course it’s near the end of its flight path where it gets limited G pull, as every missile does
I have proof though? The range is stated at 12km and the missile was to be operated as part of an air defense complex in concert with standalone radars. The idea that this 12km range is somehow a seeker limitation is a joke.
As for grid fin drag penalties in the transonic region, its as well documented as the lower hinge moment and improved drag at high mach numbers. Its a known feature of the design. There are no free lunches.
The fact the pro-russian players keep trying to lie about this and make up reasons so as to explain the missiles underperformance when launched at subsonic speeds is laughable.
3 Likes
talking of r-77, do we have any hint of how long is the burn time ?
We did testing in-game with drag coefficients 1.5-2x larger than physically possible with the grid fins (but applied all the time, not only in transonic regions)… the missile still exceeded the 12km limit you claim. It’s not feasible that it’s a kinematic limit.
6-8s boost only
pretty much standard if you ask me
afaik mica is 3s boost + 3s sustainer
amraam around 6-8s if memory serves
As for the drag debate, i’d assume a low altitude, low speed shot would mean the missile could not take a full advantage of its reduced drag at very high speed. I don’t see the transonic drag being too much of a problem tho, a missile accelerates past that region pretty quickly, and a missile going less than M1.2 is always pretty much trashed anyway (in game)
90% of all R-77 shots will be >1.2 mach in-game with the exception of the Yak-141 if it receives the missile. Either way, the Yak-141 climbs insanely fast.
These Russian jets will have a few R-77 and a bunch of R-73 for the most part… Or will also carry R-27ER/ET.
Anyhow, I see the logic for gaijin to model it simplistically without the advanced wave drag mechanics. It’s a lot of effort for something that realistically doesn’t matter, and at low alt where it might there is also the multipath issue.
2 Likes