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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
fair point, most fox-1 (and future fox-3’s) are usually high speed shot
I’d assume that drag difference would make a difference if both opposing aircrafts are flying low and slow, but even then, it might be a couple of km at most (which can make a difference don’t get me wrong, but not that drastic)
Well that’s the problem. Players like Mythic are making this into some huge myth trying to say it has a 100% range reduction when fired from subsonic etc.
Reddit and other sites eat this kind of discourse up because they use his (absurd) opinion as confirmation bias.
I think it would still be an interesting thing to implement.
It would force the r-77 owners to know their missile and fire them high and fast, while missiles like mica would be more specialized for shorter ranges and amraam kinda in between. The differences would be pretty minor anyway
But yeah the 100% reduction seems way too much. I’m by no means an aerophysicist though, so my take on this is pretty irrelevent anyway X)
Most radar missile shots are not at particularly high speeds in-game. AIM-54’s, and on occaision R-27ER’s are fired high alt high speed, but for the most part, things like AIM-7M and below are used more in the sub 10km head-on shot role as thats a much more reliable way to net kills.
Modelling the R-77 as having the drag profile of a planar fin missiles but its normal max range at high alt and high speed will just lead to the R-77 behaving much better than it should when fired at subsonic speeds or near the end of its flight time as well.
Its also VASTLY easier to defeat an ARH when fired at range than when fired close in, which, particularly when these seekers should be much harder to defeat than the ones we currently deal with in-game. Improper modelling of the drag could drastically improve its kill potential when in the furball we commonly see at top tier.
speed of launch mostly doesnt matter tho missile accelerates so quick its not in a high drag zone for even a second unless youre in a helicopter you wont notice a difference in drag
Now you guys are just lying lmao. You’ve changed your argument from lattice fins not having much of a drag penalty to the drag penalty not mattering? xD
The missile burns for 6 seconds, maybe a bit more, it considering similar dimension to the AIM-7M, but with newer propulsion, its likely somewhere between the R-27ER and the AIM-7M in terms of speed gained. The time spent in the transonic region would be non-negligible if fired subsonic.
