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.
don’t get me wrong, i think it should be implemented if possible, but as @DracoMindC said, Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.2 is a roughly 100 m/s difference. I don’t exactly know what the delta V of r-77 is, but assuming it accelerates for 6s like your video shows, and assuming the delta v is around 1000m/s (pretty standard for that kind of missile), that means the missile would stay in that speed region for only around 0.6s (yeah i know, acceleration is not linear, but oh well)
It would have an impact, for sure. But i’d say only a couple of km or so (which at low altitudes is already not negligible, but far from a 100% reduction)
As for the fox1 launch speed, i may be a bit biased, i like to launch my 530Ds at mach 1.5 or so, very efficient against overconfident AIM7s or R27s slingers :P
An area where the R-77 will not have issues with range and has better acceleration than the boost-sustain fox 3s? Interesting… It’s almost like the wave drag isn’t going to matter as much as you think.
It will likely be modeled for a 0.9 mach launch against 0.9 mach target at ~5km like most other missiles. It will likely underperform at all altitudes due to this.
The speed regime in which drag is highest for lattice fins is M0.8-1.3 roughly, not 0.9 to 1.2, this is ~171.5 m/s. As for the speed gain from the motor, its likely somewhere between the AIM-7M and R-27ER seeing as its dimensions are nearly identical to those of the AIM-7M and the missile is newer.
This is a horrible assumption to make since you’re assuming the 1000m/s dV is from a standstill and at low alt (its not) and you’re assuming a linear acceleration while the missile has literal airbrakes on.
Take the R-27ER’s dV for example according to this graph:
It CLEARLY has a much greater impact than “only a couple km’s” considering a missile it would outperform at high alt (AIM-7M) more than doubles its range from a SAM launch (12km vs 26km)
Theres clearly no reason to actually continue this argument though, as the pro-russian players continue to use a mix of moving the goalpost or outright lying to try to make this not actually seem like much of an issue, and the fact that as I stated in my prediction, gaijins probably gonna do it anyways out of sheer laziness.
woah its almost like theres some obvious flaw with this comparison and maybe you should find a better source
you realize how ludicrous you sound claiming a slow launch would cut the R-77s range in half find a better source than some one off SAM with many other external factors that would result in range being much less
This is LITERALLY the best compairison to make on the effect of the transonic drag of the lattice fins of the R-77.
The RIM-7M launched as a SAM reaches 26km
The R-77 launched as a SAM reaches 12km
We know the R-77’s range exceeds that of the AIM-7M in high alt high speed launches, and yet its less than half that when both are launched as SAM’s.
This is literally comparing apples to apples. There is no closer comparison we can make, they have nearly identical dimensions and identical launch conditions, with the primary differences being the rocket motors and the drag profiles.
no its not because you have no idea what this range figure means
could be a seeker limitation (Small RCS target, early prod seeker, etc)
doesnt take into account lack of R-77 loft
battery limitations
How soviets’s do SAM ranges (tail chase and collision ranges are the same and it goes by distance crossed)
I could go on and on meanwhile according to your brilliant expert analysis nah americans and soviets when they give max range on a SAM systems they work clearly the exact same! I will not question this at all!
I don’t mind gaijin add AIM-120C-3 next month and never worry :) , 2 italian aircraft get AIM-120B sure but F-4E Kurnass 2000 and F-16C/D Block 30 & F-16C/D Block 40 Barak never employ BVR AIM-120 AMRAAM & Derby
F-16A Block 20 MLU (ROCAF) could get AIM-120B AMRAAM placefolder in this year before gaijin consider AIM-120C-5 after this year
Unsure next month gaijin could add AIM–120A on F-16A Block 15 ADF from USAF ? but hope consider AIM-9M-9 on F-16A Block 15 ADF (USAF) st the same time
I guess gajin might consider add Baz Meshupar (F-15C) (IAF/IDF) with AIM-120B and F-15J MSIP (JASDF) for Japan tech tree
What kind of nonsense are you writing, an incomprehensible source from 12 km away, it is unknown under what conditions. The picture is complete nonsense
Itd be kind of odd to skip ahead right away, particularly since stuff like the F-4F ICE has AIM-120A/B’s afaik. I’m genuinely unsure how they’re going to balance this whole fox 3 thing, since the introduction time, platforms, and capabilities do vary a decent bit.
Its a possibility, though the BVRAAM question was touched on during the J-8F devblog, so itd be a bit weird if it didnt get PL-12’s right away
I think they’ll do both MLU and J-8F with ARH missiles, as PL-12 is supposed to be a bit better than AMRAAM B but the airframe is terrible. I do expect everyone to get AMRAAM A/B as placeholder even if they used Cs IRL.
Yeah, thats why my initial prediction was that basicly everyone was gonna get nerfed down near AMRAAM A levels kinematically except Russia which is going to have bad modelling of their R-77 make them just better in just about all situations to everyone else because gaijin will allow the missile to retain the pro’s of lattice fins but not the cons, hence why I’m worried.
I think missile-wise it’ll be pretty balanced (barring Russia) but plateform wise, it likely wont be, seeing as a few nations are going to be running F-15/16, M2K, Ja37D or Ja39A and MiG-29/Su-27’s while the rest are playing in the dirt with F-4/J-8/Tornado. Even the Ja39A probs wouldnt really be on par with the US/russian/French offerings FM and/or missile quantity-wise
Personally I have a suspicion that the Su-27 won’t drop with ARH, it will just have a full kit of ERs and R-73. The SMT and Yak could get R-77 instead. That would give the BVR advantage to the Eagle and the dogfight advantage to the Flanker. I could be wrong and they jump straight to Su-27SM tho
Also, we’re getting Gripen C not A. 4 AMRAAM and 2 9Ls will be OK so long as the F-15/16 are also limited to 4, just the flight performance will be lackluster…
Be prepared to be completely disregarded and baffled with their decisions on implementation. Nothing we say here will influence that decision.
Btw, regarding the whole lattice fin argument on the R-77, here is a pretty damning line (and the text around it for additional context/info) from a NATO research paper:
“If, for example, favourable aerodynamic effectiveness and yaw stability at high incidence
angles are making lattice wings very attractive for high-speed agile missiles, the substandard wave drag is completely discrediting it in this situation.”
“Therefore, the high speed applications of lattice wings are actually undisputed only as drag braking devices or stabilisers for control of bombs and dispensers or as
control elements for very-short-range missiles where the high resistance certainly plays only a minor role.”
The paper in question (from 2006): Defense Technical Information Center
There is a good reason why ONLY the R-77 and R-77-1 use lattice fins, even among russian air to air missiles.
