bvr fights… few chaffs and missile go away…
exactly
right now on the dev its also easy to notch the missile at close range. easier than flaring IR missiles imo
I guess 2nd, 3rd and winter major update gajin could add Rb.99, SD-10, AIM-120C-3, RVV-AE, ASTRA Mk.1 and I-Derby
RVV-AE is just the export designation of the R-77, you’re thinking R-77-1 (aka RVV-SD)
I think R-77-1 & RVV-SD after R-77 & RVV-AE
I guess in 2nd major update gajin consider Rb.99 (Swedish license AIM-120B), AIM-120C-3, SD-10 and RVV-AE
- You should know that RB.99 is an AIM-120B. So nothing new here.
- The SD-10 is a worse performing PL-12. The current performance of the PL-12 feels more like the SD-10 than the PL-12.
- The AIM-120C3 is technically the same as the AIM-120A/B. It just has shorter wings to be carriable by the F-22. So no improvement kinetically wise (should be a bit worse maneuvrabilty wise even because of the shorter wings).
- The RVV-AE is as Mythic said, a R-77. The R-77-1 could be added but alongside counterpart (C5/PL-12 (corected/updated) …)
- The ASTRA MK1 could indeed be added in the futur. Kineticaly wise it’s between the AIM-120B and the AIM-120C5 from what i found. Maneuvrability wise its also around 20/40g maneuvering like we have ingame.
- The I-Derby is “just” a Derby missile with better electronic (ie harder to chaff and notch).
With its already mediocre kinetics, it will lag behind the other (even if it have one of the best maneuvrability of the bunch).
or C they didn’t change the name when they went to using C
Rb.99 is a blanket term
pretty sure the C-8 is also just Rb.99
Yeah all versions of AMRAAMS is Swedish service have the same name
AIM-120 maximum overload is not limited by the size of the fins. The reduction in width does little to reduce maneuverability. Missile is less stable than previous types, must reduce fin AoA to avoid over-G in normal situations.
Same goes for their AIM-9L upgrades.
This will no doubt re-ignite controversy, but its hard watching a subject I’m well versed in get mis-characterize. I don’t care to get into specifics, but merely to add my Bonafide’s to what Mythic is saying. I studied and taught fluid mechanics at the grad school level, among many other aerospace engineering topics, he’s absolutely right in saying Grid fins on the R-77 will hugely increase trans-sonic drag, hugely. How much, is impossible to say without a CFD model, but just by looking at it, and reading the statements made in this source, I would lend my credibility to the statement that, sub-optimal launch conditions (like as a stationary SAM at sea level) where the missile spends a large time at low/trans-sonic Mach numbers, will hugely decrease its effective range. And thus, for gaijin to truly capture the characteristics of the R-77 , would necessitate an entirely different drag profile compared to planar fin missiles.
5 Likes
The drag model is already too simple even for planar fin missiles. They optimize performance at a single middle altitude range and it either over or underperforms above and below that. To adjust the R-77 in such a manner would make sense, but it would also be quite an outlier to model that solely for one missile.
I also happen to heavily disagree with some of the conclusions made. There is no point arguing it further, since Mythic has blocked me (even though he continues to read my comments). The necessary data and performance was given for grid fins by the people who use them. External evaluations have been quite far off quite regularly.
Judging from the HUD, the speed of the su-35 is 1200kph/M1.1 and the altitude is 10200 meters. The target is 10200m, 1185kph, and is close to head-on. At this time, Rmax1 of R-77-1 is about 73 kilometers, The target distance is about 63 kilometers, at this time, the missile’s flight time is 81 seconds.
seems to be weaker than the R-77 missile tested.
2 Likes
That’s not target parameters. It’s speed set for autopilot to gain. And altitude is exactly is same as planes own for whatever reason. If you watch full video, it will change to target altitude (about 2000m)
While the height of the upper right corner changes instantaneously, the speed of the target in the upper left corner also shrinks to about 900kph. at the same time, the missile Rmax1 shrinks to about 60km in an instant. It seems that the third R-77-1 is fired at a different target.
Again, it’s not target speed
We’ve gone through this footage on the R-77’s dedicated thread. Not enough information is present to figure out a specific launch diagram.
1 Like
The study agrees aswell with higher drag and all previously mentioned. Several other papers(with modern cfd and large experimental data) discussing grid fins also show drag in the same order of magnitude which is higher than a fins. You also fail to ask and answer basic questions. Logic
Of course you are going to disagree, you don’t like it. There’s lots of information available, you just don’t want to see it
3 Likes
Again, you want to mislead… that is fine. It will not stand for a report on the R-77 if you think it has 5x the drag of a planar fin. It was already discussed and you are unwilling to be honest, no further discussion is required.
1 Like
You simply don’t have any kind of proof for it nor listen to math/physics reasoning. Several papers available with data of CFD, wind tunnel or both and they all agree with what others mention but with what you say.
This is your buzzword when you can’t fudge eh?
When certain obstructionists become too irritating, label them after suitable buildups [] and used the prestige of [] organisations to discredit them. In the public mind constantly associate those who oppose us with those names which already have a bad smell. The association will after enough repetition become fact in the public mind
6 Likes