- 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
If you would like to believe the grid fins provide as much drag as you pretend they do, with little to no benefits of any other kind… then please… I welcome a report. You seem to think what you’ve provided is sufficient, I say otherwise.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder
If there is an incongruency with the in-game performance and your perception of the design, please… file a report and we can discuss its’ merit further. Otherwise I see no point trying to continue this otherwise pointless debate. You want to insinuate the drag is obscenely large in comparison to planar wings. You do so without comparing them in a fair manner. Ignoring the benefits, exaggerating the drawbacks… this is clear.
1 Like
this video does not clarify anything at all.There is another video where the altitude is 12 km and the speed is 0.95M there is a launch range of 95 km
2 Likes
Interesting line I found regarding grid fins actually:
I unfortunately don’t have access to the quoted document so I can’t dig into the claim of grid fins accounting for up to 50% of total missile drag at supersonic speeds, and 65% at transonic speeds, but it follows a trend of just about every single paper out there describing the drag issues of grid fins, and many MANY attempts to try to mitigate the drag issues.
For those keeping record at home, if the fins are indeed responsible for up to 50% of the missiles drag at supersonic speeds, that would be the equivalent of nearly doubling a conventional planar fin missiles drag. This is an incredible amount of drag. 65% at transonic speeds would be more than doubling the drag of a planar finned missile. I’m curious what @Sky_King7 might make of this, seeing as this seems rather high, even more so than I expected (except in the transonic regime where the fins literally act as airbrakes), granted its an “up to” range.
Unfortunately, as previously stated, gaijin shows no intention to model the unique aerodynamic qualities and disadvantages of grid fins, since it’d be a complicated endeavor that would only ever be applicable to a grand total of 2 missiles that could be added to the game, and would result in a net nerf to Russian jets equipped with said missiles.
Continuing to argue about grid fins pro’s and cons with the pro-russian component of this forum is also a massive waste of time, since they are wholly incapable of believing grid fins have any sort of significant disadvantages. As I previously mentioned, they have a clear bias towards their own personal views of the world and no amount of facts, studies, CFD’s, wind tunnel testing, logic, etc… will ever be able to shake their belief in the superiority of grid fins.
It is quite literally the equivalent of trying to argue with flat earthers.
7 Likes
I will conduct CFD research separately on the rocket, separately on the Rudders. All research on the lattice steering wheel has long been conducted by the founder Belotserkovsky Sergey. You continue to ignore his research
2 Likes
The research has also been conducted and described in dozens, if not hundred of other papers, all of which are more modern than Belotserkovsky, all of which agree on the general characteristics of lattice fins, many of of which likely have better CFD’s than yourself, or in some cases have done actual wind tunnel testing. If anyone’s ignoring research, its you and the other pro-russians.
You keep harping on and on about points literally nobody is contesting, such as increased lift of lattice fins at reduced angles of attack compared to planar fins, while completely ignoring that the single most significant downside of lattice fins remains high drag, particularly in the flight regimes that air to air missiles would operate in. This specific downside is LITERALLY the area of study of a large number of papers, as lattice fins offer many advantages over planar fins, but their high drag remains one of if not their most significant downside.
As stated before, there is a reason no other air to air missiles use lattice fins, and its not just because they have a large radar cross section.
10 Likes