Ah my bad, the first site I found the plane on said block 40, I checked F-16.net and it’s a block 30 lol, you right.
im starting to wonder if gaijin will let the mirage 2000 take 4 magics and 4 micas
that’s if they skip the first production models of the F-15 and Su-27.
We’re getting Gripen C this patch, which has no CW illuminator and would have to drop with either only sidewinders a year after the F-16 (which would really suck) or it’s coming with AMRAAM. I highly doubt that they’re going to add the F-15 with only sparrows in AMRAAM meta, especially since 2 nations need it for their AMRAAM carriers. I could be wrong ofc.
I wouldn’t entertain Mythics opinion on any of these missiles. He’s blocked me because he couldn’t handle honest discussion of this very topic.
The PL-12 isn’t as good as people suggest. On par with early AMRAAM and about as good as R-77. They just modified the R-77s seeker and combined the favorable and domestically producible PL-11 parts into a single missile which would fit the mounting points of their existing fighters with PL-11.
It has less overload / maneuverability (28G) than the AMRAAM or R-77. Range is similar, early models likely don’t loft. Early fighters for China can only carry two.
2 Likes
its 38g per manufacturer https://www.avic.com/sycd/ywly/jyhkyfw/qt/?PC=PC
and can hit a target 70km away in a mach 1.2 launch against a mach 1.2 target at 10km per an interview with the designer, same interview claims its a little superior to the R-77 iirc since they mention russians measure range at a much higher altitude and speed
1 Like
It can be taken with a pinch of salt, I’m going off memory so it may well be 38G but I very much doubt that’s the single plane number. 38G is 26-27G single plane.
We know the AMRAAM is at least 35G, likely 50G with combined plane.
The AMRAAM from 0.9 mach launch has ~74km range against a 0.9 mach target at around 12,000m+
So the PL-12 is a bit inferior as I said. R-77 is closer to 100km in the same scenario.
all sources (including the manufacturer) clearly state 38g lateral no idea where you came up with the 20’s g figure
also managed to find the full text of the interview the chinese consider the PL-12 slightly superior to the AIM-120A/B and on par with the R-77 and inferior to the 120C
Spoiler
About the max shot range:
The Deputy Chief Designer of SD-10 said: The parameter of “max range” is determined by the relative position of missile’s carrier and the target aircraft. The assumed conditions by various countries are different. So what the Russian said the max range 100Km may not be better than what we said the max range 70Km. The max range 70Km in SD-10 marketing promotion brochure is measured under the condition that both the missile’s carrier and the target aircraft are flying at 10Km’s altitude, both the missile carrier’s velocity and target’s velocity are 1.2Mach, their flying direction is reverse(head to head). AIM120’s test condition is similar to SD-10. However Russian’s propaganda is a little more exaggerated. For example, R-77’s test condition is: carrier and target are flying at 20Km’s altitude; each has 1.5M’s velocity, head to head flying. Under such a condition, the max range is 100Km. The problem is higher altitude means less aerodynamic resistance, plus the faster velocity for both the carrier and the target. The range is naturally longer. So you shouldn’t only consider parameters isolated with each other. In fact, our SD-10’s range is better than AIM-120A/B, a litter less than AIM-120C, almost same as R-77’s.
About ranking MRAAM:
Designer : It’s not easy to rank ……Various persons have various standards…
First of all, Euro’s Meteor should be No.1. This missile’s performance is very advanced, its range reaches 160Km.It belongs to next generation missiles. Next, I think the AIM-120C is more advanced. For original AIM-120 missile, whatever components, materials and craft are world first class. Now it is upgraded to Type C, it makes new progress on range, precision and anti-jamming capability. Following, It should be our SD-10. Then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Active Skyflash at equal fourth. Then Israel’s Derby, Derby has a comparable overall performance with the above missiles, but its range is relatively short. Last of all, MICA, its tech is not bad, however it’s a tradeoff between BVR and dogfight, so is naturally inferior to dedicated MRAAM.
Reporter asked : Our SD-10 has a good ranking. Why do you say our SD-10 is more advanced than R-77?
Designer: We adopted some technologies more advanced than R-77’s, so SD-10’s overall performance is better than R-77’s. For instance, our strap-down initial navigation system, signal processing system are more advanced than R-77’s. Our missile was developed relatively later than R-77.Some new technologies were not mature when R-77 was developed, so R-77 didn’t use the new technologies, but when SD-10 was developed, the new technologies became mature, so we adopted the new technologies in SD-10.
2 Likes
It should be noted the SD-10 is a development of the initial PL-12 which uses identical seeker to the R-77 for the most part among other changes. It’s also worth noting that they’re not necessarily correct about the AMRAAM and could simply be lying about the R-77. We’ve got better sources for both of the non indigenous missiles.
I’m not at my PC at the moment but I’ve created threads for the AIM-120 and R-77 with sources in the OP. I recommend checking out the AIM-120 one as I’ve got more comprehensive sources listed. I need to update the R-77 one.
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