what stupid nonsense you wrote.Also without proof.I advise you to study Belotserkovsky’s book about grid handlebars
4 Likes
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.
3 Likes
talking of r-77, do we have any hint of how long is the burn time ?
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.
6-8s boost only
pretty much standard if you ask me
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.
2 Likes
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)
Looks like 6 seconds in this vid but the quality isn’t great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2uFiLwgdQc
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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
1 Like
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:
Altitude and launch speed matters to the max speed achievable and the dV of the missile greatly. Applying theoritical high alt high speed launch dV’s to a question of how much time a missile will spend in the transonic region is just a completely faulty assumption to make.
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.
2 Likes
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