So
You want to state: static target is easier to hit, than plane, that goes onto you?)
Air target will approach you and at altitude drag losses will be lower. Missile range is dominated by drag for such long range, energy of 20km altitude is small in comparison. The main issue will be requirement for energy state for terminal maneuvering.
1 Like
yes
The greater the angle of attack, the greater the losses, And there are always gravitational ones when the rocket flies up
tldr BBCRF cannot comprehend a US missile hitting 250nm “240km is sufficient” lmao
SM-6 launched with a booster off a US ship, starting from 0, can hit at 200nm+, from an air launched platform at Mach 1+, it is well within reality for it to hit 250nm+.
And if you question how much of the SM-6s sea launch speed is due to the booster segment, here is a video, you can see the break off between the SM-6s main booster and the initial stage.
It is very apparent at 1min that the missile launches, and about 6sec in, drops its initial booster, then igniting the main booster.
7 Likes
Missile cant loft?
Its not an R-77, it can.
I don’t see any official evidence of 250 miles for Air targets
r-77 thread gets derailed into talking about a us missile that isnt even going to be added to the game anytime soon nice
2 Likes
AIM-174 or SM-6 are highly unlikely to ever appear in War thunder, anyway. They’d have to add AShMs and datalink between friendlies for them.
This doesn’t apply because SM-6 is an aerodynamically controlled missile and for long-range shots like this a ballistic trajectory would take it too high to retain control. The missile certainly climbs to 30-40km and then glides to the target before diving on it.
Technically yes but practically the vast majority of losses are drag-related. The missile generates its velocity early in flight and so glides at high supersonic or hypersonic speeds where drag is very high. It has an enormous surplus of energy relative to that necessary to reach an aircraft’s target altitude. The main reason range will be shorter is the requirement for high terminal speed. But at the same time most of the missile’s range is covered while it is at high speed and a closing target will increase maximum launch range.
If the missile averages 1250 m/s and the target is at 250 m/s, then for the same intercept point the launch can occur at 444km rather than 370(20% more). This is going to be greater than the impact of having to hit a target at altitude. This is true for all anti-air missiles, it’s why hot/cold targets make such a huge range difference.
This is just making my point. SM-6 is effectively a hypersonic cruise missile(it’s aerodynamics are not designed for mesosphere flight). Applying ballistic range equations is totally inappropriate because they do not account for drag and the missile does not fly a ballistic trajectory.
Is all you have posting useless images without arguments? The missile will fly a similar trajectory regardless of target altitude. For a 10 km altitude target, the velocity gain is only 442 m/s compared to the missile’s deltaV of ~2700 m/s. The missile’s range is driven by drag, not altitude.
5 Likes
Are these specifications given for a missile launched from a ship-based launcher or from a fighter at high altitude and speed?
Ship
Do you understand the difference between these two methods?
The launch accelerator has been removed from the rocket, which gives 70% thrust
the booster only gives 5 seconds of thrust for the missile to clear the VLS, being launched at a high altitude from mach 1+ would give far more kinetic performance than the booster could
4 Likes
I laughed at your conclusions.The rocket booster provides the main kinetic energy.At least he works for 2 seconds at least 5
completely incorrect, just because you are butthurt that the US has easily leapfrogged the R-37M doesn’t mean you get to cope like this
7 Likes
I don’t see a detour yet, but I see absurd statements about some mythical range that is not confirmed by anything