The reason is to maintain compatibility with non-R-77 airframes, and to use against militaries that don’t have AARHs.
That’s it.
Airframes capable of equipping the R-77-1 (and well after full production had started…) continued to use the R-27ER specifically… for almost a decade now. I suppose they keep this highly maintenance intensive missile in stock for giggles?
Oh ok, I guess I understood what you were saying, I thought you were trying to disprove something I said by mentioning their range performance. I noticed the range of the R-77 was without lofting yesterday and was confused why no one was mentioning that as well.
First off, this just isn’t true. The first AIM-120C-X variant that reached higher than 70km was the AIM-120C-5 at 105km. But you fail to mention that the R-77-1 has a seeker range 1.5625x the AIM-120C-5, with the literal first AIM-120C-X variant that could possibly match the seeker range (from publicly available information) being the AIM-120C-7.
The range on the AIM-120’s is always superior to the R-77. I am not sure where you got this information.
1 Like
It’s the only other place I’ve found people talking about specific ranges of FOX 3’s
Of course I’m discussing seeker range, the AIM-120 is ahead of the R-77 and this is no surprise when considering the state of the Soviet electronics industry in 1991 as opposed to the US. Even today they are still behind in production of transistors and such.
well yeah I get it from a logical sense but from a “primary/secondary source document says this seeker range” perspective, do we have proof of that?
We have plenty of data for the R-77, not so much for the AMRAAM. It is somewhat absurd to assume the R-77 to have better seeker performance, though.
The R-77 was designed to be cheaper to produce than the AMRAAM… and Russia’s radar or electronics industry had not progressed at the same rate as the US. It would be bad to assume the Russian missile has superior quality seeker.
Yeah but this is Gaijin we’re talking about here, the same people who said the Stinger and Mistral can’t have 20-22G overload because the Igla uses outdated fin control technology.
Probably related to quantity. R-77-1 seemingly being test fired in 2010 and by 2016 didn’t exactly exist in high quantities going by Syria deployments and the lack of deployments in 2015 and the fact they ordered some in 2015, seemingly for the first time.
So while idk exactly why they use what they do. One can usually look for the common reason for lack of modernization, and thats no money (or tech to make it)
Going by export advertised numbers for the RVV-SD, which is also 110km maximum range. Its probably accurate as far as maximum figures go.
RVV-SD is apperantly 12G target load factor. Which would put it in the 35-38G range im guessing (some people say 3x target load factor, idk how accurate that is).
But if they could write 13G target load factor they probably would, which would point to 40G. Now either 3x is way off for whatever reason, or Russia is downplaying their export equipment.
And as far as im concerned, Russian numbers for export equipment is probably reasonably accurate in as far as their maximum numbers go.
3x rule is more like at least required overload. It absolutely doesn’t show maximum overload of missile.
I mean, this is Russian export. If they could put 13G down (which they could with 40G overload), they probably would. This is the cash strapped military industry that is practically willing to sell to anyone, and they will likely advertise whatever they can get away with.
Which is why i have very little issue with taking export advertised specs as maximum.
I think your forgetting that countries typically exaggerate the performance of their military equipment by around 10 to 12%
I hate to bring it up but the situation in Ukraine is the prime example i think by now we’ve all seen the M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle shooting up a T-90m…if you haven’t go look it up
Production has been underway since at least 2015… Exports continue as well. The missile has been in service as I said for almost a decade and we continue to see the R-27ER used on newer models. There is likely a reason for this and imo… Not due to lack of R-77 availability.
It’s safe to assume these are subsonic launch figures of ~0.9 mach against ~0.9 mach target at altitudes of ~12km based on data related to initial R-77 (RVV-AE). I’m not sure if that calculation includes the lofted trajectory or not that we’ve seen them use more recently. My guess is that the export missiles don’t have lofting but I don’t have any information to support that at the moment.
Russians method of calculating pK must be different… the R-27ER is rated for 8G targets and pulls 35G. Most sources will say 40+ G overload for the R-77 and I think this is well supported by the high angles of attack it can pull due to grid fins.
1 Like
Thats possible, but im gonna go by the numbers that they are willing to sell to others as to what targets it can hit. As to what peak values it can do is anyones guess
Edit: i dont see overload numbers for export ER
Well going by the sudden deployment in 2016 after a incident in 2015 im probably gonna go by the availability excuse.
R-77-1 might exist in volume, it doesn’t mean everyone procured it in volume. India did procur them in reasonable numbers not so sure everyone else did.
R-27ER sticking around wouldn’t be a surprise if R-77 is relatively scarce.
And Gaijin completely goes off of the made up numbers, so we have to treat the (99% probability of being) false Russian numbers into account
for range not really
R-27ER is known thanks to studies from Moscow aviation institute quoting figures from the OEM. They utilize primary sources for their studies. They also have books on the R-73 and such but I do not think they have books covering the R-77, or I have not seen them. They are not public (but not classified, either)… to my knowledge this is where Gaijin got the correct and updated information on the R-27 series to correct their overload and performance.
I think it would be a surprise, they have been using larger more complex missiles daily such as the R-37 variants. I do not think that R-77 production has been an issue for quite some time and yet… they keep a missile developed prior to 1991 in service? The only plausible explanation for this in my opinion is that they upgraded the R-27 series somehow or think it is kinematically still relevant for engagements.
R-77 wasn’t seen on RuAF aircrafts becouse R-77-1 appeard only somewhere in 2010 and were hold in storages. R-77-1 appeard in big amounts on public only with current conflict, they were just keeped in storages (same thing with Vikhrs ATGM, rarely seen on Ka-52 before) and none aircrafts carried R-27 instead of R-77-1 in combat. “R-77” wasn’t ever used becouse only export RVV-AE was produced, which RuAF won’t use.