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.
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.
Yeah if funding is lacking, id expect that to be roughly in line with what one would expect.
They did R-77-1 orders in 2015. Which is presumably a R-77 (ignoring upgrades) that is nolonger dependant on former soviet block countries. This is roughly in tune with the period they finally upgraded their R73 derived IR missiles also nolonger dependant on former soviet block countries.
Doesn’t seem like they spent a ton on missiles between 1991 and 2015. And when they finally did it replaced older suppliers.
Edit:
R-37 id put in the category of long range radar missiles, certainly possible the R-27ER has some use, be it for deterrence or certain target sets. Even an Aim-9L or standard R-73 is potent, i dont see why one wouldn’t keep a relatively capable missile around if it still works
Well, they did in small quantities in 2016 Syria after a incident in late 2015 with Turkey(i believe?). Same time countries abroad started ordering aswell as Moscow doing a order in 2015
2010 is test flight period for R-77-1 from what i gathered.
So how many there are is anyones guess. Id hedge on the side of not that many.
The only reason is that there is still high amount of R-27 in storages and there is no reason to take and waste R-77 lifespan instead of old R-27 in non-combat missions. And R-77 can’t fully replace R-27T.
I think the presence of the R-27 simply confused people when used in Syria when in reality the higher kinematic performance was the reason for its’ use.
So is the 80 km range figure for R-77 Mach 0.9 @ 12 km altitude co-speed, co-altitude? Just trying to work out the conditions as earlier you give a range of 80 - 100 km.
Some primary sources indicate 80km for the R-77, I generally say 80-100km as the missile doesn’t loft so for comparison against the AMRAAM we can consider game conditions. A manually lofted missile having ~25% more range isn’t unreasonable.
Additionally, since we lack information on the missile the 80km maximum range is potentially given for a slower or lower engagement… we really don’t know without context. On that same note ROSONBOROEXPORT could be giving it for a higher altitude or higher speed launch but the data from testing doesn’t seem to support that at all.
In short, yes. My assumption (that is all it is thus far without verifiable sources) is that the R-77 has ~80km range without lofting at an altitude of ~12km and speed of 0.9 mach launch against co-altitude and co-speed target. I would say this is well supported with the known datapoints… just not confirmed.
But aren’t R-77 and AMRAAM both battery life limited at altitude. So manually lofting the missile would not net you much extra range (it’s presumably unlikely to increase average velocity by enough to significantly overcome the increased distance it must cover in the same battery life span)?
Only when high speeds are involved, and it should be noted even more so for the R-77 who thrives by staying at higher supersonic speeds for longer. Launch speed has a big effect on that missile in particular.
To overcome the drag problem higher altitudes and higher launch speeds would greatly improve range in comparison to something like the AIM-120, especially when manually lofted. In similar circumstances… the R-27ER achieves much greater than 25% improvement in range in-game when manually lofted from subsonic speeds.
I never said the AIM-7M was…
By “manually lofting” Do you mean firing by pointing nose higher/towards sky instead of straight at the target?
Yes
Then I was doing it all this time without knowing the technical name / term, nice.
Pretty sure that would be Super-elevation, in most contexts.