Suffice it to say that this is not a settled issue and that many people including myself disagree with this assesment.
I don’t see anyone else doing real testing or disputing the sources.
People have provided alternate sources that disagree with your conclusions and I specifically have contested the credibility of your testing. You can disagree with that, but don’t act like there’s some universal consensus.
Alternate sources that are tertiary do not dispute primary sources. There doesn’t need to be a universal consensus to understand that the missile cannot feasibly have such a low ground launched range. The grid fins would have to be nearly solid to produce that much drag.
I disagree here. Missiles like the AIM-9L/M acellerate way too slowly.
The R-27EM isn’t a ARH missile. Only the R-27EA is an ARH missile.
About the R-27EA seeker, i’ve found it used the 9B-1103K seeker and not the 9B-1103M you linked, maybe a translation issue on my part or different block of the missile. Fantom said it used the 9B-1103 seeker.
And this picture clearly shows testbed for the R-77 not the R-27
The R-27ER will still be pretty balanced against early AMRAAM (120A/B). It’s a lot faster than them so if shot at the same time, the R-27ER will shoot down the ennemy before the AIM-120 will activate its own radar (cf Mig-23 test).
The Amraam will be better if you just shoot them and go defensive immediately, but then the PK of you missile is horrible.
TLDR, the R-27ER will be pretty balanced versus early Amraam, not so mutch against later version.
On the other hand , the AIM-7M is really a step backward compared to the AIM-120. Better kinematics, but not enough to counter the ARH of the AIM-120.
I can still easelly find video/ picture of russian equiped with R-27ER even today. The missile is still equiped because its still sufficient against most of the airforce in the word (early amraam included).
The 40G figure was mainly taken from the R-77 thread by Mig_23.
The 40G for the R-77 is logical since the missile uses lattice fins which make it capable of achieving very high angle of attack (at the cost of drag and RCS). It was statted to be able to it “up to 12g” target .
Unfortunalty almost all IR missile underperform in game rn. Seeker range wise they are all underperforming, IRCCM wise 9L and Magic 2 should be better. Kinetic wise it depends on the missile but is pretty close to IRL.
Nah the R-77 is sligtly better than the 120B but the C5 will be a lot more potable than both of them.
Just add the 120B ad the R-77. The difference in capabilities between both of them is smaller than between the AIM-7M/SUPER 530D and the R-27ER.
The equivalent of the C5 is clearly the R-77-1, similar kinetic and seeker wise.
The R-77M is similar to the AIM-120D with is 190km range (compared to the AIM-120D 160-180km range).
The R-37 is really a bigger phoenix. Long range and medium maneuvrability (around 25G).
The fact that the R-27ER is going to hit the AMRAAM carrier before the 120 goes active means that is not so mutch behind :). Obviously if you break the lock before and the ennemy doesn’t change trajectory then the Amraam is going to be at an advantage.
The EA/EM both use the same 9B-1103K seeker, though the EM had a very slight range extension to contend with the R-77.
There is little to no difference between seeker heads, the primary iterations were only changed due to the turbulent arms race between the R-27 and R-77.
No specifications seem to have changed between any stated variant of the seeker.
Can you point out where it says it, or highlight it? I’ve read through it twice and I din’t see anything referencing the seeker. It may just be me.
5/8 pylons.
It bugs me that the R-73 and 550Mk.2 have the same IRCCM properties, yet it feels like it performs worse.
Yeah I meant to say the R77-1 not M, my bad on that part
R37 was a joke so dont bother with that lol
If you go straight head on without trying to do anything yes but if one knows how to defeat a missile (no idea how deep its even implemented in WT and if air density even exists) AMRAAM will always win pretty much because 27ER is really bad at energy retention even though initially faster iirc
Are there reliable sources available for R-77?
The issue is, that the US will only get the AIM 120 A, to face the R77, so first version vs first version, which is an advantage to the Russians (shocker), not the AIM 120 B vs the first version of the R77.
Similar like the US only has AIM 9 M’s and not the AIM 9 P’s (better low alt performance), against the R27 ER, from a decade later
AIM 120 B will come first
they said, that every nation will receive FOX 3 at the same time, so it will be simulatniously.
Also therefore I think, we’ll get the A, and maybe later, if they see the suffering etc, the B
AIM-120B will come same update as AIM-120A. The A was produced in relatively low numbers and wasn’t exported. The B was the first widely used AMRAAM and the first Fox-3 for most of the game’s nations.
Check out here for my guess at the introduction of Fox-3s
2 Likes
1 Like
other nations never used the A only the B first so the B will be the first
2 Likes
okay, thank you
2 Likes
MiG_23M is under the opinion that the AIM-120C-5, lol. Not saying they’re the end-all-be-all of knowledge about this, but it’s a bit odd to use his thread as proof of the R-77’s maneuverability while also ignoring hit opinion on what the equivalent is:
and
URL, relevant quote is above
The R-77 'ADDER' - History, Design, Performance & Discussion - #127 by MiG_23M
No it is not, wtf? The R-77-1 (as per the Modern ARH thread) has the same performance as the R-77, so 40G, while having a seeker with a lock range of 25km; the AIM-120C-5 meanwhile is maximum 35G and a seeker range of just 16km. The first AIM-120 that is supposedly known to have any increase in seeker range is the AIM-120C-7, and none are known to have higher maneuverability.
Again, it’s not. The R-77M still has better maneuverability, possibly seeker range (people just don’t know), and maximum range. The R-77M’s maximum range of 193km is more comparable to the AIM-260 JATM’s of 200-260km (at least in terms of publicly available information, I doubt the US has no missiles in current service with >180km range). The extra range and speed (JATM is Mach 5) would help make up for the lack of maneuverability (and possibly seeker range).
I’m litteraly the maker of the Modern ARH thread so i do know where i’m taking my source from lol.
Seeker wise , iirc the C5 got upgrade especially ECCM wise but i don’t got more info on it. I should look into it a bit more and update the thread. The seeker range of the C5 is indeed going to be worse than the one of the R-77-1 but the <10km diff is going to be something of the order of a few seconds when taking about those missile.
The seeker range is more relevant if we talk about the seeker capacity against Very Low Obversability target (since you can kinda link the range of the seeker to its power).
When i said the C5 would be similar to the R-77-1 i was mostly talking kinetic wise since the C5 has 105km range and the R-77-1 has around 110km…
So while the R-77-1 would indeed be a bit better than the C5, it would be the same than the difference between the 120A/B and the R-77. To balance it, you could add the C7 which would have more range than the R-77-1 albeit less maneuvrability (seeker wise probably similar).
The R-77M with it’s 193km range (witch is only from 1 source, and i’ve got to cross source it. Since its a really new/modern missile there’s few info about it) is pretty similar kinetic wise to the 160/180km of the AIM-120D.
Also keep in mind that at those extreme range you won’t hit shit in any operational condition. In real world the missile probably would never be fired at more than 100km (except maybe against an AWACS/ Refueling ect).
So those range difference you have to take it as a pourcentage of difference. For exemple when fired low to the ground, you’re going to fire the AIM-120D at 40km while the R-77M is going to be fired at 45km. The difference of 5km is almost nothing and be closed in a couple of seconds.
Few things is known about this missile but the only thing certain is it was made to counter the PL-15 and Meteor with its 200km+ range, not the R-77M.
The AIM-120D is probably deemed sufficient against the R-77M.
Admittedly that’s a goof on my part but still, if you’re the author then why are you making bad comparisons?
It’s a massive difference, though. The 25km of the R-77-1 is a whole 56.25% more seeker range than the AIM-120C-5, and the AIM-120C-5 will have a harder time responding within that lessened range because it has less maneuverability.
I was going off of what was written in your thread where all the AIM-120’s and R-77’s range is described for a medium sized target (for the variants where seeker details are mentioned).
There’s a lot more to kinetics/flight performance than range though, it’s a bit odd you would use that descriptor (although I see you’re from France so could just be an ESL thing, so not much I can really say about that since I’m monolingual).
There’s a large difference between the R-77 and the AIM-120A/B’s though, at the very least in terms of overload, and the difference between the R-77-1 and the AIM-120C-5 adds a difference in seeker range (like I mentioned earlier in this post, not to reiterate myself).
Again, why would the R-77M be equal to the AIM-120D if it’s got (from publicly available documents, at least) more maneuverability, more range, and possibly more seeker range (if Gaijin decides the US can’t make equal or better radars, which isn’t unlikely)?
We should recognize that the AMRAAM C-5 has ~105km range in the conditions the AIM-120A has 74km range. Likewise, the R-77 has 80km at that distance but doesn’t need to loft… Manually loft the R-77 and you should vastly improve range in comparison to the AIM-120A which does the aforementioned range with… Lofting.
I’m not sure why this is so incredulous to everyone.