Should Russia receive the R-77 if NATO nations get the AMRAAM?

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

1 Like

other nations never used the A only the B first so the B will be the first


okay, thank you


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:


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.

What do you mean?

If the AIM-120C-5 reaches 105km (while lofting) in the same conditions that the R-77 reaches ~80km we can presume they have similar actual range. Manually lofting the R-77 should yield similar results, albeit it will be somewhat less efficient than lofting.

The AIM-120A/B models have less range than the R-77 with lofting, the time to target for maximum range is somewhat similar, though at 80s. This is because the AIM-120 has a higher average speed than the R-77 (I think). The R-77 is a bit more aerodynamic at the high mach numbers but the acceleration is less and doesn’t have a sustainer so slows down faster after the burn.

There is a lot to unpack, but essentially what I am saying is that the R-77 is analogue to the AIM-120C-5. Whether it is as close to the performance as I think or not won’t be relevant since Gaijin clearly doesn’t care about the difference in performance between already existing missiles. Examples are the AIM-7F vs R-23 / R-24 and AIM-7M vs R-27ER / ET.

R-27EA is better than the R-77-1 in range by up to 30%.
Yeah no, R-77 and R-77-1 is enough for Soviets.

And no @Patriotic_FR
R-27ER and AIM-7s are not balanced against R-77 and AIM-120B, R-27ER is drastically inferior to both.

As for 40G, if it’s faster, that 40G is closer to 35Gs of slower missiles.

R-77-1 is 110km allegedly, which is ~10km within MICA EM and AIM-120C-1 through 5.

The R-27ER is not drastically inferior to the R-77 and AIM-120B. There is a reason the Soviet aircraft continued to use the R-27ER/ET on modern fighters. It was only replaced when the R-37M and R-77-1 were well into full production.

The AIM-120 series are ~50G and the R-77 is 40+… this might be one of a number of advantages but is not what makes them more ‘lethal’ at range… the lack of hard lock is…

Technically speaking, some R-27ER users could guide multiple missiles to separate targets (SMT)… but this feature is not in the game yet. Additionally, especially when manually lofted… the missile reaches targets much faster than any of the aforementioned radar missiles beyond ~40km distances… It’s still very lethal. The AIM-7 is the only one drastically outclassed here.

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.