R-77, the first one, was already better than R-27ER BY FAR.
R-27ER exclusively exists because Su-27 cannot fire R-77s, which weren’t retired until late.
AIM-120B was already superior to AIM-7s, which is why you never saw AIM-7s on F-16Cs under US service.
do you mean something else
No, R-27ER exists because Russia was too poor to buy R-77’s. And the real reason you never saw AIM-7 on F-16C’s was because the F-16A was not compatible with AIM-7 before then, AIM-7 compatibility was only added around the same time AIM-120 became available so there was no point. We did see lots of F-15C’s and F-18C carting AIM-7’s even after AIM-120 introduction, because they could use the old stocks without modification.
Except for the fact R-27ER is more expensive than R-77s both then and now.
Good lord the amount of Russian propaganda in this thread…
“R-27ER is the best missile ever made. It’s superior to R-77 and AIM-120B.”
No it isn’t, it’s FAR worse.
not true at all, the R-27ER ingame is enormously overperforming and accelerates far too fast
1 Like
All missiles accelerate too quickly. That’s what Gaijin has done and their claim is to make the missiles more realistic.
So when the AIM-120’s are added they will also accelerate “far too fast”.
Knock it off with your persecution complex. Nowhere have I said that R-27ER is better.
Source on R-27ER cost? Because that makes zero sense. And procurement is a complicated topic, but it’s clear that pretty much all foreign customers prefered R-77/RVV-AE to R-27ER for good reasons, and the main cause of Russian R-27ER usage must therefore be the price of procuring new missiles versus using existing stocks.
Doesn’t 27ER outrange the AMRAAM?
don’t know i konw its faster but IRL its worse in every way
1 Like
Range of SARHs and AARHs are incomparable.
R-27ER has a 0km active-range.
If fired from long range
The only advantage of AMRAAM would be ability to go Pitbull at certain range, allowing pilot to lock another target. Up until that range, the missile still requires input from radar source
Pitbull is the difference between an AIM-9J and an AIM-9L.
To elaborate on the R-27ER not being an AMRAAM equivalent:
It’s true the R-27ER has some kinematic advantages over the AIM-120B and R-77. It’s safe to say it’s probably the best flight-performance wise of the three, though not by much.
However, these advantages are only really effective in 1v1 jousts. In an actual battle, the speed and acceleration of the R-27 is completely outclassed by the fire-and-forget capability of the R-77 and AIM-120.
In an actual battle, aircraft using AMRAAMs or R-77s will be able to fire 6 or 8 missiles on as many targets. Even if each missile has only a 25% chance of hitting, 8 launches from something like an F-15 gives a 90% of at least one kill. Compare that to an aircraft using R-27s, which can only engage a single target at once and therefore has a much more difficult time getting kills. It’s similar to how many players prefer to take AIM-9Ms over AIM-7Ms despite the better flight performance of the sparrows- it’s more effective to keep throwing shit at the wall and hope something sticks than to put all your eggs in one basket.
From the defensive side of things, FnF is a huge advantage. When using an AMRAAM or R-77, you can turn completely away and the missile will still be able to hit. R-27ER does have IOG and datalink but you’d still realistically need to regain lock for that terminal phase of intercept for a kill, which Fox-3s take care of themselves. In addition and building on the offensive portion, a theoretical team of all fox-3 users will have a much easier time avoiding fire from a theoretical team of fox-1 users. On average, the first team will have to dodge a single missile from a single direction each during the initial engagement- not too bad. However, the second team will have to attempt to avoid 6-8 missiles from 6-8 directions each. This can’t realistically be done with a single notch, giving the Fox-3 team a huge advantage when it comes to surviving in a team battle.
3 Likes
ARH missiles will still give off radar warnings as they are rarely used with the internal radar as their only guidance. Past the last 16km it still needs to be guided by the launch aircraft as the target will likely be moving, requiring flight path correction that only the launch aircraft can give.
It is not in any way, until you show me stats/sources that prove that any AIM-120 before the AIM-120C-5 has a single aspect to it that is better than the R-77 I’m just not going to respond to this blatant lie.
Not in terms of getting to a target first.
AARHs only give off launch warnings once off datalink, real datalink; when they go pitbull.
I stated equivalent, not better than.
AIM-120 gets to its target first cause R-27ER & AIM-7 went into the ground when defeated before the AMRAAM & R-77 were even launched.
Here, check out this page, it’s got great info on a lotta Fox-3s.
And these two
Specifically, the AIM-120B is lighter, has a more powerful engine, bit better seeker, and most significantly a far, far lower drag coefficient. The grid-fins of an R-77 produce a huge amount of wave drag- that’s drag in the transonic regime. The wave drag is primarily responsible for the much lower range of the R-77 when not launched at over ~Mach 1.2 or very high altitude. You can clearly see this difference when looking at SAM variants of the two missiles, the AMRAAM-B has an extra 4-8km (25-50%) range when surface launched, and this would translate to the low-transonic, low-altitude fights you see in War Thunder.
The sam variant of the R-77 was never produced. The 12km range figure thrown around by not-so-reputable sources could be anything from seeker limitation to distance target is at point of intercept.
What we know is that at an altitude of ~12km… the R-77 with a 0.9 mach launch towards a 0.9 mach target has around ~80-100km range. The AIM-120B in the same conditions has just 74km range. The information regarding the AMRAAM and R-77 is pretty solid - but we have been able to find less information verifying the maximum range in such conditions for the R-77. What I’ve found is that the R-77 model I’ve made in-game for testing matches most available datapoints now and leans towards a battery limited range of 80km at such altitudes.
What is more interesting is that it is 80km maximum range without lofting… the AIM-120 needs to loft to reach 74km in the same ~80s. I think the increased seeker (active range) of the AIM-120 and the larger drag penalty on the R-77 for maneuvering targets will make both missiles somewhat equal. I don’t think Gaijin will consider the AIM-120C-5 initially seeing as they currently don’t care about the performance difference between AIM-7M and R-27ER. They didn’t care about the difference between the AIM-7F and R-24R previously either…
Of course at close ranges the R-77 being able to reliably hit 12G targets is going to be important. The AIM-120 is also pretty maneuverable at ~50G’s. (If they do not introduce combined plane it will be just ~35G… which is still un-dodge-able for the most part).
1 Like
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.