Having hand GPS navigator better than not, lol, what’s the issue. Already anticipating of getting shot? Lol, it’s freaking military conflict, why shouldn’t pilot expect possibility to being ejected and also not only in case of being shot but also just some aviation incident. And that’s already hard off topic.
6 Likes
That’s enough, I’m still waiting for a half a dozen sources for him to justify previous arguments that were at least related to the topic. Don’t feed him any further.
I am not forming an argument, only stating a small number of things you overlooked before making your own. Still waiting on all those sources and justifications.
I wouldn’t say so, to be quite honest. Even so, source?
I agree.
Yes, I am. The F-22 has no idea where to look for an enemy on his own without massive support. Flying blind would be incredibly dumb in a stealth fighter that they really can’t afford to get shot down.
Please find and share some sources to justify any of the points you made in the last week.
Nothing is as beautiful in service with the VKS at same time still reflects the overwhelming might of the Soviet Union that came before it.
Anyway aim-120. Sure I will respond tomorrow. I wanna play WT.
The R-77 range envelopes posted here an in your R-77 thread seem to indicate a maximum head-on air-to-air launch range of about 15 km at sea level. So a maximum range of 12 km when fired from stationary doesn’t seem too unreasonable.
On a sidenote 15 km head on range at sea level is worse than the AIM-7F and even Skyflash SuperTEMP. In fact it’s not that much better than the AIM-7E. Why does the R-77 perform so bad at sea level?
2 Likes
I would assume at low alt where air is dense and there is not enough airflow passing through the grate and as result it is almost acting like a paddle and as if it is a flat surface.
where do you get such nonsense from?
1 Like
@BBCRF This graph in the main post of @MiG_23M 's R-77 thread:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/398367636213334018/1143042513633022052/image.png
That looks like 15 km range at sea level to me. Someone also posted another diagram earlier in this thread showing a similar range at sea level.
1 Like
He uses this diagram as “proof” of the missiles upper range limits (instead of the stated 80km max from both KTRV and rosboronexport) but disagrees with its lower range limits and questions its veracity.
He’s done this multiple times, and this dishonesty is one of the main reasons why I ended up blocking him so as to no longer waste my time interacting with his comments or arguing with someone so clearly biased.
He also asserts some downright ludicrous stuff such as the missile acheiving M4.0 over launch speed, which would be a dV of roughly 1372m/s, and would still be a dV of roughly 1181 m/s at 10000m, which would mean its outperforming both the R-27ER (with its considerable larger motor) and the AIM-7M (with its near identical proportions) rather substantially. It would also mean that a M1.0+ launch would lead to this missile being hypersonic, and even the russians dont claim its a hypersonic missile…
Even M3.0 over launch speed would put it at a dV of around 1029m/s, slightly better than the 7M, slightly worse than the 27ER, which is a lot more realistic. Granted im not a fan of stating it “achieves X mach over launch speed” seeing as its aerodynamics are atypical due to the grid fins, due to high transonic drag, and lower high supersonic drag, so its actual achieve dV is much more related to its launch speed than missiles with planar fins which increase drag with increasing speed in a more conventional fashion.
Theres no real reason to believe the missile is particularly different to the 7M kinematically. It likely has an advantage at the upper end of its range envelope when launched at supersonic speeds due to the grid fins, but would suffer greatly at subsonic/transonic launches, which explains why it only attains a range of 12km when surface launched compared to the RIM-7M’s 26km.
He really just acts like Russians are the only nation on Earth that know how to design missiles and that the R-77 and R-27ER are god/the soviets/whatever you believe in’s gift to this ungrateful world.
Kinematics of russian missiles are perfect and any and all claims that they struggle in X scenario is a “seeker limitation” or whatever new excuse is cooked up to explain away their underperformance obviously 🙄
We’re kinda getting off topic tho, seeing as this is an AIM-120 thread…
7 Likes
this graph is complete nonsense, no one will show you a real graph. I can draw that too
V=V0+dV/dt
R-27ER,ET,R-40RD,TD,R-33,S,R-37,37M all hypersonic missile.Max speed R-27ER 1800 m/s
all air-to-air missiles can reach hypersonic speed. Another thing is that their speed lasts only a few seconds
1 Like
The graph isn’t very accurate as we’ve come to know. Plugging in the numbers for the booster and considering missile drag values 1.5-2 or even 3x what they would be expected yielded ranges close to 80-100km when testing in-game using custom missile files at altitude (even when launched from 0.9-1.1 mach against a co-speed and co-alt target). I could test at lower altitudes, but my expectation is that ground launched will yield 20-30km maximum range thanks to the lack of lofting and limited time at high supersonic speeds to improve range from grid-fin design.
Mythic doesn’t understand how deltaV works it seems. Directly comparing deltaV between missiles without considering drag, size, burn time, etc and even then comparing it to the AIM-7M for some very odd reason.
So you have some data about AIM-120 supersonic launches?? Can I see these??
21st August, 2002 Lt. Col. Eddie Cabrera is at the controls of Raptor 03 for the first supersonic separation test of an AIM-120 AMRAAM at Mach 1.19.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1156273508184228031/F22M_2002_06_Supersonic_AIM120_1267828237_5437.png?ex=65145f1e&is=65130d9e&hm=dc24281fa66b64b7ee1e8483e2d1e7464b8db70b8157c738411a2d4ac5092dba&
These tests were important to determine safety of supersonic missile separation after exiting the weapons bay of the expensive fighter. It was perfect.
Supersonic missile launches are actually desired.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1156274378582016031/image.png?ex=65145fee&is=65130e6e&hm=9f9a26fcb0ab323368a9a3b97f1d78806c1d34cb7f48c535134a6469656455d8&
There is also the fact that other missiles designed around the time period of the AMRAAM requiring supersonic inlet air (ramjets) exist. They would not be so focused on such technology, or there would be existing reports determining it was difficult / had the challenge of overcoming supersonic launches if there was a problem. There is no such mention of this being an issue, because it’s not one.
So you try say to me that first ever supersonic deploy AIM-120 was 11 years after introduce it in duty??
Sorry but it’s like not consistent like 20 post before you claim that is no proof that maiority launches are subsonic… And now you give article that after 11 years of active duty US make first attempt to supersonic test??
You are serious!? Or I’m just don’t understand some thing ?
1 Like
That was clearly not the first, what’s shown is an AIM-120C. The only time they’ve needed to do proper supersonic testing for missile launches is for separation testing on AMRAAM. Likewise, with Meteor there seems to be no concern for aerodynamic heating. I see no reason they’d be less reliable when launched from sub vs supersonic.
Further, in most materials I’ve read they seem to desire supersonic launch speeds. That is the norm.
1 Like
It’s interesting, I was considering other missiles with public data such as MICA are stated 20km range from surface launch and 60-80km range in high alt air launched scenario. If the MICA can do 20km, the RIM-7M can do 26km, why does the RIM-7M have ~100km kinematic performance and MICA only 60-80?
Further, if the R-77 is stated as an 80-100km range missile, why does it have (allegedly) less range from surface launch? These things do not add up and as such, further testing was required. From this testing, we can state with a high degree of certainty that the R-77’s 12km ground launched range is the distance it intercepted an oncoming target, or was a seeker limitation. It would have more kinematic range otherwise from ground launch.
Wouldn’t a surface launched R77 suffer the worst from transonic drag factors because of the increased drag and air density?
I assume it would be launched at a cruise speed so like mach .8-.9
The transonic speed will last 0.1-0.2s
It has equal performance to conventional missiles and suffers only from a region between 0.8 and 1.3 mach. That does not mean it suffers the entire time between 0.8 to 1.3, but the envelope in which it does is somewhere within that region.
Anyhow, the missiles’ acceleration is such that it would go beyond 1.3 mach within ~1-1.5s from launch… and as @BBCRF stated the transonic region lasts but a moment in that time. It would have a noticeable impact if it weren’t also for the fact that the missile has IMPROVED drag performance at high supersonic speed. This is advantageous as once the missile is going fast, it stays fast longer. This easily offsets any wave drag issues in the transonic region.