Lock distance is for the active seeker, launch distance is the maximum theoretical kinematic range in a high altitude type scenario.
I guess I still don’t understand the 2 values.
For a SARH such as the 530D the stat card gives a 30 km lock range and a 40 km launch range.
How can you fire the missile at 40 km if you can’t even lock the target at that range?
Imagine two targets are traveling the same direction, you fire a missile from rear aspect and they are 18km apart from each other.
The missile likely will travel >30km overall despite being launched from target at just 18km rear aspect.
Likewise, of you fire at 30km but target turns to the side to “crank” the missile may have to travel further distance to hit target.
Though we must also consider… Missiles with inertial guidance and datalink do not need the target to be within lock range for a launch.
No counters? I doubt Gaijin would give the americans the AIM120 without also giving the russians R77
R-77 outperforms AMRAAM up to AIM-120C-5
The AMRAAM currently doesn’t perform on par with the R-27ER with the exception that it can be fire and forget after missile is a certain range to target. I think nullifies the disadvantages of the AIM-120 being only similar to the AIM-7F in performance (albeit a little faster time to target with similar range).
2 Likes
bring it on
Yes you are right, my mistake
i 100% agree with this.
R-27ER has better kinematics but aim-120 doesnt need you to be nose hot the entire time.
Seems pretty fair to me
1 Like
Going further that advantage can only be leveraged if you have the time to maneuver and make proper use of said capability, so has further constraints the it would if they had similar kinetic performance so will be of questionable usefulness at shorter ranges. It may also help restore the longer range edge that western fighters are designed around maintaining.
1 Like
yeah and afaik you also have to guide it for some while before being able to turn around so you can’t really launch it at max range and piss off while expecting the missile to achieve anything. unless its a bot, then maybe
1 Like
Source? From what I know the R-77 should be shorter-ranged than AIM-120 in most conditions barring maybe a high supersonic launch. The grid fins are draggier in the transonic region and the missiles both have very similar propellant fractions.
The tactical advantage of being able to defend without trashing the missile and firing without STT lock is so large that I’d consider AIM-120 better than R-27ER by a considerable margin.
3 Likes
What you know is likely derived from AIM-120Bs modeling of having a nearly 4s boost and 4s sustain time in DCS when in real life it’s closer to 1.4s boost and 5-6s sustainer. Grid fins are draggier in the transonic region but maximum range is determined by the high altitude supersonic launch parameters.
The tactical advantage of stealth (RWR) launches is nullified by being visible from any point in the map due to contrails, and the missile likewise doing the same. Reduced smoke and smokeless motor missiles still create contrails due to high velocity and altitude as well as heating from the motor burning. When the R-27ER is launched and the launching aircraft also notches… leaves the AMRAAM with nearly half the engagement range or less and plenty of time for the R-27 launching aircraft to defend the AMRAAM after the R-27ER has had the time to reach the target. The AMRAAM slinger would be forced to stop their TWS updates and notch the R-27ER to defeat it.
1 Like
Which is fine, because the amraam would go active on its own and find the target, quite easily given we don’t have anything remotely considered low observable.
Source for the motor btw?
1 Like
Source [15], it’s a study on the AMRAAM with permissions for publication and it has thrust profiles. Says a combustion time of 6-8 seconds and based on the profile it’s 1.4-2s burn time and 5-6s sustainer. References TO-34-16C with permissions.
Discusses AIM-120B.
By my calculations (insert nerd pushing up glasses)
The AIM-120 and R-27ER (When fired from max range of AIM-120) would yield approximately 20s of time to target left for AIM-120 when the R-27ER hits the F-16, and that is if neither cranks and continues at high speed directly head-on with each other. This leaves far more than plenty of time for the R-27ER launching aircraft to evade the AIM-120 before it even finds its’ own lock and goes active.
In a more reasonable lower altitude and lower speed scenario, say 5000m and mach 1… if both targets crank while guiding they will find similar results… of course at that altitude the AMRAAM enjoys the advantages of less prior warning due to the reduced smoke motor and TWS mid-course.
I personally find this an acceptable balance, far more so than AIM-7F vs R-27ER.
5 Likes
I’m not talking DCS, I’m talking the known masses of both missiles which should give them similar total acceleration. Which your own research makes more to the advangage of the AIM-120 btw compared to DCS. And max range in high altitude supersonic is not the most relevant to practical gameplay, even with bigger maps you will be in missile range before being able to exit the transonic regime at high altitude.
Smoke trails aren’t as clear-cut as a RWR spike, they can be visually missed, obscured by cloud, or unclear if you are the target. Like if you focus on long range and high altitude engagement, this is also where it is most likely that a smoke trail is not seen or not acted on.
Also multi-target engagement is a huge advantage for being able to quickly reduce enemy numbers and win the match.
AIM-120A/B is ~326 pounds (147.8 kg) (sources above)
R-77 is approx. ~385 pounds (175 kg) (Aviation Week & Piotr Butowski)
That’s a 18% increase in overall mass over the AIM-120A/B.
R-77 is 200mm wide, AIM-120B is 178mm
That’s 12% wider than the AIM-120.
R-77 is 3.6m, AIM-120 is 3.65m.
Both have approx. 22kg warhead weight.
Both accelerate approximately 4 mach over launch speed.
The R-77’s control actuator section is only about as long as the AIM-120C-5’s “SCAS” (shortened control actuator section). An advantage to the R-77 initially.
From what we can assess, more of the missiles mass is propellant, and there is more missile to go around. It is negligibly bigger (diameter) than the AIM-120 and reaches similar speeds. More boost for longer is likely going to result in better performance overall and is what I base my assessment on. If you find error in this, we can discuss the specifics.
Regarding multi-target, the AIM-54 and F-14 lacks this currently. No reason to believe it’s coming (yet) and most early Fox-3 slingers have just 2x missiles, so I don’t think that will come soon. If it does, certainly advantageous but you still need them within reach of the radar to do TWS updates and defensive targets hurt this capability greatly.