Gaijin does not implement different “drag” stages for missiles, like subsonic, transonic and supersonic. If they are about to add R-77, they have to create it and so far it seems difficult (like modeling lowered drag when the motor is burning). I think we will need a lot of bug reports for new FOX 3 missiles when they come.
1 Like
I don’t think they model the drag from post-burn when there is no gas behind the motor section either, the R-77 will be favored in all of these simplifications. As long as the missile under certain conditions has the correct kinematic range and average time to target it will be considered good to go.
1 Like
Annoying how all game simplifications of gaijins tend to favor ruaaian vehicle and weapon systems. Sure must be convenient…
1 Like
Favors all missiles equally, but alright. The R-77 will still have it’s drag and ranges optimized for altitudes 1-5k meters as Gaijin does with all other missiles so it won’t get much of an advantage in comparison to the AMRAAM in that regard.
This is the AMRAAM (most likely AIM-120B) sequence of events diagram from the Tornado F.3 manual:
5 Likes
0.8s after it is ejected from the frame it starts guidance, and 0.2s after ejection from frame does it start motor… interesting. I know that on the F-16 wingtips it is fired off the rail, I wonder how they will model these differences. Perhaps two separate missile files with changes in the guidance delay and such?
1 Like
I guess that’s how they would do it. But then again they don’t have separate versions of the Sparrow for rail vs ejection launch.
1 Like
I think it would be a pretty easy fix to have the two separate files and just change the guidance delay and all that. Would be a neat feature.
Would be a nice detail. Maybe it just never occurred to them with the Sparrow.
1 Like
You have to report it, it is like if you do not report stuff yourself they will never add it. Happened with a lot of features and neat things.
I doubt anyone wants to report it for the planes they play. Youd be hurting your own plane you main if your missile took an extra second to turn on motor when it could have used that one second to already be traveling towards whoever you’re locking onto.
RVV-AE (R-77 export designation) official export brochure states a maximum range of 80km: https://roe.ru/pdfs/pdf_4709.pdf
As for the AIM-120 (presumably the 120A), the only official document I can find with anything relating to range is this single slide from the below linked document indicating the increased range/engagement envelope of the AIM-120 (only name AIM-120 at the time as this is from 1989, 2 years before the AIM-120A was accepted into service) posted by a WT moderator on the old WT forums:
Department of Defense Appropriations for 1989: Chemical weapons and ... - United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on Department of Defense - Google Books
Range estimates seem to vary wildly for the AIM-120A, and the above image doesn’t state an exact range either, but the above image indicates it exceeds that of the AIM-7M using command inertial guidance at least which is stated as a maximum of 70km.
I also haven’t really seen any official sources regarding motor burn times for either the AIM-120A or R-77, so I’m confused as to where all the previous motor burn times discussed as arguments for range of each missile came from. I’ve seen range estimates all over the internet ranging from >20 nautical miles (~37km) to >35NM (~65km) for the AIM-120A, but never any official sources with numbers regarding range or motor burn.
Also, id like to add that many sources online claim the R-77 has a 100km range. Thats an outright fabrication as evident by the official brochure regarding the missile, and considering its very similar dimensions to the AIM-7M I think its pretty reasonable to assume its motor doesnt particularly exceed the capabilities seen on the 7M by much. Id even ventute a guess that at any launch below supersonic speeds, the missile likely underperforms compared to the 7M rather significantly due to the drag from the waffle fins.
4 Likes
The range of the AIM-7F/M is limited by the receiver, not kinematics. The extension in range is generally referred to as something made possible by the mid-course inertial guidance methodology of the AMRAAM. This is also what allows the R-27R/ER to travel as far as they do despite not actually being able to track the target (yet). The only time the R-77 would be able to achieve 100km kill is in an insanely high altitude and high speed scenario. The target would basically need to just unwittingly fly himself into the missile.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/398367636213334018/1141922952741396490/R-77.png
Obviously this chart is questionable at best, but highlights my point. No one is claiming 100km distance against a target below ~17km altitude and presumably at very high closure rate. 80km is a more practical distance for fighter sized targets as it is possible only at a altitude (per this chart) of around 15km.
At lower altitudes it seems the maximum practical range is less than 20km. The R-27ER will be the dominant Russian missile regardless of the fact that the R-77 is a fox-3 or has sufficient performance to out-range the AIM-120A/B.
Thats weird, you seemed to have missed the part where the Russian goverment doesnt claim 100km range at all, seeing as they claim an 80km max range on their official export brochure for the missile.
Not 80km+, not ~80km. Up to 80km. 80km max.
Considering they also have other “maximum” figures in their export document, such as max altitude of 25km, max target speed of 3600km/h I’m inclined to believe that what they mean by “up to 80km” for range is, yanno, up to 80km range against a non maneuvering target flying the optimal flight profile for it to intercept.
I think itd be a BIT weird if the official Russian export document got the max tange wrong by a whopping 25%… I’m sure your questionnable chart is a more reliable source tho
1 Like
That’s not the “Russian government”. It’s the Russian export industry’ Rosoboronexport. A secondary source at best, they only take procured weapons from the defense industry and export them elsewhere. The stated range of 80km is as meaningless as the Air Force saying the AMRAAM is “20+ miles” range.
NAVAIR doesn’t even have the correct weight for the AIM-120A/B. It’s all classified, so the public numbers may be over or understated.
Hughes themselves show a weight of 326 pounds for the AIM-120A. This is a primary source, and one that is backed up by other secondary sources for various places. We don’t have this kind of accurate information for the R-77 (yet). If Gaijin wants to use restricted Russian documents in the background to model the R-77 they’ll likely get a missile with a maximum range stated as 100km. Doesn’t mean it will reach there, same as the AIM-7F.
The sole state intermediary for Russian arms import/export. A state corporation. They have no reason to undersell their weapons max range. Seeing as its an export item, they are more likely inclined to overclaim, not underclaim. There’s no reason to believe the missile can exceed its publicly stated max range by a whopping 25%.
Trying to compare this to AMRAAM claimed range is idiotic as well. 20+ miles is highly ambiguous, and considering the previously shown procurement papers, as well as just basic logic, the idea that the AIM-120A cannot match, or more likely exceed the AIM-7M’s range is dubious at best. The R-77 on the other hand has a stated max range, along with other stated max figures (alt and target speed). Those are not ambiguous figures, they are stated maximums.
1 Like
There’s no reason to suggest that Rosboron needs to state a realistic range publicly at all. The R-77s range is going to depend highly on the circumstances as I’ve shown.
I hope you realize that “80km” figure means absolutely nothing without launch conditions
It means the maximum range the missile can achieve under ideal launch conditions…
Thats what “up to” means… its its limit
Come on guys, these are layups you’re missing, this is like, the most basic of basic reading comprehension
They gave you an engagement envelope. 0.3km min rear aspect, 80km max front aspect. Its REALLY not that hard
all they provided was “rear aspect” and “front aspect”. thats only part of the launch parameters required to know its performance.
We’re missing:
- Launching Aircraft Speed
- Launching Aircraft Altitude
- Target Aircraft Speed
- Target Aircraft Altitude