They provided both of these seeing as they stated the min/max alt of 0.02/25km and max target speed of 3600kph. They also state max vertical separation between launch aircraft and target of 10km.
Considering they state its literal engagement envelope, its pretty dang hard to understand why there’s anything ambiguous about it. I could entertain the idea that maybe if the target was flying at 3600kph 25km alt and the firing aircraft was flying at Mach Jesus at the same alt or something, it would theoretically be possible to exceed the stated max of 80km, but at that point why tf are we arguing about missile ranges?
If you can’t take the only official public source, from the Russians, regarding their missiles engagement envelope and want to nitpick about launch aircraft speed and altitude, there’s no point in even debating this at this point because you refuse the stated limits of the missile off your theoretical assumptions tailored to fit your world view.
The Russians historically provide launch conditions of missiles at 10km alt. So your point is widely off the mark here. Fasterboi is right. We need target alt/speed and launch aircraft alt/speed. Anything else is insufficient.
There’s a lot of ambiguity about this. You’re even assuming here that the 80km range could be at 25km.
Im assuming the stated max range of the missile within the stated altitude limits and stated target speed limits for a non-maneuvering shot is correct. You guys are the ones assuming things that have no hard evidence backing them.
Assuming max as “under ideal conditions” really isn’t making some major assumptions here…
The chart you called “Questionnable at best” that doesnt match DirectSupport’s claim of “The Russians historically provide launch conditions of missiles at 10km alt” that only matches the actual official export paper in 1 factor, being the max alt of 25km?
Stop being hostile, it’s not necessary. Our presumptions on the range of the R-77 will not change the performance when it comes to the game. Even if the absolute maximum range is 80km, the R-77 does not loft as far as we know. The AIM-120A/B has a similar range and has to loft from high launch speed and altitude to reach such a range. Russian aircraft also have better acceleration and time to climb. It’s best to assume that the R-77 will be outranging the AMRAAM until the AIM-120C-5 arrives regardless of whatever discussion has gone on here.
My assumption is that the Russians would not abandon the R-27ER so quickly rather than putting a better seeker on it if the R-77 did not offer sufficient range. They at the time thought the AMRAAM had a range of nearly 120km. There is no possible way they’d wait until 2015 to produce a missile with still less range if they already had better, knowing full well the enemy did too.
Range >80km for the R-77 makes sense when looking at the size of the missile, the aerodynamics… it makes sense when we know how Russia tends to state missile range. It makes sense when we look at what else they have available.
Hostile? You accuse me of making assumptions and useing bad sources, meanwhile th majority of stated performance for the R-77 from those of you currently arguing is purely based on assumptions and you call my source “secondary at best” while supporting your argument with what is a low effort grpah with no actual proper sourcing on an enthusiast blog?
You 3 having been accusing me of stating erroneous facts when im the only one who actually provided a source with a decent bit of actual official publicly available performance data.
If our presumptions on the range of the R-77 wont change its performance in-game, why are you even wasting our time with this argument? You’re just moving the goalpost at this point
Yet again, everything you provide is based on assumptions. Yet you accuse me of making assumptions and provide no actual source to back yourself up besides napkin math and logic skewed to your view, and dispute the only actual source any of us has provided.
Your source is wrong though, lol. Rosboronexport has stated erroneous things in the past and isn’t considered a primary source by Gaijin. Likewise, the US Airforce and NAVAIR both intentionally misquoted the weight of the early AIM-120s. It’s just propaganda or what have you.
The information is generally assumed, but backed with good reason. You fail to see the reason and you want desperately to be right. You’re not going to be able to prove it and the best we got is the napkin math which points to my conclusions.
And Russia didn’t. Until R-77-1 came in active service (R-77 never even was in active service) and R-27 anyway is still often carried in patrol mission. And R-77-1 (RVV-SD) advertising range is 110 km.
if there’s anyone trying desperately to be right, its you Mr. I modify my assumption of rocket motor sizes to fit my argument and refuse state sources in favor of enthusiast blogs because doing so proves me right.
The burden of proof via official sources is on you, not me.
Math that so far has yet to be shown false, aligns with performances of other missiles per the testing done in-game. Information from enthusiast blogs that aligns better with what the math shows and against state media that has been wrong many times in the past.
Rosoboronexport claims a range of 75km for the R-27R1. It states nearly the same information of +/- 10km separation and hitting a target traveling some ~3500 km/h. Yet, in-game has a stated launch range of approx. 55km.
I suspect the 80km stated range is nowhere near the real practical range, and certainly not the max. The same goes for everything else Rosoboronexport has stated and that’s when it’s accurate to begin with. We need the context of the launch parameters as everyone else has said. While we wait for such data to be come public, the napkin math is the best we got.
And there you can see the launch range of 50-60km stated for a fighter sized target. This does not match the actual performance envelope shown from the manuals. It is propaganda, without context.
