It’s just maximum possible range in best conditions. Chart isn’t for best conditions. Target doesn’t even have at least 1000 km/h in chart.
2 Likes
The manual assumes much lower speeds than the theoretical max from the supplier, and this argument actually hurts your case rather than helps it, as you claim they are overclaiming on the R-27R1 but underclaiming on the R-77 for whatever weird propaganda reason you’re making up to assure yourself you’re right xD
2 Likes
Never believe a single word from south asian defense forum/sites. Those sites are literally filled with overly nationalist fools.
I don’t see how it harms my argument, it shows how the max range is not even all that relevant. I’m going to admit as much right now. This doesn’t change the fact that it could very well exceed 80km and Rosoboronexport has not always been an accurate source.
That leaves us with what we’ve stated already… you call it napkin math… okay? Does that make it any less relevant to the conversation? I’d rather try to make real comparisons with better known and visible data than just believe something arbitrary stated like “20+ miles” or “80km”.
@MythicPi So someone has shared with me a book, inside it are some graphs for missile ranges. I compared them and found that all of the graphs match the stated ranges in diagrams or manuals (first hand sources). Since I lack one for the R-77 I cannot directly compare but the accuracy for the rest is on par, I can only presume the R-77 is also accurate.
It also matches the napkin math and other stuff we’ve inferred based on the current public knowledge.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1142180914147901570/image.png
The maximum stated range on the chart is 80km, but the range exceeds that and hits a wall of what I assume to be the battery life limit. To me this suggests a practical maximum range of 80km due to battery life, but kinematic range of closer to 100km at those altitudes.
Does warthunder take account of battery life? If not we are most likely going to get R77 with 100km range
Yes. All missiles have a maximum flight time programmed, after which they self destruct.
4 Likes
That means 80Km would be the range?
The R-77 should have 100km distance with battery life also considered. The vertical line where it stops traveling further is caused by battery life.
And yes, war thunder models it as “WorkTime” in the missile file, it just stops and explodes once that determined guidance time has passed. For the AIM-9G for example it is 60s. For the AIM-120 we presume it is around 80. For the AIM-54 it is 160 seconds iirc.
Except barring your book, which you havent linked or quoted, just shown a drawing from and told us matched other manuals, you still dont have a primary source, and Rosboronexport/KTRV, both of which are much closer to, primary sources, both state a max of 80km range for the missile, along with other information your graph does not provide. So up til now, you have “trust me bro” (despite having tried to pass off a fake source as real in this argument already), a hand drawing with hyper limited information from an unstated secondary source.
Rereading your napkin math assumption also just makes things worse, since you do some interesting mental gymnastics regarding the R-77’s superiority such as:
[quote=“MiG_23M, post:76, topic:2584”]
Both accelerate approximately 4 mach over launch speed.[/quote]
Which would indicate the AIM-120A reaches similar speeds in a shorter period of time.
This directly contradicts your earlier assumptions, as the sustain portion of the motor burn does not accelerate the missile, but instead sustains its speed (the clue is the word sustain). Which means by your own stated sources, the AIM-120 reaches similar speeds in shorter time and sustains its speed via motor burn for longer.
The R-77 has extremely similar dimensions to the AIM-7M (same diameter, similar lengths), and barring the high supersonic drag advantage of lattice fins over conventional ones, suffers other major drag penalties in compairisons, such as the substantially shorter motor burn (4.5-6s according to you vs 15.5s for the AIM-7M and 6-8s for the AIM-120A).
This page has moved to a new URL.
Its dubious to believe that a missile with very similar size to an AIM-7M (200mm diameter, 3.6/3.66M (R-77 vs AIM-7M), and an arguably worse drag profile (better fins for high supersonic speeds, 1/3 the motor burn time significantly impacting drag) would so handedly outperform the AIM-7 in terms of range, with the AIM-7M’s stated max range of 70km, vs the R-77’s stated 80km being possible via advances in rocket motor technology and guidance, but not a wopping 100km+ range you like to state, which would be an almost 43% increase in range.
Your entire analysis basicly boils down to “well the R-77 is better straight-line, its also better at higher alts because drag doesnt matter as much at higher alts, and its also better at lower alts (where drag matters more) cuz I said so, it pulls more, it has a longer seeker duration, its basicly the second coming of jesus as a missile!”
Your entire analysis is just non-stop mental gymnastics that comes to the totally suprising conclusion that the R-77 is just better in every way to the AMRAAM, which is basicly a garbage missile cuz its worse than a SARH from a decade earlier made by the soviets, and offers no advantage besides its seeker, over a SARH also made a decade earlier by the US, which could totally have been easily upgraded with said seeker if that was really all the AIM-120A had over the AIM-7M.
Except we know its not, seeing as the only available document from the US we have publicly available shows the AIM-120A matches the AIM-7’s range in frontal shots, and exceeds it using command inertial guidance, all while being a smaller missile, allowing for more to be carried as well.
You also state wonderfully questionnable things like:
Stating that Rosoboronexport OVERCLAIMS the R-27R1 range by a wopping 40km and that the provided numbers by KTRV are propaganda, but for whatever reason underclaims the R-77 range by 20km+??? That completely illogical as an assumption.
Or:
-
They didnt “abandon” the R-27ER quickly, its still in use and commonly seen ALONGSIDE the R-77 on their top of the line Su-35!!!
-
The reverse of that is true as well! You think the Americans would wait 6 years to develop a match to the RVV-AE despite the fact that it was initially developped for export customers and likely fell into US hands within the first year of its existence???
Back to technical points:
Theres also just the fact of looking at other long range air to air missile developments, particularly Russian and Chinese ones, as both nations have used the R-77, and wouldnt you know, neither of them use lattice fins on any long range air to air missiles, and certainly not on hypersonic missiles, with the R-37M, PL-12, PL-15, PL-21, and most damningly, the Russian R-77M/ME currently under development with conventional fins!!!
Which is not a great look for your beloved lattice fins when its considered that one of the primary advantage of lattice fins is packing, which is important on an aircraft like the Su-57 which may carry missiles internally!
All in all, you’ve made questionnable assumptions, bent facts to suit your tastes by revising your assumptions about the R-77 and AIM-120A to better suit your narrative, made just outright laughable leaps in logic, refuse to take the closest thing to publicly available sources for either missiles we have, effectively claiming counter-propaganda(???) with regards to the R-77 while just ignoring the AIM-120 one since it didnt suit your narrative, and posted dubious sources which corroborate your views and tried to pass them off as legitimate! (As seen with ur indian defense forum graph, wouldnt be the first time you tried to pass something off as a legitimate source when it wasnt either.)
You even tried wording your post regarding your most recent “source” , an undisclosed book, in a eay for it to be easily misinterpreted as a primary source, which you claim got the other missiles (with publicly available figures) right, and therefore MUST be getting the R-77 (with no publicly available figures besides the Rosoboronexport/KTRV ones) wrong???
8 Likes
I’m glad you made the long post, I’ve discovered the book I was referring to actually referenced Vympel’s own export catalogue. They claim 100km range in there, too.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1012063753073864734/1142182939849928724/image.png
Right, so original claims for the missiles range was 100km, and its since been dropped to 80km by thr current companies in charge of selling thr missile, and your assumption is “I knew it! Reverse propaganda from Rosobornonexport/KTRV!”
If ANYTHING is propaganda, its those figures.
Im done arguing this, I can’t keep up with your mental gymnastics anymore.
4 Likes
The original R-77 didn’t properly enter service with the Russian forces, the RVV-AE is an export model. Likely the 80km is reduced range for export, and later both were replaced by the R-77-1 proper and its’ export model with 110km range stated. It’s also possible the R-77-1 has more than 110km range for Russian service, but we also only know the export RVV-SD stated range.
Spoiler
Regarding your statements about my “napkin math” and the AIM-120’s thrust profile, the sustainer is essential to reach higher speeds and then maintain them for whatever time it can. At lower altitudes the booster will not be reaching mach 4 as the R-77s can. This is reflected in the relevant charts.
So no, this doesn’t contradict my earlier “assumptions”. The boost-sustain profile does allow for you to sustain the speeds of the initial boost, but at a certain point drag is much reduced and the sustainer can actually allow for higher top speeds. For the AIM-120 it seems that the top speed of mach 4 is only achievable in the same manner as the R-27ER’s top speed is only achievable. (At very high altitude and initial launch speeds). The R-77 is still the winner here, having a similar thrust profile to the AIM-120C-5 and lower drag grid fins for such high supersonic speeds.
Yes, you’re correct the R-77 is more similar to the AIM-7M in size but with much reduced electronics size, different warhead, tail guidance section instead of wings. It has more modern higher ISP propellant and a better burn profile. Now let me remind you that the AIM-7M has 100km range.
The R-77 is far from the second coming of Jesus, I think that could be quite an offensive statement to some… The R-77 is not better at lower altitudes where the aircraft would be unable to launch above mach 1.3 because wave drag could significantly impact the performance of the missile immediately. This is evident by the fact that it has some 33% less range than R-27ER at 1km altitude seemingly. The AIM-120A wouldn’t be any better, but as altitude increases the R-77’s advantages stack on.
You’ve read my assessments wrong, I think the AIM-120A in a 1v1 BVR situation would not be the breadwinner for engaging an aircraft equipped with the R-27ER. The R-27ER can out-range the AIM-120A and still give the launcher time to evade the AMRAAM. That is all. The fact that you can go full cold and turn around to launch another AMRAAM as the target gets closer kind of nullifies the advantages of the R-27ER. I think it’s a fair match-up and we should see the AIM-120A soon. In fact, I’d advocate for letting the AIM-120A come to the game and give Russia no fox-3 at all until a few updates (6-9 months) later.
Yes the export company overclaims the range of their missile. In no real world situation will it ever hit any target at 75km. No modern airforce is that idiotic that they’d allow such a thing to happen. The missile would be wasted with little to no remaining energy. Unlike the R-77 which seemingly has plenty of energy at the altitudes where it can hit 100km but fails to due to battery life.
They abandoned the R-27ER. It’s still used in training, but when you have massive stocks of things you tend to continue using them as necessary. There was a Harrier equipped with an AIM-120A/B in 2022. I seriously doubt them engaging anything in Syria requires the advantages of the R-77. Using the cheaper old missile stock would be wise.
Lattice fins are well studied, what I’ve claimed is true. The fact that they’d moved to conventional tailfins likely suggests that the missile wants better drag near the end of a lofting trajectory and supports the theory that earlier R-77s did not loft, whereas the newer models likely use such trajectory shaping. For a missile that looks at almost doubling the range of the original R-77 and in a similar sized package… this would be more ideal to move to conventional fins. Grid-fins would be better suited for what I’d call the “brute force missile” designs of Soviet era Russia such as the R-27ER or early R-77.
Also,
If they were to think the legacy style tailfins were better than the grid-fins they’d likely also replace the export models grid fins but they didn’t. They didn’t replace the grid-fins on the ramjet proposal model either.
You could have asked for the book but you didn’t. Instead you just used the fact that I failed to properly cite it as ammo to attack me for whatever reason because… behold… my napkin math was right. The R-77 is a 100km range missile by all means.
TL;DR
The R-77 is a 100km range missile, bar the export RVV-AE which we still do not have solid data to go off of imo. The grid fins are advantageous for a missile that lacks a lofting trajectory and no public knowledge really suggests it has any kind of loft. It looks like Russia was looking more for time to target than peak range. The new R-77M has traditional fins as it is a similar sized missile looking to reach nearly double the range of the original R-77. This requires lofting, and the older style fins do not suffer wave drag between 0.8 and 1.3 mach. At final approach at such ranges the missile can be expected to drop to those speeds and they don’t want it falling out of the air.
It’s not official Vympel’s catalogue. It’s “Bastion” magazine from 2001.
And this chart originally is from this book from 1993.
Спойлер
8 Likes
This is the second time @MiG-23M lied or about a source’s provenance and it seems completely pointless to continue arguing with someone when they’ve demonstrated that they’re not debating in good faith.
6 Likes
You know very well what you did. Handing these sources off to me as legitimate and then turning around to paint me as guilty like this.
This also doesn’t change the fact that all of the graphs in the second book match the real primary source manual diagrams and charts for range on the remaining missiles. It’s highly likely that the R-77’s is accurate as well.
@Aetreus The argument stemmed from the fact that the R-77 outperforms the early AMRAAM’s, AIM-120A/B. I made the point that the first AIM-120 that would properly compete is the AIM-120C-5. This has not changed, and whether the R-77s max range is 80 or 100km doesn’t change that fact either. That will only really determine if the AIM-120C-5 will compete with, or beat it outright.
And @MythicPi if you still want to try and prove the AIM-120A/B is comparable to the R-77 I’d be happy to see you use napkin math or the same methods and reason as I have used to find the range of the missile. If you want to stick to your guns and not be a hypocrite about this you can go ahead and find any reasonable source to suggest the AIM-120A has more range than the AIM-7F/M barring guidance time and lofting.
Yeah no point in arguing anymore, I’ve just muted him.
Back on topic for the AIM-120, ill dig around and see if theres anything more I can find besides the source I already posted. Since it came from a mod, Gaijins already got eyeballs on that one, and beyond the fact that it indicates the AIM-120A matches the AIM-7M range and exceeds its envelope to the sides with conventional guidance, and exceeds its range with command inertial guidance, it doesnt give us any hard numbers beyond “better than AIM-7M”.
5 Likes
Pointless muting someone who runs the thread and has more knowledge / information on the topic. I’ve already passed most public sources to the mods on the topic. In fact, they approached me for further information in the first place.
When you discover what I’ve said is true don’t be afraid to post it and admit as much.
I’m not painting anybody here. I only discuss misisles here and free to constructive dialogue. What’s wrong with showing that source you posted isn’t official and quite old, possibly outdated and perhaps not converging with reality?
3 Likes