The assumption that izdeliye 170 and izdeliye 190 are the same weight stems from confusion of R-77 and RVV-AE I think.
Also, the fact that in Karpenko’s chart the range is capped at 100km with a vertical line suggests a guidance time issue, nothing more. The missile has more room for more batteries than the AIM-120, this also adds to the reason that the AIM-120A likely has significantly less range than than the R-77.
Anything saying the RVV-AE has similar weight and size to the original R-77 fails to also explain the change from a radar to a laser based proximity fuse and I see no public sources outside of forums and twitter stating the differences but there are plenty of photos in both clearly showing that there are changes in the R-77 vs RVV-AE. Even within different models of RVV-AE we see either laser or radar based proximity fuse window options. There are also changes made to the grid fins in later models of the RVV-AE which are later seen on RVV-SD. There just isn’t enough solid information on the missiles.
Its actually farcical how much you absolutely categorically refuse to believe that the R-77 is not a match to the AIM-120-C5 like you claim and is more likely a match to the AIM-120A, as the R-77-1 is more likely a match for the AIM-120-C5 and beyond variants.
Desperately denying the best publicly available sources on the missile because it doesnt match your view of reality while begging for someone to pull an official (likely classified) primary source that would totally 100% prove you right.
Some takes from video:
RVV-AE completed trials in 1991 and was allowed for export. In 98 first missiles were delivered. After Vympel having established serial production of RVV-AE for export, Vympel started creation of missile for RuAF. RVV-SD was created in 2002-2006 and put into RuAF service, recently (regarding the date of the video release) was allowed for export.
How is it farcical? Aside from Fantom I saw you were doing nothing but being dramatic as you were with this comment. You’ve yet to show how the AIM-120 performs in comparison anyhow.
I understand that I have out-of-the-box opinions at times, but when real evidence shows things to be true/untrue I’ve always shifted my position however uncomfortable. As we can see, my theory that they did not loft is false, models with the grid fins do in fact loft as shown. Based on what Fantom has shared, it seems I was wrong about the range of the R-77 (Izdeliye 170), and it may have reduced maximum launch range of 80km rather than 100km.
My argument that R-77 outperforms AIM-120A/B still stands, it has greater range than both (imo).
Time shall tell.
Looks like a pretty steep lofting trajectory initially. Do we know if the initial R-77 (or RVV-AE) has had any updates (even software) to allow for lofting at all?
I’m going to have to update the OP later today with the new information on RVV-AE and RVV-SD.
Your opinion is so obviously a result of motivated reasoning. That is what makes it farcical.
Also, even if Izdeliye 170 had greater range, for which there’s no reason to believe and plenty to refute, it wouldn’t matter. It was an extremely limited-production missile and most Russian aircraft have never been seen using it. Export Izdeliye 190 is probably more common on Russian aircraft using foreign stocks.
Also, note that we can see a DLZ for R-77-1 in the video screenshots @_Fantom2451 posted, and it doesn’t bode too well, ~65km for a hot target in a high to low shot.
There’s no emotional want or need for the R-77 to be superior to the AMRAAM. I’m a die-hard pro-American. I just don’t accept that everything we build is the best thing in the world.
Again, regardless of how many were built the R-77 (izdeliye 170) was built in small numbers and likely used in service or testing somewhere. The MiG-29 in the Russian tech tree saw fewer than 100 examples built iirc, this didn’t stop Gaijin from putting it in the game. The Yak-141 as well… lol.
Do note that the R-77’s apparently overstated graph from Karpenko shows a reasonable 20km at very low altitudes. The 65km hot target isn’t surprising, and I doubt early AMRAAMs would compete with that.
In the first video I think I understand this… it looks like the following:
Launch parameters
Spoiler
Both target and launch aircraft at similar airspeeds of ~1200 km/h?
Both target and launch aircraft at similar altitude of 10.6km?
I do not understand the hud of that aircraft well enough to understand what is going on… need more context for each launch and a closer look.
Missile guidance time
Spoiler
It seems the bottom right circle is missile time to target at any given time should it be launched? If that is the case it blinks to a maximum of 120s between launches and he launched at approx. 80s to target at 60km. This is interesting, I think we can ascertain the missiles average velocity from this.
This is unexpected, I wonder what the reasoning for this is? I can’t imagine that is an efficient loft trajectory unless there is something we do not understand about the gridfins?
In regards to gridfins, I think that the Russians understand most R-77 launches will be at high speed so there isn’t much to be worried about when it comes to wave drag. Having high T/W aircrafts that can accelerate past Mach 1 easily might mean you do not have to worry about the cons of gridfins much.
Yes the maximum range in that scenario is approximately that range it seems. We need more information on the R-77 to properly model this but I can totally make comparisons using the AIM-120A/B data that I have. I have enough data to recreate the AIM-120A in war thunder.
I just need to figure out the following information:
Velocity at launch for both launch aircraft and target?
Altitude for both launch aircraft and target?
What is the timer in the bottom right?
Launch range at the moment of launch?
Ok, so here’s some math.
(I don’t see a closure rate indicator, so I will assume above.)
Launch speed: 1200kph
Target speed: 1200kph, direct head-on
Time to impact: 80s
Distance to target at launch: 60km
Over 80s time of flight, target will travel 26.66km
((1200kph / 60) / 60 = KPS * 80 = KM per 80s = 26.66)
So over 80 seconds, the missile will travel 33.34km
(60km - 26.66km = 33.34km)
33.34km over 80 seconds = an average speed of 0.41675 km per second
(33.34/80)
.41675km per second = 1500.3 kph
(.41675 * 60 * 60)
So an average speed of 1500.3 kph or about mach 1.5 at 10.6km
Hmm yeah that doesn’t really add up, some of these numbers must be wrong (or I’m shit at math that is very possible)
Well, it is a public forum. I fully expect people to critique anything I say with the largest pinch of salt possible. It’s the only way we can maintain a higher level of accuracy on ascertaining the performances of things. On the flipside, if we’re not hardily playing devils’ advocate the skepticism will prevent any real progress as well.
