He’s stated in the past the AMRAAM had a range of 50km, ill have to dig for the comment to find it though. He’s also stated it underperforms the 7F kinematically even tho without command inertial guidance, the missiles are equivalent or the AIM-120 is superior (off to the sides due to higher maneuvrability). Thats why I’ve mentionned that his estimates have “ranged as far as the R-77 more than doubling the AIM-120A’s range”. He’s since adjusted obviously, but his crusade against the AIM-120 and his venerance of the R-77 is over a year old and has been argued over both old and new forums at lengths.
He provided an indian amateur defense blog’s graph as a source for the missiles engagement envelope, and tried to use it as an argument for the 100km+ range by saying something along the lines of “theres even a graph” only for me to reverse image search his graph to find it and find out it was an amateur graph with no source.
As other commenters have pointed out, I no longer have any reason to believe his intellectual integrity regarding arguments, and with this particular argument, he has REPEATEDLY proven over and over again that he will use any and all sources and/or excuses to prove the R-77’s range exceeds 100km, that its an equivalent or better than the AIM-120-C5, etc…
Others have even pointed out that he will begin questionning the veracity of a source he himself posts the moment it displays the R-77 underperforming his assumptions and simulations.
This isnt about me having “beef” with the guy, its about the fact that I have a huge dislike for the desimmination of false information, and he’s done his utmost to do just that regarding the R-77 situation.
I’ve changed my opinions over time as I’ve read into further sources. My current AIM-120 testing and model can certainly exceed ~70km or so and approaches 90km if battery life permits. We know the AIM-120C-5 has a battery life of ~80s but I need to find better sources on this to ascertain the maximum range. This is hampered by the fact that it needs to loft to reach such ranges and time to target suffers.
If I was so hardheaded as you want to make it seem I would have just died on that hill but I didn’t. I was shown better data, and I accepted it. You refuse to accept that the R-77 clearly has more than 80km range. As far as I can see, you’ve refused to admit that you’d even consider or change your mind if such information was presented.
I’ve seen the graph you speak of here but its origin is not an indian defense blog that blog just happened to contain the image that graph has been posted around for quite some time and the blog just used it for one of its pictures, dunno how you came the conclusion the blog made that graph
also theres been numerous graphs also corroborating greater than 80km range
a lot of things say this and this is obviously an arbitrary number that means nothing since its often tied with no launch speed or altitute aswell as target parameters
but in the end all these range figures have one thing in common
they mean very little without launch conditions and target conditions so I dont see why you lot are dying on the hills of random arbitrary figures that mean so little on their own
@k_stepanovich Some community members are concerned that the drag modeling will be too simplistic to properly model the transonic drag of the R-77’s grid fins when it eventually comes to the game.
Do you have plans to correctly implement this missile’s unique aerodynamic characteristics?
One of the missiles appears to have a forward slant on the fin, I think this is only motion blur and not a potential ramjet powered variant of any kind.
How realistic in-game missile is modeled can be find out by comparing its in-game performance with known performance from credable source: minimal and maximal range envelope, speed-vs-time, range-vs-time for known launch conditions e.t.c.
If something is wrong you can see this making launch tests. There are no other ways to do it.
AIM-7F had greater maximal range than in the reference because it stalled too late. We have increased lift-induced drag for all missiles, so they lose airspeed faster when they fly at higher AoA. High AoA-flight takes place at low airspeed (long range launch) or during intensive maneuvers.
Maximal launch range in head-on and side aspects become very close to the reference after this.
Great thread about the history of the R-77 missile. However, I hate to say this but any source from russia has to be taken with a grain of salt. russia is known for over exaggerating their weapons and the recent events have proven that. Worst of all, guess where was the R-77 izdeliye 170 produced? The answer is Ukraine. Why do Ukraine choose not to integrate the R-77 into their air force? Instead they opt to get the F-16 that’s capable of launching AIM-120. The R-77 is most likely inferior to AIM-120.
In a gameplay perspective, I would prefer the R-77 have equivalent performance compare to AIM-120. Since there is little to no reliable information about the R-77, hope the devs can open up their imagination a bit.
Components where produced in Ukraine but it was not designed there and the project was not complete by 1991. It only was approved for service around 1997/98 iirc.
Also, the figured stated are very obviously conservative of a true mach 2 high altitude launch / max range parameters.
I’m not talking about RVV-AE. I’m talking about the initial variant izdeliye 170. What I heard is that it’s produced in Kyiv’s “Artem” plant after the dissolution of the USSR. RVV-AE (izdeliye 190) I believe is the export variant build by russia. India brought them and hated them. Apparently according to what I heard, they has more than 50% failure rate and failed to to reach 80% of their stated maximum range. I can’t verify the report from the Indians are accurate or not but again, I wouldn’t trust any thing from russia either. The truth is that there is little to no reliable source about the true performance of the missile and you’re right only a small number was produced. That’s why I would prefer them to have a equivalent performance to the AIM-120 when both of these missiles are implemented in game.
Seeing the rework of RWRs which is a very welcome change and very much appreciated especially by SB players, are there any plans to add NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) for radars that had it?
If I’m not mistaken F-16C’s APG-68 had this capability for example …
This would especially be useful in SB, but also in RB, for example to know if you have locked an actual enemy player, or an AI aircraft, or missile.
In SB this would further help in knowing what kind of target you have locked, and also would aid with friend and foe identification (E.g. to make sure its an enemy aircraft and to be sure that the lock hasn’t transferred to a friendly that has crossed the beam path etc)
Also considering that in top tier SB, there are many similar tanks on both teams in a battle (for example there are Russian tanks in Swedish tree and now in UK tree as well), an IFF mechanic for fixed-wing targeting pods would be very helpful.
Helicopter optics already have this and its keybinding is called “Request location of allies”, but fixed-wing targeting pods don’t have this mechanic currently.
Considering the mechanic is already implemented in the game for helicopter optics, it shouldn’t be too difficult to allow fixed-wing aircraft targeting pods to use it as well.
gaijin just has to fix IFF so that it shows the IFF when you have a lock. for some reason it doesnt do that…
I made a suggestion for it like a year or two ago on the old forum but we all know what happened to that
IRL NCTR technology is not reliable enough to be used in the real combat.
Enemy radar identification is much easier and reliable, although RWRs of 80-90s still had problems with targets separation in threat rich environment.
BS claim. NCTR was REQUIRED for taking BVR shots in the Gulf War and over serbia due to ROE. NCTR was part of the target identification matrix( which involve iff, awacs eid and clearance etc) for taking bvr shots. With the F15 being the only one allowed to take bvr shots without awacs clearance in the gulf war, thanks to NCTR. Also one of the reasons that prevented the F14 from taking a major roll in CAP/OCA/ESCORT during desert storm like the eagle was the lack of it. In a congested airspace, iff alone isnt enough.
Why do you think those F15 pilots talk about solving the ID matrix(which involves NCTR) before firing? Why would you involve a piece in the matrix which you know it is NOT reliable?
How do you think AWACS can do EID?
Will the new RWR system account for delayed SARH guidace of missiles like R-27R, where when sufficiently far away, the missile will first use inertial guidance and/or radio correction before switching to SARH guidance.
Leave your politics biases out of game forum please, it’s not the place to discuss this. All weaponry in game no matter what country and without any biases is based on pure and paper data not having any possible real life issues due to being just a game.
