R-77
currently the AIM-120A feels much better than the R-77, maybe you’re coping?
2 Likes
That’s really not an achievement since all of the missiles climb up to 50kft and then drop like bricks if shot at 20mi+
shooting them at long ranges is the bad way to go, personally i think its better to just use them as you would sparrows but fire and forget
2 Likes
I use them exactly as I would use sparrows or 27ERs for that matter, neither the sparrow nor ER climb to 50k and lose all their speed even when shot out to 30+ mi in the case of the ER. All the ARHs loft way too high and aggressively and I have noticed don’t really course correct until Pitbull.
Also doesnt look like the R-77 has grid fin drag profile.
I wonder, who was it that said the R-77 was gonna get modelled with all the advantages of grid fins and none of the disadvantages again?
2 Likes
Why R77 doesn’t have any sustainer? Is it historically accurate?
seems like AIM-120A AMRAAM seems to hit a lot sooner than the R-77
of all FOX-3, the R-77 is the worst, with the MICA being the best
The file data shows the length of missile, seeker performance, and engine performance matches standard R-77 / RVV-AE. Not R-77-1. Must be error in missile 3D modeling.
R-77 shouldn’t loft.
I think they modelled it, the R-77 has the most drag than all the other ARH missiles, and in side by side test firings it slows down much quicker and sooner too. For reference compared to the AIM-120 the R-77 has a higher drag coefficient value and higher diameter (typically for BVR missiles with larger diameters they have lower drag coefficient values).
Do you know what the pros/cons of the fins of R-77 are compared to normal fins? All I can find is more drag
The grid fins are more efficient at supersonic speeds however at sub and transonic speeds they act basically like airbrakes. If I had to guess I’d say at supersonic speeds they can provide higher lift-drag ratio but that quickly gets eaten up by the drag at any reasonable speed
1 Like
main pro is they require much less power to torque the fins which for soviet missiles was a big deal since battery limitations were always a problem. Also lighter weight electronics necessary to torque the fins.
4 Likes
Doesnt the missile stay supersonic %90 of the time anyway? You wont be firing it while going 200KMH
1 Like
If you’re flying at M1.2 @ 30k against a co-alt target, yes. If you’re down low after defending and lining up for a snap shot the missile is going to start subsonic and stay subsonic for a pretty long time. All of the stats you can find on those missiles are from test shots at speed and altitude. I am not sure how much WT models it but in DCS for example launching a phoenix at M0.95 and M1.05 results in a pretty noticeable increase in range as the missile doesn’t hit the Mach barrier under its own power. The R77 is a decent (at best) missile under ideal conditions but the drag fins really hamper it in a realistic launch scenario. There probably is a reason the idea for grid fins was abandoned with the 77M
3 Likes
Significantly reduced drag at high supersonic, equal in subsonic and only briefly does it have significantly higher drag in transonic region. They offer significantly improved stability and AoA over traditional fins but also a much larger radar cross section.
They modeled it with the lower end of thrust values given and the lower end of drag from my already extremely conservative estimates.
If we bug report the incorrect lofting they’ll need to increase thrust or reduce drag to meet the same performance metrics which should fix the missile.
3 Likes
Significantly reduced radar cross section for these missiles is the primary reason. We have gone over this already.
2 Likes
For some reason I trust DCS a wee bit more than your numbers, as for the grid fins, they act like bricks at subsonic speeds, nowhere near “equal” to normal fins. I’m not even sure where you got that from
3 Likes
That’s from most well sourced studies…?
They’ve been posted here several times.
3 Likes