Given how quickly missiles accelerate i just dont see the effect being that massive, it would only really effect the range right at the end of it’s envelope but at M1-1.3 speed it’s already a pretty slow/non dangerous missile anyway, might just be my opinion but i dont think this would affect the useable range of the R-77.
The difference is considerably more so than the AMRAAM, the R-77 accelerating a little slower because it has the longer boost only motor. Additionally, is likely the reason for the longer boost only motor. A shorter boost and weak sustainer would cause it to suffer more so when launched from lower airspeeds.
The grid fins allow insane angles of attack and high precision / control at lower airspeeds. This allows the missile to hit targets with higher overloads and at much lower speeds than the others in terminal phase. This is also not yet modeled properly in the game. The R-77 should have 90 degree off-boresight capability.
2 Likes
Definitely a capability it should have in game, not arguments there.
2 Likes
I’ve watch these guys before they give out some good info. The su-35 can carry up to 12! WOW, thats crazy.
Imagine the time to accelerate between 0.8 and 1.3 mach at medium altitudes when all those are equipped lol
The missiles should be highly maneuverable from mach 1.2 to their maximum speed.
IRL, The moment the missile becomes transonic, the gridfins act as flat plates due to the shock cones interfering with the airflow.
All missiles would suffer from performancendegredation from having to transition from subsonic to supersonic, but grid fins have a far more profound effect on drag in this speed region.
In game, The R77 is about as effective as the AIM7E in terms of PK for both range and maneuverability… it can be chaffed/notched easily, seems to be the most effected by multipathing, and even defeated by doing a high G roll.
Lmao according to what?
The basic design between the two is vastly different, as are the pK and target overloads mentioned in documentation.
The R-77 should be considerably more maneuverable than any other missiles in-game at subsonic speeds.
That is my analysis of in game performance right now. (It’s garbage) and needs buffs.
I hit the post button before finishing my edits, post is now corrected.
2 Likes
Im talking about before FOX-3
No, even now the AIM-7F is still overperforming in total impulse and range in various scenarios.
1 Like
R-77 (along side the MICA and other new FOX-3, except the 120) got a hefty buff.
A reduction in drag:
A increase to loft (to around dev values):
Also, there is a new piece of code, "timeTableCorrection".
This all should go live probably tomorrow or the day after.
1 Like
Could you tell the drag value of Aim-120A/B as well please? For comparison with R-77
What’s the new drag of R-77 and Aim-120?
They got slightly higher now:
A/B are the same
Comparing just the values is mostly pointless, as there are a lot more variable that go into the missile’s drag. So it is only ever useful to compare the drag values when everything else about the missile is the same.
But if you really need to:
AIM-120A/B "CxK" = 1.4 → 1.425
R-77 "CxK" = 1.85 → 1.7
Unfortunately the AMRAAM and AAM-4 are still miles ahead of the R-77 it seems.
Just as I thought, lol. And the absolute worst radar at top tier on Su-27SM, coupled with insane speed loss when trying to notch will mean that it’s still bottom of the barrel, the worst at top tier along with J-11
Btw, loft make it better at ranges
The Su-27SM is not bottom of the barrel. The ER is still pretty good.
İt is bottom of the barrell. You will not win against F-15C who just keeps distance. You have to keep lock, and this isn’t the radar of Mig-29SMT with 90* lock capability
He has: better radar, better acceleration, better energy retention, more countermeasures for chaff spamming, better ARH AİM-120.
You have: R-27ER? lol
1 Like
AAM-4 & PL-12 better than amraam in maneuvr, but some(little difference) worser than amraam by kinetics
AAM-4 got a massive buff in thrust so in relevant ranges the AAM-4 is superior to the AMRAAM.