Maximum range is a misnomer, even the AMRAAM could hit a target in head-on conditions at 200km if it flew right into it and had unlimited battery life. The R-77’s effective range against fighters is likely what is actually being stated.
I have sourced everything I have stated a long time ago in this very thread as well as in some others, there is no need to rehash these discussions based on a couple of ill-informed studies pitting optimized planar fins against a grid that isn’t given the same parity.
i have read the thread, nothing you provided is half as well sources as Busheedoh’s response. also
not to mention your refusal to admit the downsides of the r77 as a design goes against even russia’s ideas, why do you think the r77m will use traditional fins?
You’ve done a great job of finding the materials.However, these studies show abstract lattice handlebars and abstract flat fins. There are no specifics on the P-77.
The R-77 have the same issues in DCS as well, the fins acting more like airbrakes unless you are at 20.000+ feet.
Even then the range ain’t very good.
Many pilots actually prefered the R-27s over it IRL.
The R-77-1 more or less fixes the biggest issues
it shows the the SPEC maximum range is 70km, there is no debate its a russian su35ms cockpit. now what it can achieve practically depends on a multitude of things.
R-77M uses planar fins for a missile intended to be used on stealth fighters as a radar cross section reduction. If they needed more range they’d continue to launch R-37M from it as they have already.
Make missile launches on targets at several altitudes, while both launch aircraft and target have the same altitude. This way the altitude contribution can be seen more reliably.
Yeah, but I calculated it wrong. I will do more computations using what I call “the differential method”, because the current way I did those create singularities on lower mach numbers.
Yes and I am not dismissing the studies entirely, they’re just not relevant to the R-77. They do not show enough grid fins optimized for that specific use case to make wide sweeping statements such as y’all have.
I didn’t. The specifics of the R-77 aren’t proved by those studies, as none of them actually refers to its lattice fins. They only prove general characteristics, but a table like that doesn’t specify what are the fins being compared.
The real drag numbers on the R-77 are still in darkness, and we still need experimental proof to actually say that a constant drag value is used.
There’s also people who uses the fact that the R-77M don’t has lattice fins to take a guess on the flight performance of the R-77, when the RCS also becomes a factor in that.
