I don’t think so. The HUD is not in navigation mode (in that mode it would show flight info) but in BVR mode. You can clearly see that the number above the su-35 speed and altitude change throught the video, if it was navigational info it would stay the same. Also the number over the altitude indication change during the time the missiles are fired. This can be the su-35 pilot switching the target he is shotting at (it goes from 10km to 2000m instantly).
We should focus on collecting more “real” data and information on the R-77 series missiles, I think we may not be able to find a definitive conclusion to the aforementioned footage.
As an example of some of the information we are looking for, I’d like to find enough with sources (two credible secondary sources or one primary) to make a statcard image like the one I did for the AMRAAM thread.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1122375047626117202/AIM120A.jpg
Need sources for any images posted also.
Found some info on this website, it’s in italian but google translate should do the work. On the site no source is given, but it’s a well done. Probably if contacted they can give source material.
Revised thread, collecting data to make a R-77 custom missile file. Will need to collect a LOT more sources tho.
have you used this?
it gives the impulse to weight ratio (the 79) which if multiplied by the weight gives a number of 13983kgf total impulse which in newtons would be 137.13 kN total impulse
1 Like
That will certainly help, do you know the name / full source for this document?
I just know its from a brochure sadly, I see it get passed around a lot though. Infact even gaijan have referenced it before when reasoning why the R-24R had superior kinematics to the R-27R Comparison of the dynamics of the R-24, R-27 and AIM-7 missiles - Aircraft Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum
1 Like
Doesnt that puts it at basicly the same total impulse as the AIM-7F.
AIM-7F: 30 649lbf
R-77: 30 828lbf
Sounds like better acceleration but worse drag
keep in mind the R-77 is roughly 50kg lighter than the sparrow
1 Like
Sure, but its still not looking good for the 100km+ theory thats been argued about a ton.
Theres also aerodynamic consideration to be had.
At short ranges and midling speeds, particularly those seen in WT 9/10 times, i think TTT is a toss up, seeing as the bad transonic drag characteristics of the R-77 will hamper it greatly.
At medium ranges, itll likely have a better TTK, its advantage will still be in the improved seeker though, and the range/TTK will likely suffer from the short motor burn if the target maneuvers.
At long range, I doubt the TTK will be particularly different tho there the F&F portion of the missile will be its biggest advantage. The R-77 will likely exceed the AIM-7F in batter life but qurstionnable if it would in range.
The more we learn about the R-77, the less it seems to actually match the all seeing god slaying perfect ARH from 1994 its been sold as before, and more like, yanno, a proper competitor to the early AMRAAM…
Much better seeker than the SARH’s we have, marginally better kinematic range, most likely more from trajectory shaping and slight structural differences than from magic stalinium infuzed rocket motors, better maneuvrability.
I dont think its that far fetched the R-27 employment manual gives a max range of 90km and thats just for the regular R-27R, though this is at a very high speed at a very high altitude with a target in similar conditions, but I dont think it would be hard to believe the R-77 can go a similar distance especially since it has a much better impulse to weight ratio and is arguably more aerodynamic in those conditions
Also the AIM-7 sparrows max range of 45km is a seeker limitation not an aerodynamic limitation its aerodynamic range is recorded as being 98km.
I dont think the R-77 is “the all seeing god” but more like an AIM-120A/B/early C with slightly better stats all around (40g vs 35g, slightly more range, etc) Sorta like the early PL-12s. But I wont get much into opinionated performance comparisons
1 Like
Using the information from Gaijins source that was used for R-27R/ER and the calculated thrust you gave I’m going to make an R-77 missile file with no lofting and an active radar. It will have the same drag coefficient as the AIM-7F which I think is fair. If you disagree please recommend some changes and we’ll see how it does. I’m going to set the guidance time to 120s, it seems that is the limit for R-77-1 and R-77 is likely lower but I’m looking to see what the maximum kinematic range is. If the AIM-7F+ can do 98km, I’m certain the R-77 is capable of that as well.
1 Like
I set up a mission with 80km starting distance, targets co-alt at 15,000m and closing at ~1.15 mach towards each other. The R-77 custom missile file I made reflects the same statistics shown below and I copied the AIM-7F drag coefficient since they are both 200mm missiles. This also gives a more impartial result since R-77 would realistically have a lower coefficient thanks to the grid fins when flying at speeds above mach 2. (Which it averaged for most of the flight).
Spoiler
Mass - 177kg
End of burn mass - 118kg
Caliber - 200mm
Length - 3.6m
Thrust - 30473.284 Newtons (30828 lb-f converted to newtons, divided by burn time of 4.5s)
Burn time - 4.5s
Drag CxK - 2.3 (same as AIM-7F)
The result was ~80s time to target at a ~75km launch (47 miles).
At higher launch speeds or against much faster targets and higher altitudes, this missile can 100% hit things beyond 100km provided the guidance time is sufficient… Or, perhaps the public data is wrong.
Excuse the AIM-120 model, I don’t have one for the R-77 (yet).
2 Likes
IRL is likely a battery limitation not aerodynamic notice how the range graphs have a wall at the end
this is due to the missile running out of battery not energy, if you’ve seen R-24R range graphs the battery wall should be familiar
1 Like
Yes, I figured as much earlier in the thread and when discussing on the AMRAAM thread.
Oh, and forgot to mention that they would likely increase the thrust a small amount more than what I have in the file to overcome the fact that it lacks the reduction in drag during burn time experienced by missiles. Looks like there is a lot of room for improvement on top of the fact that it can most certainly do 100km provided it has proper battery life.
1 Like
That graphs already been discussed before, its from a book that predates the R-77’s entry into service and is likely a guess on its capabilities based on those of the R-27ER, not an actual accurate source.
Lines up with in-game testing even before adding the additional thrust for drag reduction during motor burn time and using the AIM-7Fs drag coefficient… and the R-77 has reduced drag in comparison to the Sparrow. So we can expect the R-77 to easily surpass 80km, approaching 100km at those altitudes and speeds let alone higher and at mach 2.