Feel free to share sources instead of peddling odd discussion points without substance to discuss over.
2 Likes
So I noticed that the R-77 is one of the heaviest missiles. This should normally mean that it loses speed less in maneuverless flight (going straight) compared to others, right? (Assuming similar drag).
Also, what about maneuvering flight?
1 Like
- BBCRF steered the discussion toward the Su57 here:
- You we’re challenged on that and with zero actual proof went there:
-
Two pieces of evidence exist for the SU57’s RCS. One is the leaked patent the other one is your patented TrustMeBro™. Unless you have anything of substance to back that claim up with, try to not derail the topic any further.
-
Same as the above except for the R77. Neither the 120 nor the R77 have accurate declassified data on them. What is know with some degree of certainty is that the gridfins produce a lot more drag at transonic speeds, the R77 has a short battery life (exact number unknown), it has more thrust with a shorter burning motor and does not loft. Forgive me for not taking the TrustMeBro™ at face value when you have provided zero evidence to the contrary on any of those. I concede the R77 will probably outperform the 120A/B/C<5 at ranges around 20nmi and below but at this point both of us are either gasping at straws or referring to documents which are not publicly available and are therefore inadmissible as evidence.
And last but not least, on a more personal note, behave yourself. The fact you have started a thread on a videogame forum does not allow you to issue final warnings. We are all here to talk about a videogame we love and your opinions when unbacked by any actual data are no more valid than anyone else’s.
10 Likes
Both have accurate data. Regardless of who steered the convo where, you two intend on derailing it. It’s nonsense. Stop.
There is declassified and accurate data for both missiles, it’s been shared in both threads. If you have something of substance please share. Otherwise, keep your very peculiar personal opinions about 5th gen stealth fighters out of my missile thread.
As I said, final warning. I’m tired of y’all’s antics and we don’t need mods to solve these issues. You’ll behave yourselves only when someone with authority has to tell you it seems.
-edit, not off-topic.
1 Like
Prove your claim, my proof that it’s a glorified F18 is that I can see the compressor blades.
2 Likes
If there is I must have missed it. I would be grateful if you could link it.
I would engage with that again but this is not the place to discuss your ego
3 Likes
No. Again, high supersonic would be above 4-5. Missile wont spend alot of time above mach 5 or 4.
If you make the connection, L/D is higher under 20°AoA
8 Likes
Please make your su-57 post where this is to be discussed.
1 Like
I’d be glad to discuss in the proper place.
Motor thrust, burn time, propellant is shown in the UXO source. The AMRAAM for example has maximum overload, burn time, thrust profile charts available courtesy of a Korean source. Both are crucial in determining deltaV of the rockets. Please check the OP in both threads for the links.
Would you mind sharing the source for the graphs so we can discuss?
I don’t know if they should be the OP of such a thread but a generic Su-57 stealth discussion topic would be in-line with what they want to talk about.
1 Like
It won’t be your inbox blowing up when other people join the argument with possibly hundreds of replies. Unless ofcourse you wouldn’t mind, then it might make sense to make a new thread and invite that one person in there.
I’d make it if I had a vested interest but in this case, I do not. It’s obvious they’re trolling at a glance and from the brief look at Su-57 sources available… But there is no reason to entertain it on this thread.
I’d rather discuss the underperformance of the R-77. Currently thrust 1:1 matches the real world values, it should be higher to account for reduction in drag during burn time and loft should be removed. If it doesn’t still meet the performance metrics without loft, thrust should be increased further or drag slightly reduced.
2 Likes
4 Likes
Am I reading this right, that source indicates 50Gs?
1 Like
ANALYSIS OF GRID FINS AS EFFICIENT CONTROL
SURFACE IN COMPARISON TO CONVENTIONAL
PLANAR FINS
Even if you do some napkin maths(which would yield lower Mach number) with the fin dimension, 35mm chord and ~35mm between each parallel plate (0mm for plate thickness), the required velocity for supersonic airflow to pass unobstructed is mach 3.3. Faster than it and shockwave will have a small angle letting supersonic air to pass freely, mass flow rate rises with the velocity increase eventually approaching the exterior mass flow rate. Under it and the air interferes with the shockwave from the other plate but still passes(parasitic drag), mass flow rate isn’t that high. Mach 0.9- Mach 1.4, the shockwave reaches the trailing edge of the other side, basically chocking and restricting airflow considerably.
5 Likes
Can you link it or not, I have limited service atm
Additionally, how does the planar fin compare to that of an AIM-7 or AIM-120s? How does the dimensions of the grid fin compare to the R-77?
1 Like
Many who wrote here and who do not like the R-77 are initially mistaken in thinking that the R-77 is an analog of the AIM-120 and created the BVR radar concept like the AIM-120…
In fact, no …
The missile was created by order of the Air Force for the MiG-29M/Su-27 M…as a universal highly maneuverable missile for short- and medium-range combat at an altitude of 3-5 km.(the main battle zone based on the experience of local conflicts)…The minimum height of the lesion is 20 meters…The minimum launch range is 300 meters…The angle of the target is 90 degrees…High-speed high-speed target’-12G…Maneuvering a missile with an angle of attack of 40 degrees…
Long-range missiles were created for the air defense forces-R-33S/R-37…
Now the Su-35S is armed with both universal missiles and long-range missiles…The same concept in China … and as far as I know, the United States has returned to this concept and is creating a long-range missile …
P.S.-The design of the R-77 from the very beginning provided for a variant with folding rudders-For the self-defense of the Tu-160…
1 Like
Are you salty that the R-77 has worse performance than the AIM-120A below 15km 0.9/0.9 launch in the test server? Even though it has loft when IRL it shouldn’t, so its performance is likely to drop further? I doubt that R-77 will get a major motor improvement that the other missiles don’t, given that it has approximately the same Isp as they do(230-240 seconds).
4 Likes
Proof
Not wading into the debate, just providing what was asked for.
4 Likes
:p