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.
unless the r77 breaks physics those studies undeniably apply to a degree.
This is not the maximum possible range, but the range for a maneuvering target with the current altitude and speed parameters.
Applicable, but very weakly
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.
I even forgot about that. One of the studies @Busheedoh mentioned states the increased RCS on lattice fins.
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.
iirc didnt gaijin kinda nerfed the R-77s we have in game right now by giving it way too much drag on the fishnet fins?
thats at 12000 meters so i guess it makes sense.
that is silly at best. the r77m is meant to at least try to catch up in terms of range, russia has been outranged since the aim120c’s let alone the modern D’s. R37m isnt and was never meant to be used against fighter, its effectiveness against any modern fighter would be very dubious, last data i saw on its usage in ukraine put its effectiveness used by a mig31m(much better platform for it than su35m) at around 30% and that is against incredibly outdated fighters. r37m against any modern fighter with modern sensors and ecw would do nothing, its not a maneuverable missile, its purpose was always as a tanker and awacs killer, not a solution for fighters, su35m relying on it for its self defense would be an insanely bad move, and i never even mentioned the fact it would be trivial for a modern fighter to detect and shoot said r37m down with its own missiles.
We already believe that at least two coefficients are used to determine the static drag number, which are CxK and length of the missile in the game files. You can create a custom missile and test in user missions to show that modifying these individual values should change the performance of the missile.
That being said, the drag number is indeed “static” and does not change. How that is interpolated based on speed is the part you are looking into.
It is my understanding that the R-77M is only a development and is not a production ordnance (yet). While the lattice fins greatly increase RCS of the missile, the lattice fins are more easily folded for potential to carry more of them in the weapons bay of their fighters. The current issue with R-77 models is that the grid cannot be unfolded in flight and must be unfolded on the ground after being mounted.
It is not “too much” necessarily, only that it is modeled for a subsonic launch scenario. I have described this more than a dozen times in this thread now. Grid fins overcome the wave drag barrier maybe around ~1.3 mach, if you are modeling it for a launch scenario less than that you will get a missile that does not perform as well as it should when launched above that speed as you are accounting for the transonic wave drag boundary in the launch scenario.
In short, it must overcome the transonic wave drag region in the subsonic launch condition scenario. Modeling the missile to meet that criteria means it will underperform when fired at speeds above the transonic region.
I fail to see how this is silly. Russia has not been outranged, they have continued to use R-33 and R-37 long after the Phoenix was put out of service. We are the ones who have been outranged.
I would be very interested in taking a look at the data you used to make this claim.
According to Rosoboronexport the R-37M (RVV-BD) Is intended for use against pretty much anything that flies, including (but not limited to) fighters such as the F-22 raptor and bombers such as the B-52.
This is nonsense.
Do you have any source at all for this conjecture?
Everything regarding the export or sale of the missile places fighters as the primary target for the ordnance. It is not intended to have a high kill rate, only to be a multi role ordnance with fantastic standoff capability.
I fail to see how this is the case when the F-18 is using similar multirole large air to air missiles today. This is an increasingly more popular trend and Russia did it first.
Do you really think that is the case? This feels like a very unsourced response at best.
For example, this article claims 80% pK against fighter targets and highly successful use in the ongoing conflict. Although I suggest we avoid discussion of the topic so as to not break forum rules. I’d be glad to DM you about the performance of the R-37M as of late if that is something you still wish to touch on further. - Else I think we should stick to discussion about the R-77 going forward.
I don’t even know how to use the user missions test this kind of thing, but my motivation was due to the bug report @Busheedoh mentioned, which quoted a datamined value for drag and then used these academic sources to prove the non-linearity on the drag coefficient of lattice fins. Gaijin refused to acknowledge it because of the datamined value as proof to the issue.
Currently I have a way to obtain a speed independent value. If I made the R-77 fly as straight as possible, without changing altitude too much, I would be able to demonstrate that drag is modelled as a constant, rather than a speed dependent value.
Where do you get this nonsense from?The R-37M is highly effective against modern fighter jets.
I reverse engineered a good chunk of war thunder’s missile code, this is not how it works.
As far as I can tell, drag is modeled based on the G7 ballistic drag curve, then a multiplier (CxK ?The constant you can find in datamined files) is applied to model the drag of each missile.
Just because the drag value in the files is a constant, doesn’t mean the game uses it as such.
This is why devs won’t take bug reports regarding datamined values.
Although I can say the drag multiplier of many missiles in the game are wildly exagerated.
Most cannot reach their claimed balistic range at all.
For instance, Mica can barely reach the 50km mark when launched from 12km altitude at mach 1, yet its ballistic range is supposed to be up to 80.
With how the mica is modeled, even without the hard-coded 50km self-detonation, mica could never reach its 80km design range.
And I don’t doubt most missiles in the game suffer from the same issue.